Faculty
Richard Ilkka - Research
Selecting Memebers of the Faculty Search Committee: Criteria for Depeartment Chairs
Published--The Department Chair, 5, Spring, 1995 (Anker Publishing, Bolton, MA)
One of the most important choices departments make is the new faculty hire. In these days of limited budgets and position vulnerability, a carefully planned and executed selection process is vital. Typically, a committee selected by a department chair searches, screens, evaluates and recommends. Given the pivotal role the committee plays, it may be that member selection is the most important decision the department chair makes in the entire process. Below, four dimensions of search committee selection are presented along with observations for improving the process of assembling an effective selection committee.
The Committee Chair
Chairing a search committee is an enormous task. Assuming that such activities as permission to hire and administrative and faculty agreement on general position definition have already been accomplished, the new search chair will still need to continue working with affirmative action officers and other administrators, help develop criteria/credentials, advertise, screen, check references, make initial applicant contacts, as well as analyze job duties, develop questions, prepare itinerary, structure interviews, organize simulations, develop, administer, and analyze various evaluation measures, and the list goes on. Of course, the search chair will also manage schedules and egos, stress and long hours, and in the end, probably receive little credit or praise, even if the job is exceptionally well done.
Given this array of duties, a chair may be reluctant to call upon a colleague and instead, may assume the additional duties of search chair. Or, the department chair may simply select the committee and let the committee decide. Both choices are mistakes. Selecting one’s self adds an unnecessary administrative burden, and letting a committee decide is unfair to the eventual choice who signed on as a member only to get twice the work anticipated. Moreover, given the additional reponsibilities associated with the search chair position, it seems prudent for the department chair to name the search chair early and in so doing, provide advanced accommodation (e.g., release from some other obligations). In turn, the profile for a search chair should include such characteristics as:
- professional respect among departmental/institutional colleagues
- representative of departmental/institutional values and culture
- familiarity with the academic content area associated with the open position
- knowledge/experience with the entire search committee process
- leadership abilities, especially an appreciation for small group dynamics
While more characteristics might be added (e.g., the patience of Job), the department chair should choose carefully as the search chair will likely set the style and tone for the committee’s efforts and ultimately, its results.
Constituency Inclusiveness
Unfortunately, search committee members may often be selected more on the basis of political sensitivities rather than needed knowledge, skill, and ability related to candidate assessment. As an alternative, department chairs might consider the following criteria for selection (noting that a given member might embody more than one criterion):
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
SMEs (Feild and Greenwood, 1989) are the most critical consituency in the search process as they represent the department’s academic expertise in the position area sought. If the committee is going to engage in meaningful assessment, SMEs are necessary for job analysis, question development, and answer benchmarking. SMEs then are vital for developing a job-relevant interview and as such, must be an initial and integral part of the selection process.
Personal Fit Experts (PFEs)
Initial screening of materials matches job profile with applicant credentials and is arguably, a somewhat perfunctory task. Candidate selection gets difficult when the list shortens, and when comparisons of relative professional quality need to be made as well as assessment of personal fit. SMEs remain useful here but the committee now also needs people (PFEs) who are regarded by others as credible and saavy in personality assessment, especially when matching candidate personality with department culture. PFEs also need to be assertive and independently minded enough to make a case (legally defensible, of course) for or against a given candidate to the committee. Without PFEs the committee may still hire the brightest but not necessarily the best.
Socratic Colleagues.
Of course, non-SME department members should be represented, and if the position involves significant transaction with other campus units, representatives from those areas may need to be involved. Such non-academic area experts might be expected to focus their energies on other, related aspects of the position, e.g., teaching style, service accomplishments. However, such colleagues can also be especially valuable as lead question-askers during the screening and on-site interviews. In effect, rather than having the SMEs ask most initial and perhaps follow-up questions on academic content areas, the strategy might be to have some of the academic content questions asked by non SMEs in order to see if the candidate can answer clearly and sufficiently when responding to a line of questions from an intelligent, non-expert. In the meantime, the SMEs might momentarily disengage from the questioning in favor of critical observation of the ensuing dialogue.
Other Committee Contours.
