Previous |
Next 'Polarizing' Chancellor at U. of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Quits After Hit-and-Run Incident |
April 24, 2009, 05:07 PM ET
Preparing for Next Year's Searches
In a meeting today with one of our deans, he and I began to talk seriously about an upcoming faculty search in his school, one we want to start right away in the fall. It’s hard to think about next year in the midst of the utter chaos of the end of this one, but it’s probably a good idea for both hirers and potential candidates to spend at least a little time planning their searches.
In this instance, we already have an approximate job description, as the search will be to replace a longtime faculty member who is retiring at the end of next spring. But in a larger context, the faculty in the school in question needs to think very hard about what it expects of this new colleague beyond the basics of teaching, service, and research. In a small institution like mine, each faculty member can have a significant impact on his or her program, and even on the university as a whole, and this impact can occur quickly.
So faculty expectations for a new colleague should be set sooner rather than later. But here’s the rub: Those expectations may be beyond the scope of the job ad, leaving no imperative to agree on them early in the search process. While we advertise in general terms about our basic expectations, if the school’s faculty members want someone to do something very particular (for example, serve a key role in a specific campus initiative, or contribute some specific expertise to a project), we may or may not advertise that priority.
Why not? If we define a position too narrowly, particularly in an institution like mine where all faculty are on some fundamental level generalists, we may prematurely shrink the applicant pool. And given the shortage of academic positions available right now, it’s not unusual for internal priorities to be put on the back burner when an exceptional candidate with different interests comes along.
But hirers make a big mistake by not agreeing on such matters ahead of time. Sadly, the proliferation of stories about search committees fighting over program priorities in front of candidates suggests that many institutions fail to reach even a rough consensus about what they want — both the nonnegotiables and the simple priorities — at the outset of the search process. That’s fair to no one and greatly increases the risk of a failed search and all its attendant wasted time and money.
On Hiring is The Chronicle's blog about the ins and outs of college hiring, with articles and advice from around the Web.
Add Your Comment
Commenting is closed.