Letter to the Editor, Chronicle of Philanthropy (May 19, 2011)

To the Editor:



Your stories about executive searches at foundations (“Inside the Searches for Filling Philanthropy’s Biggest Jobs” and “Increasing Clout of Recruiters Stirs Debate Among Philanthropy Experts,” April 7) included comments from critics who express concern that the influence of search firms results in the selection of foundation CEO’s who are not daring, lack diversity, are not edgy or unusual, lack grant-making experience, and are disproportionately from outside the foundation world.



But complaints about foundation CEO selection should really be directed at trustee boards, not search firms.



Trustee boards appoint individuals they believe possess the skills and experience to find the right CEO. Search committees are charged with collecting input from foundation constituencies, assessing their relative importance, and developing a profile of the kind of CEO sought.



Search committees decide whether to solicit candidates themselves or hire a search firm capable of recruiting CEO candidates with the desired characteristics.



Search committees can reject unsatisfactory candidates submitted by search firms. They can redirect a search firm toward more suitable candidates and terminate the services of firms that fail. Search firms thrive by satisfying CEO search committees and trustee boards. Dissatisfied clients will not use firms that repeatedly perform poorly.



It is fair to conclude that foundation trustees hire CEO’s they want and are proud to stand behind. Hiring a CEO is one of the most significant governance responsibilities of any board. Purposely hiring CEO’s who do not meet the best long-term interests of a given foundation due to search-firm influence is a major leadership and governance failure.



Trustees drive the CEO-selection process. Trustee boards that want future CEO candidates to have grant-making experience or be more racially and ethnically diverse would require CEO’s to implement succession planning, recruiting, and talent-development initiatives that create talent pipelines to match future CEO needs. Search committees can hire and direct search firms to seek candidates who are “bold,” “edgy,” or possess any unusual combination of characteristics, experiences, and skills desired by the board.



The core question is whether trustee boards, search committees, and critics of the process can discuss their differences in a manner that results in better CEO selections.



CEO’s have a significant impact on the ability of their foundations and society to face the most challenging problems. We all benefit when trustee boards, their constituencies, and their critics work together to improve measurement of CEO performance; identify characteristics, competencies, and experiences that contribute to successful performance; and build recruiting and development processes that result in selection of the best candidates.



If strategies can be implemented to improve the quality of foundation CEO selection and increase foundation capacity to address the world’s problems, now is the time to act. The world cannot afford to wait.



Michael Watson

Senior Vice President for Human Resources and Diversity

Girl Scouts of the USA

New York