It’s expensive, lazy, and a process rife with community red flags. But at least there are no money-back guarantees.
Let me start by saying that I was headhunted several times for jobs and thought it was a dandy idea. I was egotistical, dumb, and thought that nonprofit arts jobs — even leadership positions — had a shelf life of about three years. I was also experienced, knew all the right people, and could be charming when need be, so I was a delightful candidate. I even received interviews and jobs before I had a college degree (something I did much later, in 2016).
It was wrong. I just didn’t know it. Nor would I have much cared. But now, I care.
When your company decides to use a “national” search firm, of which there only a few prominent ones, it is tacitly choosing to tap into their pipeline of candidates, some of whom they’ve previously placed with other arts organizations. That’s why your company spends ends up spending thousands of dollars (and cutting programs) to execute the search. And that’s why, when the search fails, you have to do the whole thing over again.
Boards often don’t have a handle on what the empty (or soon-to-be-empty) chair actually does. Plus, they want to avoid situations like this one, from one of your biggest donors:
It’s not that search firms are inherently bad; they’re not. They just don’t serve your community (at all). They’re profit-making companies that serve themselves by justifying their costs to your board.
They’re not supposed to serve your community, incidentally, because that’s your company’s job as a charity.
Take a moment to skim through the job opportunities in the arts, especially those on the highest rungs. What you’ll discover is this (translations of the quotes in the parentheses):
- Every organization “is looking for seasoned arts and culture professionals who are passionate about bringing a positive impact” (we already know who you are)
- Every organization is in a “dynamic era of change” (we’ve just lost the only person who knows where the bodies are buried)
- Every organization is on the “brink of greatness” (“the brink of disaster”)
- Every organization is in a “beautiful, highly-livable” city (or so says the pretty convention and visitor bureau brochures)
- Every organization is offering a salary dependent on “experience” (entry-level salaries for three years’ experience)
- Every organization wants a leader who “will collaborate closely with the Board of Trustees to establish a long-term vision and strategy” (nothing about the organization can change except you’ll have to make torrential rain just to break even in five years)
Leaders looking for their next opportunity are currently smirking and nodding at the above — especially when these smart folks aren’t even considered in the city in which they live.
If you are a talented leader and are not even being considered for an open position in your neighborhood, there are a few key reasons why, and these fiery reasons are fanned (either consciously or unconsciously) by search firms. One, you’re being blackballed because your resignation was considered a betrayal. Two, you were fired and everyone in town has been informed by your previous organization (regardless of the truth) that you’re a pariah. Three, familiarity breeds contempt — if they know who you are, you must not be all that special.
Search firms profit by the “familiarity breeds contempt” idea. It serves them. They have all sorts of out-of-town candidates with no familiarity or contempt (at least in your region) and they know board members knees get all wobbly when a Pro from Dover is in the room.
Of course, all these things are meaningless if you, the job seeker, decide to leave town. Resignation is usually the fault of the company, not the individual. Firing always has a complex Rashomon-type perspective. And a new city will only learn about your positives because you’ll make sure your reference list is solid.
The point: who knows your community more than someone in your community? Who knows its needs (not just its wants)? Who has more connections? Who knows why decisions were made? And who doesn’t need six months to discover the difference between the demographics on paper and the reality on the ground?
The local candidate, of course. So, the next time your organization engages a search, insist upon local candidates even if their availability is suspect. I’m not talking about encouraging criminal activity or other abusive behavior — those are almost always unforgiveable.*
(*But don’t rely on cancel culture to decide what is abusive and what is not. Just because one person believes an action is abusive doesn’t mean that it actually is. It might be, but do the research.)
Search firms make money by finding the “right” candidates, even though there’s no one candidate who is right for any job. In the arts, they tend to celebrate those who do not live in the area by presenting candidates ready to change cities and start over again.
If your candidate knows as much about your region’s needs as it does the moon, it doesn’t matter than they’ve been successful elsewhere.
It takes an enormous amount of training to become an astronaut. But that doesn’t mean they know anything about your community. So, do your search for a nonprofit arts leader. Hire a search firm if you’re bad at searching on your own. But insist on seeing just as many qualified local candidates as “national” ones. Every candidate has assets; every organization has assets. Every candidate has warts; every organization has warts. The local candidates know the difference better than the Pros from Dover.
You left out a bullet point about needing “robust fundraising.” In other words, they expect the new ED to raise millions single-handedly while the board does nothing.
Salary “commensurate with experience?” Why don’t they just post the salary? I’d like to think that my experience is worth a million bucks!