next »

[skeptic]

(NB:  I'm sure this general topic--"fit" as an employment criterion--has been addressed before, but I'm interested in reactions to the specific points raised in an article in today's CHE by Dennis M. Barden.)

Barden basically employs a cost-benefit analysis in favor of "fit" as a legitimate employment concern:

COSTS of considering "fit" during the hiring process
--As a standard to which applicants are to be held, it's vague:  "it can mean so many different things."
--It can "be misused to bias a selection," including the possibility of "actionable bias" on the basis of race, gender, etc.
--It can "be used purposefully or tacitly to ensure the maintenance of the status quo."

BENEFITS of considering "fit" during the hiring process
--Without "fit" as a catch-all, an institution might have no choice but to hire an a**hole with impeccable credentials, such as the individual described at the beginning of the article.
--Without recourse to "fit," hiring committtees have no choice but to act as robots, slavishly following a rigid set of numerical "objective" criteria.

As my summary of Barden's points may suggest, I'm not too persuaded by his line of reasoning.  I hasten to add that I'm not necessarily against "fit" as a criterion, used in some way, but surely this is a lame response to the ways "fit" can be (and are) abused--"Sure, it might lead to bias and stagnancy in academic employment, but you don't want us to have to hire an a**hole, do you?"

So I'm wondering, is there a better way to defend "fit"?  How might an institution avoid the negative aspects of "fit" and still manage to hire intelligently given its particular culture?  How can a hiring committee screen out the jerks while also conducting a process that is transparent and objective--that relies on criteria that can be articulated openly (or even articulated not-so-openly)?  What is a proper balance between being objective and being flexible in hiring decisions?