Many people make mistakes in their administrative careers, and many do the right thing in trying circumstances and still get judged harshly for it. Years may pass, but memories of those events can linger on in the references provided by colleagues.
How can candidates deal with the criticisms that may find their way into references? And how should search committees think about those negative remarks in evaluating a candidate's suitability for another position? In this column, I'll try to answer the first question, and next month, I'll discuss the issue from the perspective of the search committee.
It's very common for search committees to hear negative comments about candidates, even from those people listed as references by the candidates. Although some committee members think that fear of litigation has made references reluctant to say anything beyond the most bland and benign comments, in my experience, many people are still willing to be remarkably candid.
That's partly because some candidates are not very astute about whom they select as references; they fail to see situations clearly enough to know who will be supportive and who will be critical. (An administrator once said to me, "I don't know why he keeps listing me as a reference," and proceeded to have virtually nothing good to say about the candidate.)
Negative remarks are also common because even allies and supporters may feel that it is a matter of professional integrity to answer questions candidly and fully, and to disclose areas of trouble as well as areas of strength.
Critical comments may be easier to avoid in a written reference that can be edited than in a conversation that is relatively spontaneous -- and that is one of the reasons that most search consultants rely on conversations with references rather than letters from them. Once a search committee moves off the list of references you have provided and, presumably with your permission, begins to call others for their observations about you, the likelihood of criticism increases.
Let me offer some examples of what I mean by negative comments. I'm certainly thinking of something more than "she works too hard" or "he is a perfectionist" -- answers typically offered in response to questions about a candidate's weaknesses. I am thinking of situations in which your behavior was called into serious question as unwise or even unethical. But I'm also thinking of character traits you may possess; for example, when someone describes you as authoritarian, disorganized, or unable to collaborate with others.
How do you know that colleagues are giving negative references for you? You have to listen and watch with great care for the signals. Do you typically get dropped from searches for which you are qualified, just after the point at which references are called? When you asked colleagues to serve as a reference, did they agree enthusiastically or did they seem somewhat reluctant, initially suggesting that you use someone else? If you are suspicious of one of your references, you can ask the search consultant or committee chair where your application fell short. They aren't likely to point the finger of blame at a single individual, but they may find a way to give you a hint. And they may come right out and say, "Perhaps you should reconsider your list of references."
Once you get the sense that your references are making negative remarks about you, what can you do? If you have been part of seriously ugly situations -- apparent fiscal impropriety, sexual harassment claims, votes of no confidence, termination from previous positions -- I strongly urge you to disclose the situation to the search committee before the members learn it from a reference or a database search. You might allude to it in your cover letter, suggest that your nominator mention it and try to dispel concern about it, discuss it with the search consultant or search chair, or mention it to the search committee at an early meeting -- offering to provide more detail if the panel wants it.
A search consultant summarized this approach by saying, "You want to put this difficult issue on the table, and then you want to get it off the table" -- providing enough information so that it doesn't haunt subsequent consideration of your candidacy.
Early disclosure demonstrates your commitment to candor and your ability to face your past in a reasonably dispassionate way. It also allows you to describe the situation in ways that enable the search committee to see it in context and to see that you have learned something from it. For example, in describing a budget controversy, you might explain that while faculty positions had to be eliminated because of enormous financial pressures, the process of cost reduction became politicized in ways that you now realize might have been avoided had you taken a different approach.
In addition to telling that story yourself, you should be prepared to offer the names of others who observed the situation and have insight into it, and who can provide an objective appraisal of your role. Those reports will be essential as the search-committee members attempt to sort out their own view of what happened, and to decide whether they want to pursue your candidacy.
If respected colleagues would tar you with adjectives like authoritarian, disorganized, arrogant, lazy, or uncollaborative, your approach might be different. For one thing, you should think about making some serious changes in how you behave.
If you have already begun a systematic effort to be better organized, more open with information, or a better partner with your peers, you may need to stay in your current position long enough for the "new you" to be recognized. Again, you will want to offer the names of people who have observed your evolving personal qualities and who can say convincingly, "He used to be difficult to work with but in the last couple of years he has really become a leader in partnerships with the other deans."
An alternative approach is to seek positions at institutions where your personal traits will not be viewed as objectionable. For example, a strongly entrepreneurial leader who took big risks and occasionally had big failures (as well as some big successes) might leave a trail of negative references at a very traditional institution. That same person might be a great success at a feisty and agile institution struggling to succeed in a highly competitive market.
I would also say frankly that some less appealing personal qualities may be accepted in people who have enormous strengths of other kinds -- the outstanding scholar who seems to be able to get away with arrogance, the great fund raiser whose disorganization is tolerated. So if you can't change your character, you can become really outstanding at key aspects of your job, and perhaps some of your less-desirable attributes will be overlooked.
It is sad but true that some people do not recover from the mistakes of their past. The voices of critics can be compelling, and you may find that, despite your best efforts, you will not have the professional career you had hoped for. At that point, it may be time to give up your original career goal and chart a new path.
Still, don't give up too soon. Time is probably on your side; as the years pass, you may have new accomplishments that will overshadow the old problems, and your critics may forget, or fade away, or simply become less relevant.
