This blog was kindly authored by Julia Roberts, Founder and Principal Consultant at Julia Roberts Advisory.
It is the final blog in our four-part ‘How To’ series that focuses on recruitment in higher education leadership roles. The first blog, on working with executive search, can be found here. The second, on recruiting non-executives, can be found here. The third blog, on writing job descriptions and person specifications can be found here.
As we close this series, one truth has become clear across every piece: the quality of an appointment is shaped by the clarity you establish at the start and your discipline in holding to that clarity all the way through. Universities often do the hard thinking when rewriting the job description and person specification, but somewhere in the selection process, subjectivity creeps in. A confident performance feels persuasive. A familiar background feels comfortable. A well told story can overshadow weaker evidence. And without noticing, the panel drifts away from the criteria it committed to.
This drift is subtle but consequential. When panels abandon clarity in favour of instinct, they appoint the candidate who performs best in the room, not the one who is best aligned to the work. This is why discipline matters, and it is why assessment must be anchored in a simple principle:
Assess what needs assessing. Do not assess what is easiest, most familiar or most comfortable. And do not assess subjectively when the role requires objective evidence.
What can be measured can be assessed. What can be evidenced can be evaluated. What has been defined clearly can be held to consistently.
Executive roles: evidence of leadership through others
For executive appointments, the temptation is to reward the strongest individual performer. But in universities, leadership is not about personal efficiency. It is about making others more effective. That difference is profound.
Panels must look for evidence that the person can create clarity, enable others, build capability, resolve conflict, make sound judgements with imperfect information, strengthen teams across boundaries and understand digital risk, including AI and cyber resilience.
None of this is subjective. Candidates should offer concrete examples of what they have done, how they did it and the impact it achieved. If they cannot provide evidence, you cannot reliably assess them.
Non executive roles: contribution over comfort
Non executive appointments require stewardship, clarity of thought and an ability to interrogate risk. Panels should look for constructive challenge, understanding of public accountability, awareness of digital and AI vulnerabilities and a mindset of contribution, not ego.
Again, none of this is subjective. You are assessing cognitive skill, judgement and value add.
Holding your clarity from start to finish
The hardest part of assessment is resisting the subtle pull of subjectivity during discussion. When conversations drift, return to your anchor:
What did we say this role needs?
What outcomes must this candidate deliver?
What evidence have we heard?
Are we assessing what needs assessing?
Key Takeaways
- Clarity at the outset only matters if you hold to it at the end.
- Assess what needs assessing.
- Do not be subjective. What can be measured can be assessed.
- Executive roles require evidence of enabling leadership.
- Non executive roles require stewardship and strategic challenge.
- Digital and AI awareness are non negotiable.
- Value cultural contribution, not cultural fit.
- Hold the line when discussion drifts.