When you serve on a search committee, you tend to believe your own eyes and assume that if you have read candidates' files, or met them in person and felt drawn to them, their references will confirm your strong positive impressions. But it doesn't always work out that way.
On one search committee I worked with, the members were entranced by a candidate whose references raised a series of red flags. It was a great disappointment, but the concerns were too serious to be set aside, and as we got to know the candidate better, the committee began to see the very concerns mentioned by the references. I've seen other instances where the remarks from references were more subtle: A reference might say "he just seems to have an underlying sadness" and that small comment is enough to remind committee members of a reservation that they hadn't thought was worth expressing.
Last month, in my first column on negative comments from references, I looked at how candidates should deal with such unexpected criticisms. This month, I'd like to consider the issue from the perspective of the search-committee members. How should you think about negative remarks in evaluating a candidate's suitability? What should you do when you sense that one of your candidates has a checkered past or a difficult personality?
Confronted by such criticisms, your first step as a committee member should be to decide whether the candidate is otherwise attractive. If he or she has insufficient academic accomplishments or limited administrative experience, you don't need to look much further. Just drop the candidate from consideration.
But what if the candidate is otherwise strong?
Committees need to recognize that every candidate is flawed in some way, and that even the most effective administrators are likely to be criticized if they do anything at all. Many highly regarded administrators have, at one time or another, received votes of no confidence, left positions prematurely under duress, and earned the enmity of key constituencies. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are unsuitable for another administrative post.
However, if your committee is going to recommend the appointment of someone with a somewhat controversial background, you want to be very sure that you have seen all of the skeletons in the candidate's closet, and that you won't be surprised by any the morning after the appointment is announced. Hiring committees that are under increasing pressure to complete a search quickly may cut corners when it comes time to check references -- a very unwise economy.
Those making reference calls should also be wary of their own distorted perceptions and inconsistent standards. If you are checking references for a candidate who is very compelling, you may be blind to the subtle warnings. Or, if your pool of candidates is limited, you may want to hear only good things about the single reasonable prospect who remains under consideration.
Candidates who are known personally to members of the search committee may seem to be above reproach, but you should impose the same standards of reference-checking on such candidates as on any others. Similarly, reference callers who are acquainted with the person providing the reference may place undue confidence in the candor of the evaluation. Normally a reference from someone you know is more reliable, but few people enjoy giving negative references, and you can occasionally misplace your trust, so be sure to validate claims with other references.
The committee will want to appraise the criticism that references are offering. If the negative remarks turn out to be true, how serious would that be? Would it make the candidate unqualified to be selected? Members of search committees tend to view all flaws as fatal flaws, forgetting that everyone who is already at the institution is imperfect in some way yet still manages to do some good work.
Consider whether the criticism stems from a specific situation (such that the behavior of the candidate would be different if the situation were different) or from a character trait (unlikely to change simply as a result of being in a different environment). You will probably be more concerned about the latter than the former.
And, consider the source: Does the critic seems reliable (i.e., able to substantiate the criticism with examples; in a position to have directly observed the bad behavior; not likely to have been the beneficiary or victim of the situation and thereby probably not emotionally involved)? If so, you might take the information more seriously than if the critic lacks credibility.
As Chuck Bunting of A.T. Kearney Executive Search, pointed out in a session at the American Council on Education meeting last January, some of the very people providing the negative references may themselves be seriously flawed administrators. Some may be so agitated by the situation they are describing that their credibility is damaged.
The candidate may have provided you with a context that is convincing and that leads you to doubt the reference providing the negative criticism. On the other hand, you may decide that no matter what the candidate has told you, the criticism is too damaging to be overlooked.
Watch for a pattern of criticism; for example, previous supervisors or subordinates all saying the same kind of thing about a candidate. Check whether a problem occurring in the distant past has recurred more recently.
You might also watch for a pattern of positive and negative comments brought back by the committee members making the reference calls. Some reference callers may be more astute questioners or listeners than others. Some may be predisposed to want to support or undermine a particular candidate.
Interviews with references won't be your only source of information. Most search committees complement such calls with database searches, reviewing Web sources, newspaper articles, and even university-senate minutes. But I would urge committees to exercise great caution in evaluating such information. Use it like a suggestion box to indicate areas the search committee needs to explore in more depth. Newspaper articles can indicate patterns of behavior. Similar criticisms in each of the candidate's three previous jobs are probably a matter for concern, but a single negative article may only reflect the views of a rogue reporter and it should be verified before being taken too seriously.
In short, don't rely on database reports without some validation from other sources.
One of the most difficult situations for a search committee to deal with is the case of contradictory references -- some that are glowing and others that are seriously damaging. I have seen cases, for example, in which very specific behaviors are described in opposite ways by different but equally credible references.
I have no single strategy for resolving such inconsistencies, but in general I would be inclined to look to other features of the candidate first, using any negative concern that emerges as a single "minus" in a complex equation. If a candidate is only moderately strong in other, less ambiguous features, I would probably put that candidate aside more quickly. If the candidate is otherwise strong, I would be more likely to seek additional references and additional opportunities to interact with the candidate, whose character may reveal itself more fully, for better or worse, over a longer period of time.
For search-committee members, the most important lesson to be learned is to make as many calls as you can, both to listed references and to others, and to spend as much time with the candidate as you can, until you are satisfied that the persong will not bring the flaws of the past to the job on your campus.
