I volunteered for two positions and the NOMCOM respected my intent and interviewed me twice, once for each. I also therefore received both positive and negative outcomes, which is as expected.
I felt listened to, I felt understood, I felt my own misunderstandings were carefully put back to me, and I felt treated kindly by people who are not highly rewarded and put a lot of effort into doing this role.
I wouldn't personally call for change in how they work but if the NOMCOM chair tells me it needs improvement I can believe them because I believe they did their job collectively and would know.
As a candidate I prefer the scary face to face thing to video. There are nuances of communication which wouldn't come over a zoom. But I agree it may turn out to be better at scale doing it online.
I also try to imagine what it would be like to be a NOMCOM and on reflection I'm glad my role now excludes me, because it's hard work. Seriously time consuming, hard mental effort. It demands being quite directly critical of people imagined in role, to their competence and fit. Thats hard. It's not a natural role for many people.
I would also suggest that people give more feedback. Deans observation they were lacking good deep critical input is real, I know because I know how I give NOMCOM feedback and in hindsight it's inadequate. I say I like people and believe they could do the job and I say nothing about the ones I don't understand or lack belief in and that helps nobody, I have to learn how to say directly to a NOMCOM why I think somebody is a bad pick. That's a hard skill too.
In a former life long ago I got given direct feedback from something akin to a NOMCOM process about why I was a bad pick and why they would oppose my appointment. I was extremely hurt and angry but now, I find I should have listened to them more carefully, and might even agree with them.
G
