Over the past year, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with and formally interview more than 100 candidates (and my team has interviewed more than 1,000) across higher education in my role as Practice Leader for Higher Education at Blue Rock Human Capital.
These exchanges have included cabinet-level executives, vice presidents, deans, and administrative and managerial leaders. Some were actively exploring new roles. Many were not. But all were thoughtful about what would need to be true for them to consider a move.
If you are preparing to hire for your team, there is a clear takeaway.
Candidates are evaluating far more than the role itself. They are evaluating how your institution operates.
The Search Process Is the First Signal
Candidates describe internally run searches where processes that take longer than expected, are less transparent and more disjointed than they would prefer, and at times, evolve midstream in scope and expectations. For experienced candidates, this is not new. What has changed is how it is interpreted.
→The search process has become a proxy for how decisions are made inside the institution.
A lived experience related to how a search is conducted leads candidates to draw conclusions about institutional alignment, role clarity, and leadership dynamics before an offer is ever discussed. This perspective is not limited to cabinet roles. Directors and emerging leaders are interpreting the process in much the same way—if the search is drawn out, it signals slow decision making by leadership. If the scope or expectations change midstream, it signals chaos at the most basic of levels
Role Complexity Has Expanded. Alignment Has Not Always Kept Pace.
Across functions, the scope of leadership roles has grown.
Provosts are balancing academic leadership with financial sustainability and workforce strategy. Enrollment leaders are navigating demographic shifts alongside increasing revenue expectations. Advancement leaders are being asked to deliver ambitious outcomes within structures that are still evolving. Athletic Directors are asked to think like a COO.
At the same time, administrative and managerial leaders are managing broader teams, navigating more frequent change, and operating with fewer resources.
Candidates understand this. In many cases, they are drawn to the challenge.
What they are evaluating more closely is whether the institution is equally clear about what success looks like and how it will be supported. When that clarity is missing, even strong opportunities can feel uncertain.
Compensation Is Part of the Equation, Not the Decision
Compensation comes up in every conversation, as it should. But it is rarely the deciding factor.
More often, candidates are weighing the full context of the role. They are considering leadership cohesion, institutional direction, and the sustainability of the position’s expectations over time.
This is true across levels. Leaders are not just asking what the role pays. They are asking whether the environment enables them to succeed.
Work Structure Is Being Reconsidered
Higher education has long valued presence and community, and those elements remain important.
At the same time, leaders are asking more direct questions about workload, flexibility, and role design for long-term effectiveness. These are not questions about commitment. They are questions about adapting to a different operating environment.
What This Means Before You Hire
What emerges from these conversations is not hesitation. It is discernment.
Candidates are not opting out of the opportunity. They are making more deliberate decisions about where they can be effective and where the environment will allow them to succeed. The evaluation occurs early, often before formal interviews begin, and is shaped as much by how the search is conducted as by the role itself.
For presidents and boards, this shifts the focus from simply defining the position to examining the conditions surrounding it.
Before launching your next search, consider the following:
- Clarity of role and expectations
Candidates are assessing whether the institution has a shared, up-to-date understanding of what the role requires. Misalignment at the outset often surfaces during the process through shifting priorities or inconsistent messaging, which can quickly erode confidence. - Alignment at the leadership level
The degree of alignment among cabinet members, boards, and key stakeholders is often revealed indirectly through the search. Candidates are listening for consistency in how the role is described, how decisions are made, and how priorities are communicated. - Decision-making discipline
Lengthy or fragmented processes are not simply seen as procedural challenges. They are interpreted as indicators of how decisions will be made once in the role. Strong candidates are evaluating whether the institution can move with focus when it matters. If institutions can’t do this when the pain point is their own, they certainly won’t do this when the pain point is the employee’s. - Transparency as a signal of trust
Clarity around compensation, scope, and institutional context (particularly the challenges the candidate may face) does more than inform candidates. It communicates the institution’s approach to partnership and accountability. Delayed or partial transparency often introduces unnecessary friction. - Sustainability of the role
Increasingly, candidates are evaluating whether the position’s expectations are achievable within the existing structure. This includes assessing resources, team capability, and the broader operating environment.
These considerations actively shape candidate decisions.
A Final Observation
The broader environment is not getting simpler. Across sectors, leaders are navigating increasing complexity and making decisions under greater pressure. (Read The Cabinet Is Changing: What AI Means for Three Critical Leadership Roles in Higher Education for my perspective on the impact of AI.)
Higher education is no different.
The institutions that bring clarity, alignment, and recognition to their hiring approach are not just filling roles. They are attracting leaders who understand the challenge and are prepared to engage with it thoughtfully and effectively.
Increasingly, that clarity is what separates one opportunity from another and appeals to the top tier of talent. And that distinction, in turn, can set an institution on a path to long-term stability and success – even in uncertain and rapidly-changing times.