next »

[aprilmay]

We hired spouses into the same department. I'm trying not to be identified here, so I'll call the person we initially wanted to hire A and the spousal hire B.

We advertised for A's position, but then A wouldn't come without B. I think B was a good hire, and I was very supportive of bringing B on board. In general most of the department was enthusiastic about B, with a few people lukewarm and none opposed. So it started like a perfect spousal hire situation.

A is doing quite well, but B's case is shakier. By shakier, I mean that the case is poor, but not horrible, and they probably should not get tenure. Several of us feel very pushed, by A, to tenure B. It is very uncomfortable to have A sitting there telling us how great B is, and it also doesn't help to have a A as a coauthors on many of B's papers. A has more papers independent from B. B does have some papers independent from A. I don't think A is trying to be pushy, but of course wants to make B's case. A does get defensive if anyone questions B's case.

I am sympathetic to the two career dilemma and this initially looked like a fantastic situation where we'd have 2 great people joining us. But what in the world do we do now? I don't want A to hate me if I vote no on B, and it seems clear that A would hold a grudge forever (and who can blame them really). And I definitely don't want to vote yes on B just to appease A.

Many of us feel the same way. I'm also concerned that this situation is going to sour the department towards spousal hires in the future.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[systeme_d_]

Can't you have secret ballots at the departmental P&T vote? 

And shouldn't spouse A be recused from the P&T committee out of basic ethics?

[aprilmay]

Secret ballots is a great idea. In the past, we have not done this and the discussion of a person's case is not anonymous, but the ballots would help.
I don't think A plans to recuse him/herself, though I wish they would. This is the first spousal hire situation we've had in a long time so nobody knows what to do.
Thanks for the suggestions.

[georgiaprof]

When I was an undergrad, we had a prof who was terrible teacher.  The story goes that hu was a spousal hire.  Like yours, they (supposedly) wanted A who wouldn't come without B. Then when the tenure decision was to be made - A wouldn't take it without B getting it too. Then, once A & B were happily tenured, A quit.  And they were stuck with B. 

Urban legends are wonderful, aren't they...

[drpud]

How soon is the vote? Has anyone (other than A) sat down with B and had a long chat about tenure review and departmental expectations, etc.? Why is B not concerned and appraoching the key people on his or her own, independtly of A? I honestly feel a bit sorry for B, because it sounds like A is making things difficult for them both, but I do think B needs to  take charge of his or her career and stop letting A wear the professional pants 24-7.

[drpud]

Sorry, in a rush, should have used the spellcheck in post above . . . or at least demonstrated basic spelling skills.

[locutus]

Several of us feel very pushed, by A, to tenure B. It is very uncomfortable to have A sitting there telling us how great B is, and it also doesn't help to have a A as a coauthors on many of B's papers. A has more papers independent from B. B does have some papers independent from A. I don't think A is trying to be pushy, but of course wants to make B's case. A does get defensive if anyone questions B's case.

I'm glad that you're sympathetic to the dilemma, but this couple doesn't seem to be handling things well. Co-authoring pre-tenure is not a great idea because of the independence issue. They should have known upon being hired that they'd need to make sure each had a strong case independent of the other. Certainly A has no business twisting people's arms regarding B.

[larryc]

Time for some deanly intervention to remove A from the process.

[mozman]

B should absolutely be independent from A.  And A should absolutely recuse themselves from all tenure discussions of B.

However, neither of those things are happening.  The thing you need to ask yourselves as a department is "How much do you really want "A"?

If you really, REALLY love A, you better suck it up and tenure B, no matter how weak.  If you don't, A and B will leave.  Consider B as part of A's retention package and move on.

Or deny B and let the chips fall where they may.

Your choice.

[august_leo]

Time for some deanly intervention to remove A from the process.

Chime

[glowdart]

Time for some deanly intervention to remove A from the process.

Seriously.  Do you have handbook language which prevents such situations? 

[aprilmay]

To answer some posts:

There is no handbook information to guide such situations. There should be.

The vote is still far away although A has started the campaign early. B has been more quiet although is overly confidant that he/she deserves tenure.

I wouldn't tenure B to keep A no matter how much I like A.

I agree that someone does need to sit down with B, and perhaps A, but nobody wants to do it.

[offthemarket]

B needs to have a sit-down with the chair or a senior faculty member who has been mentoring B.  Previous reviews have pointed out problems, and set benchmarks, presumably?

And it should be clear with policy that A has no influence on B's case, and the same for B having an influence on A.  They should have no involvement, and step out of the room when meetings happen involving tenure bids for the other.

In practical terms, just like when you hired A you needed to hire B, if you tenure A then you'll need to tenure B (to keep A). 

[mouseman]

I am somebody who is a big proponent of spousal hires, however, B had 5-6 years to demonstrate that the spousal hire was justified, and was not able to do so.  End of story.  A threatens to leave?  Who says that A won't leave after B get tenure?  Is A worth two lines?  Have him/her sign an agreement that B's tenure is contingent on A staying.
Otherwise, I would bid them both a fond farewell, and good luck getting two tenured positions somewhere else, considering B's record.

[aprilmay]

You are right - if we want to keep A, we may have to tenure B. But I won't lower the tenure standards for B to keep A and am getting annoyed that A is basically asking us to do just that. I'd rather let A leave if he/she wants to. It's just not fair to everyone else for B to skate through because their spouse did a good job, plus we get stuck with someone we never would have tenured otherwise in B. This is the nightmare situation that makes people shy away from spousal hires although I still think they generally work. Losing A is a big loss as A is outstanding.