Every time an educator walks into a leadership interview, they’re carrying much more than a résumé. Behind that smile and neatly pressed suit is a human being who has rehearsed questions late into the night, fought through anxiety, taken personal time off, driven hours, and whispered to themselves on the way in, “Maybe this is the one that changes everything.”
I know this because I’ve lived it.
The Human Cost of the Process
Years ago, I drove over two hours for an interview in a district I deeply admired. I had practiced every question, printed polished materials, and arrived early. The principal engaged me, asked thoughtful questions, and even walked me through the school afterward. I left the parking lot thinking; I have a real shot here.
Then — silence.
I followed up once. Twice. Nothing. Weeks went by without closure. That drive, that personal day, those hours of preparation — all vanished into the void. It wasn’t just rejection. It was being discarded without acknowledgment.
Another time, I sat in front of a large committee, including people who weren’t even in leadership roles. I answered 15 rapid-fire questions, timed like a game show. Later, I was told my knowledge was “off the charts,” but the decision favored someone else. Again, the unspoken message was clear: your preparation doesn’t matter as much as performance and perception.
These experiences are not unique to me. Educators across the country know the sting of interviews that feel more like performances than genuine evaluations. Research has shown that poorly structured selection processes often reinforce bias and overlook true talent (Campion et al., 1997; Posthuma et al., 2002). When decisions hinge more on “fit” or charisma than competence, we risk losing great leaders before they even get their shot.
Gatekeeping and the Bigger Picture
The problem isn’t that schools shouldn’t be selective — leadership roles are high-stakes. The problem is that gatekeeping practices often ignore the human cost. Behind every candidate is a story, a family, and a deep reservoir of hope.
When interviews are predetermined for insiders, or when candidates are ghosted afterward, we’re not just rejecting people — we’re shattering dreams. As Kearney and Hyle (2004) note, transparency and fairness in leadership hiring are critical not just for equity, but for trust in the system. Without it, districts risk discouraging the very educators who could strengthen their schools.
What Respect Could Look Like
The fixes aren’t complicated:
- Clear communication: A simple email closing the loop, even with no feedback, preserves dignity.
- Constructive feedback: A sentence or two on strengths and growth areas can turn disappointment into development.
- Thoughtful committees: Smaller panels with relevant leaders foster authentic conversations, not performances.
Most importantly, leaders must remember: for the candidate, this is never just an appointment on a calendar. It’s a moment that could alter the trajectory of their life.
A Call for Humanity
I love this profession. I believe in developing future leaders and strengthening our schools. But we must do better in how we treat those who step up to serve.
When we forget the humanity behind the interview table, we risk driving away resilient, talented educators who simply needed someone to believe in them.
And if there’s one truth I’ve learned, it’s this: the way we treat candidates today shapes the leaders we’ll have tomorrow.
References
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655–702.
Kearney, K. S., & Hyle, A. E. (2004). Drawing out emotions: The use of participant-produced drawings in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research, 4(3), 361–382.
Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002). Structured interviews: Enhancing staff selection. Personnel Review, 31(1), 14–29.
