The assumption that seems to be strongly held by this current group of decision makers (Wilson, Killeen, BOT, et al.) is that quick, decisive hiring decision = high risk of bad hire.
Of course, there is an opposing school of thought that a snail-paced, overly-intellectualized, months-long process involving "lots of consultations" concerning a "a short list of people that will be phenomenal" among "a really dynamic pool of candidates interested in [the job]" that is drawn up by a search committee "representat[ing] all the important stakeholders," and possibly an outside search consultant, with the "pros and cons" of each candidate being "discussed ... extensively with knowledgeable people," might be more likely to produce a bad hire. One might call this the "too many cooks" theory.
I suppose there are examples where groupthink produces an optimal outcome but it seems to more often result in things like Jar-Jar Binks and the McDLT sandwich. Since it's obvious now that nobody in charge is going to just step up and start making tough decisions, I can only hope that when this ridiculously dragged-out process finally collapses under its own weight, we don't find ourselves with the Pontiac Aztek of athletic directors.
I think you've even giving them too much credit here. They just don't know what the hell they're doing.