How IIITH Evaluates Multi-Dimensional Qualities Of A Suitable Leader

At a formal event held at IIITH on August 20th, 2025, Prof. PJ Narayanan stepped down as Director, IIITH after a remarkable tenure of 12 years and handed over the reins to his successor, Prof. Sandeep Shukla, who was Professor and Rajiv and Ritu Batra Endowed Chair for Cyber Security, at the Computer Science and Engineering Department at Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. “I am very pleased about the process followed in selecting the Director, with an opportunity given to the entire institute to interact with and give feedback on each candidate,” Prof. Narayanan had remarked earlier even as the announcement about his successor was made at the institute’s 24th convocation last month. He added, “I am so glad this culture/practice followed in 2012 has continued,” referring to the process that was undertaken before he came to the helm of the institute as Director. “While the process itself was the same, it was perhaps a bit more elaborate this time around,” mentions Prof. Rajeev Sangal, the first full-time Director of IIITH and member of the Screening Committee established for helping select a Director. ”Candidates were given a lot more time to express their own thoughts about the future directions in front of faculty, Director, Registrar, and some GC members in the audience. Additionally, more faculty in smaller groups got a second chance to interact with the candidates again.” 

Typically, just before the end of the Director’s tenure, an announcement is made through formal and informal channels soliciting suitable candidates. But in this case, even before a search was initiated, feedback from internal stakeholders was sought. “We first met with faculty, staff and representatives of the Student Parliament in person to get their inputs on what they were looking for in a new leader,” remarks Srini Raju, member of the Governing Council of IIITH and part of the first Screening Committee. The team also interacted online with global alumni in 3 sessions on a Sunday for the same. Only then a detailed description of  the formal responsibilities and the attributes the institute is looking for in the right candidate at this stage of the Institute, were finalized to send out seeking nominations from eminent academic and industry experts. The idea behind it is to invite nominations of serious qualified candidates best suited to address the challenges at this stage. Simultaneously, an official advertisement was put up on the institute’s website allowing interested candidates also to apply directly for the position. After the deadline of receipt of applications, the Screening Committee went through the list by pruning out those who don’t meet the eligibility criteria. The next step involved individually contacting those who remain on the list, requesting them to send in their detailed CVs. “This is especially for those whose nominations have been received. It also serves as a way to confirm their consent to be in the fray,” says Prof. Sangal. This is also when the list got a little shorter with some of the nominated candidates politely declining to be part of the process. “If their track record was good, we of course tried to persuade them to consider and tried to explain why leading IIITH would be a worthy challenge for them,” reflects Prof. Sangal.

After considering resumes of the interested candidates, the Screening Committee created a shortlist. “The longlist as well as the shortlist are made available to the Chairman of the Governing Council and his opinion on the direction to be followed is taken,” adds Prof. Sangal. At the same time, feedback and reviews about the candidates were solicited from those who have known them and worked with, closely. Then it’s time for direct, in-person meetings. An introductory video with slides detailing the institute’s facta, philosophy, ethos and the tasks ahead was sent out along with a formal invite requesting each of the shortlisted people to visit the campus. “Typically, each candidate comes an evening prior to the formal day of presentations. So the evening sees a dinner with the senior faculty, the current Director, Screening Committee members, and GC members if they are available in the city at the time. The idea is to put the candidates at ease and interact with them in an informal setting. It is the next day that witnesses a rather packed schedule, beginning with a presentation about the institute, what it expects from a Director, and so on. They are also of course free to ask questions,” elaborates Prof. Sangal. Prof. PJN adds, “The information about the institute is doubtless made available to them prior to their visit, An in-person presentation allows the candidate to judge for himself or herself about what they are signing up for, based on the institute’s expectations as well as their own vision of leading IIITH in a particular direction.” When the candidates got an opportunity to make their own presentations in the presence of a group of faculty, the Director, Governing Council members, Deans, and Registrar, it was typically followed by a round of discussions where there is ample room to observe the candidates’ views on a gamut of topics ranging from research and innovation, and education, to the student environment, finance and administration. 

What is perhaps the most unique feature about the entire selection process is that it is not only limited to the faculty. Students and non-teaching staff also are given a fair chance to participate by engaging with the candidates. “All these interactions help in providing the big picture to the candidates too,” reasons Prof. Sangal. At least one or two of the Screening Committee members are present during the informal gathering as well as during the formal screening process. However, in an attempt to provide a relaxed atmosphere to both the students and non-teaching staff, the Screening Committee deliberately abstains from attending huddles with the staff and students. “We don’t want these stakeholders to feel constrained in expressing their views to the candidates,” states Prof. Sangal.

With a view to enable closer interactions, smaller groups of 5-6 faculty members got a renewed chance to interact with the candidates where they could connect and gauge each others’ mindsets. Once these interactions were complete, each faculty member was given a feedback form rating the candidates across different criteria such as their reputation and academic credentials, leadership quality with respect to the future of the Institute, and not just as an individual leader but the manner in which the candidate can inspire and carry the entire community together, the kind of student environment they are likely to build, administrative abilities and finance acumen.

For internal candidates, that is applicants who are faculty at the Institute, some parts of the process remain identical. For instance, the presentation they made served to highlight their strengths and the manner in which they aimed to take the institute forward. This was followed by a group discussion as in the case of external candidates. The smaller group interactions were not scheduled since the candidates are quite well known to the faculty, students and non-teaching staff alike, but candidate feedback was sought from these stakeholders too.

At the end of all these discussions, the Screening Committee provided a final list of candidates to the statutory Search-cum-Selection Committee consisting of a UGC nominee, a nominee from the GC and chaired by a nominee of the Chairman of the GC. “This statutory committee already has the resumes of all the candidates. And now, it also has the detailed feedback provided by the faculty. Plus, all interactions, especially the formal presentations made by the candidates, are also recorded. Sometimes recommendations made by the Screening Committee are also put on record for the benefit of the statutory Committee,” explains Prof. Sangal. From the shortlisted candidates, the statutory committee then created a final list of 3 which was then handed over to the Chairman of the Governing Council, who selected one of them to be the Director. 

“There are no surprises here; there is complete transparency in the entire pipeline. It is very open and when the candidates come to campus to make presentations, everyone knows about it. It is very unique in that sense,” observes Srini Raju. Summing up the elaborate process, Prof. Sangal says, “We have evaluated multi-dimensional qualities of each candidate via a diverse set of means. I feel sad  how in other institutions, the single most important decision regarding the institute is based on just half-an-hour’s interaction with each of the candidates by the statutory search-cum-selection committee, with no role for the stakeholders. I hope that the process we follow at IIITH may inspire others in the country too, because then they will be able to make a more informed decision.” 

As far as IIITH is concerned, the new Director has his work cut out for him in taking the institute forward in translational research, leading the faculty by creating consensus over the steps to be taken, creating a suitable student environment by enthusing students in classroom settings and outside of it, and maintaining transparency in administrative affairs such that broad trust is maintained.