As a search consultant, I have carried out a substantial number of searches for senior administrators at church-related institutions, and I have observed some special issues that committees and candidates in these institutions should think about. Although my experience has been working with institutions from the Catholic and Protestant traditions, it is my intent here that the word "church" be taken to include an array of faiths.
All institutions are defined by their missions; a commitment to the mission is a fundamental requirement for candidates, especially those seeking senior-level positions. In church-related institutions, this is even more true. The mission -- including, for example, the particular ideals of the sponsoring faith and the role of the church in relation to the campus -- may shape much of what goes on at the institution. How the candidate fits with that mission is an important consideration for both the institution and the potential hire.
As a candidate, if you are at odds with the religious mission of the college, you may feel uneasy working there, even though the institution seems to value diversity and pluralism. For example, church-related institutions may display symbols of the church and provide mandatory or optional religious services and courses. If you are uncomfortable with these symbols, services, or courses, you are likely to be uncomfortable as a leader of the institution.
From the institution's perspective, senior leaders usually need to be able to represent the mission, and while some who are not members of the religion may be able to do this extremely effectively, the challenge is usually greater.
Searches at church-related institutions should begin with a very honest examination by the search committee of the real religious expectations for the person to be appointed. Will the appointee have to be of the same religion as the institution? If not, will someone of that religion be favored? What about a candidate who either is not religious or is even hostile to religion? Will search committees be concerned about the nature of candidates' religious practice (e.g., frequency of church attendance), their marital status (e.g., divorce, annulment), or their attitudes toward issues of importance to the church (e.g., abortion, birth control, or the role of women in the church). If a candidate's lifestyle or views are inconsistent with those of the church, is that candidate unlikely to be selected? How important is it that candidates be familiar with the nature of church-related institutions, and is a deep understanding required or only general familiarity?
In my experience, committees often have great difficulty clarifying these issues, but a committee that doesn't do so at the start of the search process is likely to stumble over these questions later on, when they can be quite disruptive to the search process and can create serious misunderstandings with candidates.
Once the committee has clarified its religious expectations, it faces the question of how to find candidates who meet these guidelines, and how to talk to candidates about them. As I learned very quickly when I tried to identify candidates for an institution whose president was required to be of a particular faith, many leaders in higher education have no idea of the religious persuasions of their friends and colleagues. Many of the otherwise excellent candidates suggested to me turned out not to be of the required faith, so the recruiting process was considerably more protracted and complex than usual. Focusing on people who worked in institutions sponsored by the same church led to somewhat greater success, but of course many of those people are not members of that faith, and many people of that faith work in institutions that are sponsored by other faiths or that are not church-related.
After candidates of the required religious background have been identified, they may have to be evaluated in more detail for the nature of their religious beliefs and practices -- as well as for the other requirements of the position. It's difficult to ask people about their religious beliefs and practices, and may be even more difficult for them to discuss such matters. Some will volunteer information about how often they attend services, the personal nature of their faith, the way in which they are raising their children, the complexities of their marital status, and so on. Candidates may ask whether someone who is of the same faith as the institution will be preferred, and how deep their faith and how consistent their religious practice must be. It is important to have someone working with candidates who is able to answer those difficult questions clearly and consistently so as not to mislead candidates or committee members.
One of the most challenging situations for both search committees and candidates occurs when an institution that has always been led by clergy decides to consider the possibility of a layperson as president. In my experience, there may be a stated preference for a member of the clergy and a simultaneous preference for "the best candidate." This creates difficult choices for prospective candidates. If they believe that the institution will never select a layperson, they may not want to take the risk of becoming a candidate. Why put yourself through the process if there is no chance of success? It also leads to very difficult decisions for search committees. While some institutions will find a member of the clergy who brings all the academic and administrative qualifications that the committee could hope for, many faiths have declining numbers of clergy, and they may be spread thin across the church's institutions and other activities. Committees may find that a priest, for example, brings impeccable religious credentials but is missing some of the other key elements required for the position, while a layperson may have all the other elements but lack the religious credential.
A search committee and a board of trustees may be able to grapple with these difficult choices in the privacy of their meeting rooms and over the months of the search. But, because of rules of confidentiality, the campus community might have only incomplete information about how and why decisions were made, and might be quite alarmed and disrupted by the first appointment of a layperson. In these situations, preparing the campus community over an extended period for the possibility of a lay appointment is essential, and even with that preparation there may be significant alarm when the decision is announced. It is especially helpful if the clergy can demonstrate their warm support for the lay appointee, and their commitment to partnership between the clergy and the laity in leadership of church-related institutions.
Now I will turn to the candidate's perspective. Candidates whose religious affiliation is consistent with the institution's, who have worked successfully in similar institutions and embrace this aspect of their mission, and of course candidates who have the other requirements for the position, probably have the highest chances of being selected for senior administrative posts. But not all candidates will fit this mold:
What about candidates who are of a different faith but have all the other qualifications? In my experience, if they can demonstrate their success in a similar setting and show they genuinely embrace the religious aspect of the mission, they may do very well. Their actual religious affiliation may not be a problem, although they may have less of a chance of reaching the presidency. However, if the institution's religious affiliation is strong, it would be unusual for someone not a member of that faith to rise to the presidency, and if they were appointed president the likelihood of controversy would be high, especially if it was the first time that a nonmember of the faith had been the president.
What about a candidate of the same faith who has no experience in church-related institutions? I suspect that this candidate might have a more difficult time moving into a high-level position, because a significant aspect of readiness to lead in this institutional type would be missing. Any candidate who lacks experience in church-related institutions will have to make significant efforts to gain a deep understanding of their mission and ideals. The institution will want to be sure that you grasp and embrace these ideals and that you can communicate them to others wholeheartedly. If you haven't learned this over a long period of experience, you will surely want to prepare yourself for an interview by talking extensively with others who have, reading the appropriate documents, and immersing yourself as fully as possible in the culture of this kind of institution.
What about candidates who are nominally a member of the sponsoring faith, but whose views differ significantly from the "official" views? This depends on how senior the position is, how outspoken the candidate has been about his or her views, and how much tolerance the particular faith has for diversity of views. In presidential selection, the spouse's views and actions may also be a significant issue in the selection process.
How would a candidate be expected to demonstrate a faith commitment? Again this varies, depending on the church. For some, regular attendance at church services is an important measure. For others, more general aspects of spiritual practice may be discussed. Clearly candidates should be honest in their responses, but because these questions are not a routine part of all searches, it's a good idea to give thought to your answers in advance.
