By now, you probably have heard that Craig Brand recently resigned as the USSRA’s Executive Director. Craig served as the stalwart leader of the organization for nearly 11 years. You may not know this, but Craig was just the second Executive Director that the USSRA has had.
The first Executive Director was Darwin Kingsley, and the position was created for him. In 1976, the organization had existed for over 50 years with the President acting as the sole lead of the association. But even with secretaries who actually shouldered much of the load, the Presidents were finding that with squash beginning to grow past its blue-blood roots, there was a need for a permanent staff position. Darwin filled that role, and helped take the organization to its highest membership roll of all time. And there he stayed for 15 years, until 1991, when he resigned and Craig took over.
With that in mind, when the Executive Committee found out that Craig was resigning, it realized that it was a once-in-a-generation moment. The next Executive Director would be just the third in the past 26 years. So, the Executive Committee was suddenly in a crucial situation and had to determine what its next move should be.
There was a feeling that we should promote from within and make Mike Hymer the Executive Director (Mike Hymer was the Association’s Deputy Director). This made a lot of sense. Mike has proven himself to be a consummate organizer (in case you were not aware, this will be the fifth year that Mike has been in charge of organizing all of our National Championships—junior and senior) and, in many ways, he has earned the position. Promoting him to Executive Director also would provide continuity and help make sure that the organization didn’t suffer without leadership.
But there was another view as well. Some felt that this moment in time was unique and there was an inherent responsibility to conduct a search with a public process that would be beyond reproach. There was a feeling that the EC owed it to the USSRA membership to search for the best possible candidate, while acknowledging that Hymer might be that person.
As you can see, there were two extremely valid viewpoints—both focused on the question of finding the best possible candidate. But then three other points were raised that ultimately shifted the balance.
First, instead of focusing on finding the best possible candidate, by conducting a public search, we would show our membership that we take our fiduciary responsibilities seriously, that we want their input and that we are committed to having a process to do what it takes to find the best possible person.
Second, a search gives us the opportunity to reconnect with some of our members who once were more involved than they have been recently. This also gives us the opportunity to get in touch with some potentially large donors by engaging them in creating a vision for the organization. It could be a singular opportunity for increasing financial support for the USSRA.
Finally, by interviewing a number of candidates, the association would have the chance to pick the brains of candidates who will spend serious time thinking about the future of our organization. This, too, is another chance that would not come around again for some time.
The idea that conducting a leadership search often results in ancillary benefits aside from the naming of the eventual candidate took hold. Interestingly, someone cited a statistic that at least rings true: more than 50% of those who have an interim title (and who are seeking the position—there are a group of executives who purposely seek out interim positions only) eventually get the job. Clearly, Hymer would be an automatic finalist in the search, but the EC realized that Corporate America does these searches not because they are interested in wasting money and time, but because they have found that they reap benefits even if the incumbent is the one ultimately decided upon.
In many ways, this is a great moment for our association. We have a chance to substantially revisit what the association is and what it can become. We have a chance to hear from potential candidates both from inside and outside the squash community about how better to serve our constituents. And we have the chance to hear from you.
Do you know someone who we should hear about? Do you have thoughts about what we need from the next leader? Are there kinds of positions where you think an ideal candidate might currently be working? Let us know. The EC has decided to do this search to involve you. Thanks for your help.
