What Athletic Directors Should Watch During the Entire Hiring Process

SPECIAL GUEST POST FROM DAN CHRISTENSEN 

A formal interview tells you a lot about a coaching candidate.

But it does not tell you everything.

In fact, some of the most useful information in a coaching search comes before and after the interview itself. How a candidate communicates, prepares, follows through, treats people, asks questions, and handles the full process often gives an athletic director a clearer picture of how that person may operate once hired.

The interview is the performance.

The process often reveals the pattern.

That does not mean athletic directors should overanalyze every small detail. Candidates are human. They may be nervous. Travel may be stressful. Schedules may be tight. Miscommunications happen.

But across an entire search, behavior leaves clues.

In coaching searches we have been part of at Bechler Leadership, the strongest candidates usually show consistency. The person you experience in the formal interview matches the person you experience in emails, phone calls, campus meetings, meals, follow-up conversations, and reference discussions.

That consistency matters.

Responsiveness Reveals Professional Habits

One of the first things to watch is communication.

Does the candidate respond in a timely and professional way? Do they follow instructions? Do they provide requested materials when asked? Do they ask clarifying questions when needed? Do they communicate respectfully when schedules change or details are uncertain?

Responsiveness is not just about courtesy. It is often a window into organization, reliability, and respect for process.

A coach who is consistently difficult to reach during the search may be difficult to reach after they are hired. A coach who misses details in the process may miss details with compliance paperwork, recruiting communication, travel planning, or departmental deadlines.

Of course, candidates may have demanding jobs and limited availability. That should be understood. But there is a difference between being busy and being careless.

Athletic directors should pay attention to the pattern.

Preparation Shows Seriousness

A candidate’s preparation says a lot.

Did they study the institution? Do they understand the level, conference, roster situation, admissions realities, facilities, academic profile, and mission of the school? Can they speak thoughtfully about why this specific opportunity makes sense?

Or do they give answers that could apply to any job?

Preparation is one of the clearest signs of seriousness. It also reveals humility. A prepared candidate does not assume their resume alone should carry the conversation. They have taken time to understand the place, the people, and the challenges.

This is especially important at smaller colleges.

A coach who has not taken time to understand the institution may underestimate the complexity of the job. They may not appreciate enrollment realities, resource limitations, campus relationships, or the importance of retaining student-athletes who fit the school.

Good preparation does not mean the candidate knows everything. It means they cared enough to learn before they arrived.

Watch How They Treat Everyone

One of the most revealing parts of a campus visit is how candidates treat people who are not making the final decision.

How do they interact with administrative assistants, athletic trainers, facilities staff, student workers, dining staff, assistant coaches, admissions counselors, and others they meet throughout the day?

Are they respectful?

Are they curious?

Are they present?

Do they learn people’s names?

Do they treat each interaction as meaningful, or only focus on the athletic director and senior leaders?

This matters because a head coach will interact with many people across campus. If a candidate is dismissive, impatient, or overly self-important during the hiring process, that behavior may become more visible once they have the job.

A campus visit can reveal whether the candidate sees people as partners or as background.

Strong coaches understand that programs are built with the help of many people. They do not treat support staff as invisible.

The Quality of Their Questions Matters

Candidates should be evaluated not only by how they answer questions, but by what they ask.

The best candidates ask thoughtful, job-related questions. They want to understand the institution, the department, the student-athlete experience, the expectations of the role, the recruiting landscape, campus partnerships, and what success should look like.

They may ask:

“What does this program need most in the next 12 months?”

“How would you describe the relationship between athletics and admissions?”

“What support systems are strongest for student-athletes here?”

“Where has this program struggled culturally or operationally?”

“What would a successful first year look like in your eyes?”

Those questions signal that the candidate is thinking beyond themselves.

Be cautious when a candidate’s questions are almost entirely about salary, resources, autonomy, benefits, and what they will receive. Those questions are not wrong. Candidates should understand the job. But if the conversation never moves toward mission, people, student-athletes, collaboration, and expectations, that may reveal something.

Questions reveal priorities.

Written Materials Can Confirm or Complicate the Interview

Many searches ask finalists to submit a program plan, leadership philosophy, recruiting plan, or first 90-to-120-day outline.

These materials can be very helpful, especially when compared with the live interview.

Are the written materials thoughtful and specific? Do they reflect the actual institution? Do they show an understanding of the roster, recruiting environment, academic expectations, and department structure? Are they organized and realistic?

Or are they generic?

A strong written plan does not need to be flashy. It needs to be grounded. It should show how the coach thinks, prioritizes, communicates, and translates vision into action.

Then, during the interview, ask the candidate to walk through the plan. Look for consistency. Can they explain their thinking clearly? Can they adjust when given new information? Does their live conversation match their written philosophy?

If the written materials sound polished but the candidate cannot discuss them with depth, that is worth noting.

Follow-Through After the Visit Matters

The process does not end when the candidate leaves campus.

Follow-through matters.

Did the candidate send requested follow-up information? Did they respond professionally to additional questions? Did they clarify issues honestly? Did they continue to show interest and respect?

Post-interview communication can reveal maturity. Some candidates become careless once they think they performed well. Others remain thoughtful, organized, and steady.

This can be a preview of how they will communicate with recruits, families, colleagues, and administrators.

Look for Consistency Across the Whole Process

No single moment should decide a hire unless it is serious enough to raise immediate concern.

Instead, look for consistency.

Does the candidate’s leadership philosophy match their behavior?

Does their stated humility show up in how they listen?

Does their commitment to culture show up in how they treat people?

Does their attention to detail show up in their materials?

Does their talk about collaboration show up in meetings with campus partners?

Does their confidence remain healthy, or does it become entitlement?

The best candidates are not perfect, but they are consistent.

They show the same character in small interactions that they describe in big answers.

For athletic directors, that is the point.

The formal interview matters. But the full hiring process gives you a broader view of the person you may be bringing into your department.

Pay attention to the whole process.

Because the way a coach handles the search may be an early look at how they will handle the job.