Let’s say that a department chair (or dean or so forth) retires, which leaves the position open for a year while a search is conducted. An interim chair is named—we’ll call her Professor Patient—along with a search committee, which includes Professor Sneaky.
Patient declares that she has no interest in the permanent appointment, so the search committee undertakes a genuine national search. Somewhat methodically, Sneaky undermines every promising candidate. Then, suddenly, one of his best friends in the department declares that Sneaky should be the new chair, something that Sneaky clearly finds to be a fine idea. He openly campaigns for the job even as he continues to serve on the committee. Meanwhile, Patient changes her mind and begins her own campaign to be named permanent chair.
By the end of the search, the department is deeply divided, and neither colleague is named to the position. Another interim chair is named for the following year, even as a second search committee is impaneled, this time without Sneaky. The following year is a morass of hurt feelings and lost opportunities.
This little tale points out two relatively common problems: the search-committee member who wants the very position at hand, and the interim chair who decides late in the process to become a candidate.
I think it’s fine for an interim person to be a candidate for a position, as long as it’s clear that this is the case from the beginning. (Indeed, it’s one way that a “trial term” can be effected. But when an interim chair reverses course late in the process, it can create problems. The same problem occurs when a search-committee member decides to shape the search to his/her advantage, belatedly indicating an interest in the position.
Does your institution have guidelines that would prevent such convolutions? If not, do you think that such guidance would be helpful for avoiding conflicts?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
4 Responses to Search-Committee Intrigues
profmomof1 - February 9, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Wow, this sounds familiar. I was a finalist once for a Chair position at another university. After putting time into providing all the info they wanted, two campus visits, etc., suddenly, the search was declared halted and a member of the search committee, who had not applied or been a candidate, was appointed to the job. Another byproduct of this type of behavior — in the department’s future searches, high-quality potential candidates will not want to have anything to do with you!
tuxthepenguin - February 10, 2011 at 10:14 am
Something similar can be done by the dean to get the chair of her choice. The dean can appoint someone to serve as interim chair. Then the next year she can say that the interim chair (that she handpicked) is doing a wonderful job, so it doesn’t matter who the department wants, the interim chair is allowed to stay on.
kdckulp - February 10, 2011 at 1:03 pm
I am president of an executive search firm that focuses on academic search. We have had the pleasure of working with a number of excellent search committee chairs over the years but sometimes we have seen hidden agendas arise. When a search firm is involved the chances that hidden agendas can prove fatal for the search are greatly reduced in part because we can help the beleaguered chair swim against the undercurrents! Most academic and business searches don’t involve a search firm because we generally are retained to help a university complete a senior level assignment. Search committee chairs are generally well-respected experienced members of the university community.
The best defense against hidden agendas is project transparency. A good chair should make it easy for committee members to understand the parameters of the search including the names of any internal candidates—-right from the get go—of the search.
Agreement and transparency around the search process brings hidden agendas out in the open –even when the sneaky committee member—prefers the shadows. So for searches that don’t involve the help of a professional search consultant my suggestion to the chair would be to agree with the provost on the key deliverables of the search/by when and to ask internal candidates to come forward within the time frame set forth in the charge of the provost. Internal candidates always enrich the search process and help build positive morale in the university community when they are treated in the right way.
oscarwilde - February 10, 2011 at 5:19 pm
I was recruited by a search firm to apply for a position as dean. The firm representatives assured me repeatedly that the interim dean was NOT a candidate. Nevertheless, that is the person who was ultimately appointed.