Hiring a new director is THE most important board responsibility. The more you can do to clarify the board's charge, the more likely that the new director will succeed.

We are not executive recruiters, but as management consultants to museums we're often hired to address problems that stem from a poor match between the director, the staff, and the board. Our work with directors and boards suggests a score card that looks roughly like this:

• 15% of the time the match is prematurely ended.

• 40% of the time the match is poor, but without "cause" to change it.

• 30% of the time the match is acceptable, but the museum fails to flourish.

• 15% of the time the match is superb; the director, board, staff, and museum all flourish

Four specific factors account for this poor showing:

• Lack of full disclosure: informal, "sacred cow" agreements with staff, for example; or extensive deferred maintenance; or unresolved ethical issues at the board level.

• Lack of candid references: in our litigious age of negotiated departures, positive recommendations are the norm and it is very difficult to get beyond them.

• The pendulum approach: the last director was a fine scholar but a poor fundraiser; the next director needs to be a great fundraiser, whatever his academic discipline.

• The development stage of the museum mismatches the candidate's leadership style: a director excellent for a growing museum will be inappropriate for a mature one.

When a mismatch occurs, problems arise and the director often gets blamed. Parking lot conversations and burning phone lines often signal the start of a witch hunt that leaves the board divided and the director looking for a new job. Blaming a single individual cannot resolve this dissatisfaction—director, board or search committee chair. The root cause is systemic and begins with a failure in the hiring process. Candidates are frequently surprised at what they find when they start their new jobs and so are boards. No amount of strategic planning, fiscal controls, or new staffing can correct for a mismatched leader.

Based on responses to a questionnaire published in NoIT last summer, preliminary research indicates that the institution's true financial position and the extent of community and board support often surprises the new director. Other surprises come in collections management, staff capacities, and the ability of people to work together. Very few directors indicate that they would not have accepted the directorship, had they known about the surprises in advance. However, almost all said that, had they known, they would have changed the way they led the organization and set priorities during their first year.