Academic medical centers face several unique challenges when recruiting physician executives. In addition to the usual obstacles of limited candidate pools and increased competition, academic medical centers must also consider a candidate’s academic reputation, while typically working with smaller budgets than their non-academic competitors. These additional factors certainly impact the search. However, as Director of Physician Executive Search for Jackson Physician Search and having partnered with multiple academic institutions over the years, I would estimate that one of the most significant challenges these institutions face in physician leadership recruitment is establishing an academic search committee and how that committee functions.
The How and Why of Search Committees
The structure of these committees varies by institution, with some having strict bylaws that specify who is eligible to participate. The committees are designed to bring diverse perspectives and ensure institutional buy-in, but they can inadvertently become the very obstacle that derails an otherwise strong recruitment effort. A process that might take four to six months with two or three decision-makers can stretch to a year or longer when the opinions and schedules of six or more people must be considered. In a market where qualified physician executive candidates are already scarce, every delay compounds the risk of losing candidates to competing opportunities.
The good news? With intentional structure and clear protocols, search committees can maintain their vital role in representing institutional priorities while dramatically improving efficiency and outcomes. After working with numerous academic medical centers on physician executive searches, I’ve identified practical strategies that help committees move decisively without sacrificing the diversity of input that makes them valuable in the first place.
Right-Sizing the Committee Structure
Many academic medical centers have established bylaws dictating search committee composition. Committees may include department chairs, division chiefs, faculty representatives, administrators, and sometimes board members. This breadth ensures diverse perspectives, but it also multiplies the number of opinions (and schedules) that must align before decisions can be made.
If the bylaws allow, the Chairperson of the Search Committee may establish a core decision-making subgroup of two or three members to drive the day-to-day process, conduct initial screenings, and make scheduling decisions. This subgroup could include the hiring manager, a senior administrator, and one or two key clinical leaders. The broader committee remains engaged at critical milestones: defining candidate criteria, conducting final interviews, and making the ultimate hiring decision.
This approach preserves the benefits of diverse input while preventing the paralysis that occurs when ten people must coordinate calendars for every phone screen. Make committee roles explicit from day one. Who has decision-making authority at each stage? Who provides input versus approval? Ambiguity here leads to confusion and delays that candidates interpret as disorganization or lack of interest.
Takeaway: Review your institutional bylaws for flexibility. If committees must be large, identify a core decision-making subgroup of two to three members who can conduct initial screenings and coordinate feedback from the broader committee. Establish chair and co-chair roles before launching the search.
Building Alignment Before the Search Begins
The most damaging committee dysfunction occurs when members haven’t truly aligned on what they’re looking for in a candidate. One member prioritizes research credentials. Another person values operational experience. A third insists on someone who can mentor junior faculty. Without explicit prioritization, these competing preferences surface mid-search in the form of conflicting feedback. In the worst cases, it moves the goalposts and resets the search back to square one.
Dedicate your first committee meeting to building a comprehensive candidate profile. Go beyond the job description to discuss must-have qualifications versus nice-to-have attributes. What trade-offs is the institution willing to make? Would you accept someone with limited academic publications if they bring a strong operational track record? Is national reputation more important than local market knowledge? The committee chair should set the expectation of finding someone who has 80 to 85 percent of the top criteria. The pursuit of a 100 percent perfect match often means losing excellent candidates who could have been transformational leaders.
Takeaway: Document priorities in a written framework that the committee can reference throughout the search. When disagreements arise later, return to this foundational document. It serves as both a decision-making tool and a reminder of what the group already agreed upon. This upfront investment prevents the all-too-common scenarios where candidates receive mixed messages during interviews or committees second-guess their criteria after meeting qualified candidates.
Gaining Commitment to the Process
Even the most thoughtfully designed committee will fail if members aren’t fully committed to the process. The most common bottlenecks typically have little to do with candidate quality and everything to do with committee complacency. When members aren’t fully committed to the process, it causes delays that carry real consequences. In today’s competitive market for physician executives, candidates often have multiple opportunities. When weeks pass without communication or next steps, candidates reasonably assume the institution isn’t serious about hiring or isn’t well-organized — neither impression serves the organization’s interests.
Committee members must 1) buy into the need for the position, and 2) agree to prioritize tasks related to hiring. Everyone should understand the importance of momentum in the search. While physician executive searches will take more time than a typical physician search, one that drags on for years does not reflect well on the organization.
