As search committees begin to narrow their candidate pools, some internal candidates will be pleased to learn they've made the cut. Others, however, will find they've been passed over.
Those who fall into the latter group face some difficult issues. First will come the retrospective questions: Did I make a mistake in becoming a candidate in the first place? Then the more immediate questions: What do I say to friends and colleagues about how I feel? What do I say to the person who was selected? Finally, they will have to address some long-term questions: Will the candidate who was selected want me to stay or to leave the institution? Who should raise this topic of conversation? If I leave, should I take the first position I can get, or should I wait for the right thing, even though it means remaining in a setting that is likely to be an unhappy one for a while?
Your answers to the retrospective questions will always be clouded by imperfect memory, second-guessing, and speculation about what might have happened. But even so, you should think back over the process to see what you can learn.
Every internal candidate should know that entering a search in your own institution is almost always a dicey matter. Friends and close colleagues can withhold their support. You will be placed under a far more powerful microscope at your own institution than you would or could be if you were in a search elsewhere. Events that were minor or happened years ago will be remembered and possibly held against you. But administrative roles always entail putting your work out for others to see and judge, so going through a challenging search process may be something you are willing to do, knowing the process will be challenging.
Sometimes internal candidates are told that they are a long shot by some colleagues, but opt to listen to others who are more encouraging. If you failed to heed advice about the risks, consider whether you should pay closer attention in the future to feedback that you don't really want to hear.
Some potential internal candidates stay out of the search but offer to be available if no other candidate is appointed. This seems like a safe approach, and it protects you from the risk of rejection, but I think it is not a good idea, either for the candidate or for the institution.
The candidate will not really have been measured against his or her colleagues in a full and fair fashion, and so may always carry the burden of being the one that the institution "settled for." The search process can be distorted by committee members who know that you are waiting in the wings. And the institution appears to have had a failed search. I would rather see a candidate take a chance and win or lose in a fair competition.
Another interesting group of candidates -- who I think of as "quasi-internal" -- includes people who were formerly at the institution and then moved to another campus. Some of these candidates can bring many strengths: They are familiar with the institution's issues and culture, they can be evaluated in a firsthand way like internal candidates, they may be liked and warmly remembered, and they may have gained valuable experience during their time away.
On the other hand, quasi-internal candidates can also have significant deficits. They may be remembered as having been out of alignment with the institution's issues and culture, they may be placed under a microscope (albeit one that is out of date) and found wanting, they may be remembered as not a very appealing colleague, and so on.
I have seen these situations go both ways, so it is difficult to generalize about. On balance, though, if you didn't leave your previous institution with significant baggage and bad feeling, I would encourage you to consider entering this kind of search. If you don't ultimately get the offer, your disappointment can be far more private and will be far less scrutinized than if you were still on the campus.
Once you hear the news that someone else has been selected -- or, even more painful, the news that no one was selected and the search will be extended -- how do you respond and represent yourself?
If you are in the interim role for the position, you have worked hard to show that you can do the job, and you have let others know that you want it. Letting anyone but your closest friends know that you are emotionally distraught is not a good idea, since critics will then question your fitness for administrative roles that often involve defeats.
Be cautious in your public criticism of the search committee, the search process, the consultant, the appointing officer, etc. If you stay at the institution, you have to work with them, and if you leave, you will need their references. Moreover, grace under pressure is noticed by others, and they will give you credit for handling a difficult situation in a classy way.
Sometimes the chosen candidate is obviously stronger than the internal candidate, and some internal candidates will be able to say that they look forward to the opportunity to learn from this new person. However, if you believe an injustice was done, you need to decide whether to challenge it, understanding that you are unlikely to emerge victorious and your decision will have consequences for your career.
How do you relate to the new hire? I believe that the appointee (if he or she knows that you were a candidate) should approach you, and you might allow a couple of weeks to pass to see if that happens. Or, you can make the approach. Offer congratulations; let him or her know that while you are disappointed, you also see the strengths that the new person will bring; and offer to be helpful in the transition (especially if you have been the interim appointee in the post).
Should you stay on at the institution? If you are a member of the new hire's senior team (e.g., a vice president serving under a new president, an associate dean serving under a dean, etc.), the appointee may feel that you are valued and may want the stability of your staying on. Or, you may be viewed as a political liability who will rally opposition and weaken the appointee's leadership and effectiveness. There is no way to know until it happens to you.
You also have your own preferences to consider. Some internal candidates need to put some distance between themselves and this unpleasant situation. Others are able to take a weekend off and bounce back in good spirits and with a high level of institutional commitment. I would urge only that you not make major and possibly premature decisions under stress; the situation may change over a period of time, and it may open new opportunities or perspectives that aren't initially apparent.
One of the big decisions you may face is whether to seek or accept positions elsewhere. Some internal candidates refrain from entering other searches while they are in the search at their own institution because they want to show their commitment; being turned down is a real slap in this situation.
If you have been in other searches but received no offers, you're probably feeling discouraged. Don't despair -- there will be new searches starting up next year. But what should you do if you have an offer? If it is an attractive position, I think you should tilt toward taking it. The reason is that not having been offered the position at your own institution will have to be explained; in searches where you are already an attractive candidate, this is less likely to be a problem than in searches that begin in the future, where you may be seen from the start as a failed candidate at your own institution.
Being an internal candidate who isn't selected is rarely a happy situation. Take comfort in the fact that many people have gone through this, and some have even been able to extract something good from it -- including building on the support of the person appointed to move on to an even better position later.
Jean Dowdall is a vice president with Educational Management Network/Witt Kieffer, a search firm serving higher education, health care, and other nonprofit organizations. She specializes in searches for presidents, vice presidents, and deans in colleges, universities, and foundations. Her recent clients have included Georgetown University and the University of Wisconsin System. She is currently head of the American Council on Education's Executive Search Roundtable, a group of search consultants working in academe.
