A critical step for search committees is reading résumés. But what's the best way to do so, and how can you stay focused on what the committee is looking for?
Materials from candidates can be voluminous, and committee members need appropriate and efficient strategies for reviewing them. Readers will differ in their reading strategies, but here are some suggestions that you may find helpful.
By the way, candidates should think hard about these suggestions, too. Always remember that the reader has many résumés to consider and is looking for some key information. You should construct your materials to make that information accessible.
Let's assume that a search committee has carefully discussed and agreed on the qualifications needed for the position. The items listed below are a series of filters. For each file you read, consider whether the candidate "passes" your review. If so, move on to the next section.
If the candidate doesn't "pass" your review on the first section, you can safely put the file aside since the basic criteria haven't been met. This saves time without losing strong candidates, and it allows you to spend more time on detailed reviews of the stronger candidates.
Different members of the committee bring different kinds of knowledge to the process of reviewing files. Some will be more familiar with academic issues, some with external relations, and so on. If you feel unable to evaluate a candidate in a particular area of activity, another committee member will probably be able to fill in those blanks. Also remember that many important areas will have to be explored through interviews and reference calls; the cover letter and résumé are only one source of information.
Review the career path (usually on the first page of the résumé).
-
Is there enough experience in positions that prepare someone to do the job? In a presidential search, for example, you would look for senior management experience.
-
Watch for patterns of repeated rapid job changes (e.g., a series of positions at different institutions lasting no more than two years each), and make sure there are good explanations for the changes.
Consider credentials.
-
Look for credentials appropriate to the job you're filling. Presidents, vice presidents (including academic and student-affairs) and deans usually need doctorates; financial administrators may need an M.B.A., etc.
-
>Make some preliminary qualitative evaluations (e.g., the quality of the institution from which the candidate's degrees were earned; the location and type of publications; the reputation of the candidate's current or recent institutions). Each institution will have different expectations; you'll be looking for candidates who achieve excellence in the ways that are important at your institution.
-
Special note to faculty members: Keep in mind the difference between evaluating candidates for faculty positions (or even faculty-based positions like dean) and candidates for other administrative positions. Success in one domain doesn't necessarily lead to success in the other, and vice versa, and the criteria are not necessarily the same.
Evaluate past experiences and accomplishments.
-
Look for information about particular experiences that the search committee has defined as important. This will probably be in the cover letter. Remember that the best predictor of future success is past performance, so look for information about what was actually done, not just ideas. At the same time, look to see whether the candidate seems to have any new ideas that he or she could bring to your institution.
-
Does the candidate have the necessary balance of familiarity with broad conceptual issues (e.g., mission and vision) and operational issues (e.g., managing the budget, revising the curriculum)?
-
In what ways has the candidate contributed significantly to shaping the direction or character of the unit he or she has been working in?
-
Does the candidate have an affinity for the institutional mission and the ability to convey it to others?
-
How well do the candidate's current or former institutions fit with your institution in terms of type (public or private), approximate size, religious affiliation or values-orientation, Carnegie category, and perhaps region or location? Each reader will need to decide how important those factors are. Candidates don't have to come from institutions that are precisely like yours, but some general similarity may be helpful.
Look for some of the subtler characteristics.
-
Examine the candidate's basic qualities -- is she articulate, accurate (with spelling, grammar, and punctuation), and consistent?
-
What sort of management style do you see reflected? Is there a sense of inclusiveness, an openness in sharing information, and an awareness of all segments of the institution?
-
Are there statements that lead you to believe that this candidate would "fit in" at your institution, and would share the values of the institution?
If a file has passed all these filters, you should be looking at a fairly strong candidate. Once you have completed a first reading of all the candidate files, you can go back over those that passed these filters and focus on a more-careful reading of the strongest candidates.