Takeaway: Secure explicit commitments from all committee members before the search launches. Discuss the time investment required and confirm that members can prioritize the search. Members should make it clear to executive assistants that search-related meetings are high-priority scheduling items. Conflicts that seem immovable can actually be rescheduled when leadership signals the importance.
Designing the Interview Format
Once a candidate has been presented, keeping the process moving is essential. Instead of attempting to schedule calls with every member of the search committee, have the core group of two or three conduct separate virtual meetings. This isn’t a casual get-to-know-you call with a single person — those lack substance. Instead, design focused conversations that assess core competencies while also selling the opportunity. After each candidate interaction, the interviewer should complete an evaluation to capture impressions and any concerns or areas to follow up on.
If the core group decides to invite the candidate for a face-to-face interview, it should take place as soon as the candidate is able. For the sake of time, organizations may be tempted to schedule panel interviews. However, I caution against this format, as it tends to keep the conversation high-level and disrupts the natural flow of discussion. Schedule individual or small-group meetings that encourage discussion and allow committee members to probe deeper into specific topics relevant to their areas. This style gives candidates space to be more candid about their interests, concerns, and vision.
Don’t forget that while your committee is evaluating the candidate, the candidate is also evaluating the organization. Be sure all committee members are aware of the need to “sell” the opportunity to the candidate, and you may even designate a person (search committee member or otherwise) to be fully focused on it and accompany the candidate throughout the day between their interviews. This person should be able to authentically convey enthusiasm about the institution and answer candidate questions about culture, resources, and growth potential. Allocate equal time for candidates to ask their own questions.
Takeaway: Map your interview process before the search begins. Identify which committee members will participate in virtual screenings versus on-site visits. Design a schedule of individual and small-group meetings rather than panel interviews. Brief all participants on their specific evaluation role and the questions they should prioritize.
Accelerating Decision-Making and Offers
It’s not unusual for search committees to want to evaluate multiple finalists before making decisions. While understandable, this approach carries significant risk. Even with all members of the committee prioritizing scheduling, it can take months to organize on-site visits for multiple candidates. Strong candidates are likely to accept other positions during extended comparison processes, so a more prudent strategy might be to evaluate each candidate on their own merits and move quickly when someone meets your criteria. Unless all candidates can be interviewed within 2-3 weeks of each other, waiting to complete the interview process with all candidates before selecting one can drastically decrease the likelihood of securing your chosen candidate.
Search fatigue is real. After multiple rounds of interviews with different candidates, committee enthusiasm wanes, and even strong candidates may seem less impressive simply because the team is exhausted. This makes early decision-making even more valuable.
I also recommend having an offer prepared before the interview so that you can act immediately if the candidate is the right fit. This means knowing what the candidate is looking for in terms of compensation and gaining approval to extend the offer for that amount if all goes as planned.
Takeaway: Establish decision-making thresholds upfront. If a candidate meets your criteria, authorize the committee chair to move toward an offer without waiting to see if someone “better” might emerge. Identify the approval chain and have a contract and offer prepared before the search begins.
Moving Forward
The academic physician executive search committee doesn’t have to be a bottleneck. With intentional structure, clear protocols, and committed leadership, these groups can leverage diverse perspectives while maintaining the momentum needed to secure top physician executive talent. The key is recognizing that efficiency and inclusivity aren’t opposing goals. They’re complementary elements of a well-designed recruitment process.
When your next physician executive search begins, invest time in building committee structure and alignment before pursuing candidates. The upfront effort will accelerate the entire process and dramatically improve outcomes. In a competitive market for physician executive talent, the institutions that move decisively while maintaining thorough evaluation will consistently outperform those that let committee dysfunction derail otherwise strong recruitment efforts.
Is your organization recruiting physician executives? Strategic search committee design is just one element of a successful recruitment strategy. Contact Jackson Physician Search to learn how our Physician Executive Search team can help you build an efficient process that attracts and secures transformational leaders. Reach out today for more information.
About Dirk Jansson
Dirk Jansson is the Director of Physician Executive Search at Jackson Physician Search, where he is dedicated to connecting healthcare organizations with results-driven physician leaders who can help reach their short- and long-term objectives while aligning with their unique culture.
Leveraging more than a decade of experience across multiple industries, Dirk’s passion for the art and science of physician executive recruiting, coupled with an intense commitment to serving others, is foundational to his success. His unique access and refined method of navigating complex, specialized candidate pools help healthcare organizations of all settings and sizes nationwide secure the physician leaders they need to thrive in the rapidly evolving landscape of healthcare.
