A board’s step-by-step guide to hiring the right CEO

I am struck by the large number of nonprofit CEO searches that result in a bad choice, despite hiring what is regarded as a top-notch search firm. This is disturbing, since the most important job a board does is hire the CEO. If the board fails to do it well, drift or disaster often follows.

Looking more closely, fault lies with both the clients and the search firms they select — but in the end, the search committee has ultimate responsibility for getting it right. 

Here are the mistakes I see too frequently and what boards can do about them.

Build the right committee, and interview more than one firm.

A strong search committee should include diverse and respected board members with experience in organizational realities. It should be large enough to seem appropriate given the board or executive committee’s size but not so large that meetings are hard to schedule. 

Interview several firms rather than defaulting to the “known” one — say, the firm that ran your last successful search. If you do choose the familiar firm, make sure the firm understands what is different now in the organization and its challenges. And if some members doubt a firm’s value or find the fees troubling, air that and settle it right away.

Be clear about which team will do the work, how many other searches those people are juggling, and the schedule. A senior person often sells the firm and then hands the crucial work to junior associates. If you want the senior person in particular roles, insist on it and monitor it.

Don’t let the firm burn weeks on the job description.

Once the committee picks a search firm, too much time can go into composing a job description the committee could easily draft itself. I know of searches for large domestic and international organizations that took months. Time is wasted, and the committee tires or grows impatient.

This does not mean job descriptions are unimportant — they matter, since performance evaluations are often rooted in their details, and the description should be clear about the challenges the organization faces in finance, operations, and reputation. The point is only that the firm need not spend so long on it.

Early on, decide how and when the organization’s staff will be involved: Should the incumbent review the job description, see the finalists, meet the chosen person? Weigh the pros and cons upfront. And throughout stay in touch with the firm if the process seems stalled or off-track.

Keep the qualifications broad, and stay open to the unexpected candidate.

This surfaces when you fix too early on the experience an applicant must have — sometimes as a reaction to the incumbent, sometimes from a mistaken sense that only one kind of background (a particular geography, say, or experience at organizations like your own) can fit the profile. I have seen a prominent international organization with worldwide programs seek only people with deep experience in one part of the world.

The role of the firm is to bring a broad perspective and to challenge you to stay open to talented candidates who may not be a “classic fit.” Sometimes an unconventional candidate self-nominates or comes from an unfamiliar source — and the firm should recognize that some unusual applicants prove very appealing and very successful.

Ask to review the long list yourself.

Too often, committees cede this stage to the firm and never see the “longish list” of about 30 possible applicants, so good people get overlooked. Reviewing an early list is a bother, but it often helps you recall a strong person from the past, think of people who might be interested, or spot an unconventional talent. Left entirely to the firm, some unusual candidates can get set aside too early.

If the list still seems inadequate, you should insist on more names rather than settling early. The firm doesn’t need to chase flashy candidates to show it is working; you should simply feel genuinely excited about the list that emerges.

Watch for filler candidates padding the list.

Lists get plumped up with candidates the firm believes will satisfy your expectations on age, diversity, expertise, or educational background — even when the firm knows for sure the person will not make the grade. One firm told me it had added particular candidates because the client felt the finalist list was not diverse, then told me in the same breath that the additions would not win. 

This is disturbing, not uncommon, and often reflects the shortcomings of the firm’s contacts or scouting. It wastes clients’ time and can lead to a very bad choice — and years of decline and staff morale problems.

Put every finalist in front of the full board.

Since hiring a CEO is the most crucial decision a board makes, all board members should take part in the essential steps, feel directly responsible, and meet candidates in business settings where all hear the same discussion and offer reactions. In informal settings where people might mingle with candidates, not everyone hears the same things. Some candidates dazzle in early interviews but fade in later meetings, so you should meet with finalists multiple times.

Boards need to stop, rethink, and restart rather than settle for an unexciting candidate.

Yet some finalists never meet the full board, or see it only socially. I have sometimes been the only person arguing that the whole board should hold a full, formal interview with the finalists; people seem ready to transfer their trust, and the results often disappoint. When exposure is limited, members can be unsure of the choice, not fully behind the new CEO, and their doubts become backroom talk.

Do your own reference checks, and do them before the offer.

Too often, as the board moves toward a choice, the firm’s checking fills out a candidate’s best qualities but rarely explores weaknesses — or, sensing a drift toward someone, soft-pedals uncomfortable information. 

Most disturbing, some firms do part of their checking after the offer. Several times, a firm has called me even a week after announcing a selection, saying it was “filling out the file.” I declined these interviews. 

Board members should also do some checking themselves, early and near the end, reaching out to people who have experience with the interesting names on the list. Near the end, take care not to call anyone the finalist, since that might incline a respondent to hold back reservations.

Confidentiality complicates this stage. Some candidates want to remain in a secret process so as not to risk their current jobs, and some organizations have strict protocols. All this needs to be discussed in advance by both the firm and the client.

If no one earns your confidence, start over.

Boards and committees get tired. Often the incumbent has made plans, and the board is uneasy about asking the incumbent to stay while a search restarts. In my experience, reluctance to restart also stems from embarrassment and fear of reputational damage. But boards need to stop, rethink, and restart rather than settle for an unexciting candidate.

This often surfaces when a search stalls just before summer, when members want to be done and away — and bad decisions get made. A serious conversation at the start about how long searches can take, and the dedication the process demands, may help, especially if some of the board and committee are new to search processes.

The work doesn’t end when the offer is accepted.

Once the decision is made, the committee and board should turn to onboarding. How will the new leader be introduced to the community and staff? What should they know before day one — institutional history, current challenges, living arrangements, media policies? Where are the skill gaps that will need covering? There is a lot here to give each new CEO the best chance of success.

Some organizations are finding it useful to set out at the start that the board may recommend a coach for the CEO and conduct a 360-degree review after the first year. Explained at the outset, these terms are less likely to be read as undermining a new CEO and more as an investment in clear feedback, support, and success.