Search Article

In leadership searches, clarity often arrives too quickly. Committees feel pressure to sound decisive early, to name what they are looking for, and to move forward with confidence. But the greatest risk in a search is not uncertainty. It is mistaking first-draft thinking for settled understanding.

My work leading search processes at Scott Goldberg Consulting has been shaped by more than a decade teaching high school English and by recent graduate study in creative writing, both of which trained me to approach clarity as provisional and revision as essential.

First drafts are necessary. But they are also unreliable. They flatten complexity, skip over tension, and often sound more confident than they deserve. Real thinking happens in revision, when language is tested, assumptions are challenged, and ideas are forced to withstand scrutiny.

That discipline carries directly into search work. Schools often enter a process with a clear sense of what they believe they need in a leader. Sometimes that clarity holds. More often, it reflects a first draft shaped by recent challenges, internal dynamics, or a desire for reassurance. A serious search does not accept that articulation at face value. It revises it.

Revision in a search context means slowing down long enough to ask whether the problem being named is the problem that actually needs solving. It means examining how a role is described and noticing where language obscures unresolved tensions or competing priorities. It means distinguishing between qualities a school admires in theory and capacities it truly needs in practice.

This is why discovery phases matter. They are not procedural hurdles. They are structured opportunities to revise understanding. What begins as a confident description of the ideal candidate is often refined as schools confront the realities of their moment and their future.

Revision also requires structure. In writing, it is guided by questions, constraints, and readers willing to push back. In search work, structure prevents reflection from becoming rumination and early conclusions from hardening into dogma. A disciplined process protects schools from hiring leaders who fit an appealing narrative but are poorly matched to the actual demands of the role.

What emerges after revision is not always simpler, but it is truer. Roles are articulated with greater precision. Interviews become more revealing. Candidates engage more honestly because they understand what they are stepping into. Clarity, when it arrives this way, is earned.

In both writing and leadership searches, speed  is often mistaken for seriousness. In my experience, seriousness looks more like revision. It is the willingness to question early certainty and refine thinking before making consequential decisions. The goal is not a faster answer. It is a better one.