A given SME and /or PFE may also be designated as a potential mentor for the selected candidate. Such inclusion affords the mentor a first hand opportunity to assess needs regarding the professional and personal assimilation of the eventual hire, and may ultimately speak to more effective retention through earlier and more personalized attention to faculty socialization. Selection of one or two advanced students majoring in the position area is imperative. These students should participate actively, and the search chair can make that happen through appropriate delegation. Other factors include consideration of gender and minority representation, especially to help avoid "group think,” in this case, the tendency to hire someone who, in too many ways, is “just like us.”
Committee Size
While ideally every relevant constituency should be represented, research reported by Ernest and Nancy Bormann (1992) supports the view that decision making groups should be about five to seven numbers, with five as ideal. Theodore J. Machese and Jane F. Lawrence (1987) suggest nine as an upper limit for searches. Five is the preferred number because a smaller group may lack the critical mass necessary for the task and a larger group tends to form cliques, with some members becoming less active and perhaps alienated from the group's deliberations. Whether five, seven, or nine, the odd number may also be useful since the committee may decide some matters by majority vote.
Task and Social Dimensions
While the department chair cannot mandate that the selection committee function effectively on those task and social dimensions which define it as a group, the chair can and should consider appointing people most likely to contribute to meeting the “work” and “people” needs of the committee as a developing group. Given that most search committee members will be drawn from a population where several of the people already know each other, it is important to consider (if known) the significance of prior relationships. On the other hand, when the group is formed, the members, as a new group, have a zero history which affords the department chair a modest opportunity to influence both productivity and satisfaction through maximizing the potential for group cohesiveness.
Dynamics.
In selecting committee members then, the goal is to assess each in terms of likely task and social contributions to the group. The department chair will be unable to control the group's emerging dynamics, yet should make informed guesses regarding likely task and social role performance. For example, while the search chair may be a person capable of several such role behaviors, the department chair might ask, who also might be good at organizing? Who might serve well as a critic--one willing to test assumptions and ideas? Who is good at getting others to compromise and harmonize? Who is effective in keeping folks on task? Who can manage details? Who is adept at relaxing folks and breaking tension? Who has a knack for drawing others out? Who is good at gathering and distilling information, suggesting direction, empowering others? In brief, the department chair needs to move beyond selection based only on expertise and consituency inclusiveness to consideration of the knowledge, skill, and ability needed within the committee as a decision making group, and then attempt to select colleagues accordingly.
Caveats.
First, department chairs need to recognize that the role behaviors they think one person may perform may not actually be performed by that individual. As a group needs a certain function performed, e.g., someone to suggest an agenda, people offer contributions which are accepted or rejected in part or whole. If the group accepts a given member's suggestion, it obviously reinforces such behavior and encourages that member to offer up other agenda-based suggestions. Conversely, the member who offers an allegedly humorous remark which fails to address the group's momentary need to reduce tension might be less inclined to try again later. One or more other members may then provide more acceptable tension relieving behaviors as required during the group's evolving dynamics.
A second caveat is that individuals are infinitely more complex than the behavioral roles suggested within the task and social dimensions of a small group. In turn, a chair cannot manipulate future behavior via selection of people based upon prior perceptions of a given individual's propensities towards certain role behaviors. And yet, it seems sensible and appropriate to maximize the possibilities that quality responses to both the task and social needs of the group will occur. For example, a search committee lacking a person likely to test assumptions and challenge suggestions might still accomplish its goal of recommending a hire, but one can only speculate with what loss of quality both in terms of process and final selection.
Conclusion
The selection of search committee members may be the most important part of the department chair's contribution to the hiring of a new colleague. The department chair needs to make decisions regarding the search chair, other consistuencies, size, and task and social dimensions of the committee as an emergent group. To the extent the department chair attends to such aspects, the committee’s charge and the department’s interests are more likely to be served.
REFERENCES
Bormann, E.G., & Bormann, N.C. (1992). Effective Small Group Communication. Edina, MN: Burgess Publishing.
Feild, H.S., & Gatewood, R.D. (1989). “Development of a selection interview: A job content strategy.” Eds. R.W. Eder and G.R. Ferris, The Employment Interview: Theory, Research, and Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marchese, Theordore J. & Lawrence, J.F. (1987). The Search Committee Handbook: A Guide to Recruiting Administrators. Washington D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.