March 28, 2008
Settling for 'Safe'
A friend of mine likes to say that first-rate people hire other first-rate people, but second-rate people hire third-rate people.
Over my career, in several places of employment, I’ve seen this observation played out a number of times. Administrators who feel threatened by “strong” underlings hire weak persons to work beneath them. Complacent faculty-search committees recommend weak candidates who will not “shake things up.”
I know of one vice president for academic affairs who finally had his fill of weak recommendations, so he instructed all search committees to send him a list of finalists for each position and HE selected the candidates for on-campus invitations! On the other side of the campus, faculty senates seem to spring into action in the wake of weak administrative appointments, trying to gain a stronger voice in those searches. Perhaps the most maddening situation, however, is if you are a member of a department or are an administrator who works in the midst of searches that keep making safe choices.
Can any of you cite examples (no names of places or persons, please!) of this kind of thinking on administrative hires?
What examples can you cite for faculty hires?
For both cases, what solutions can be offered to prevent this kind of wrong-headed thinking? How can search committees be encouraged to aim high in their selections?
By Gene C. Fant Jr. | Posted on Friday March 28, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Tenure: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?
Next: Bullies in the Academic Workplace, and Other Reading
Search committees typically try to do the politically correct thing in their recommendation of a candidate. The comittee members all try to determine who the appropraite vp,dean or president wants and they will always vote in that direction. Otherwise, the members let the strongest member of the committee decide who they are voting for in their selection. Let’s be realistic, in so many cases the chosen candidate is placed in a pool with others that are clearly not as qualified,so the pool is set.
— Brent Mar 27, 04:34 PM #
Hiring committees do often settle on safe candidates, but not always because they feel threatened. More often, it’s because two stronger candidates have split the committee into factions, and thus the safe candidate becomes the compromise.
— Elaine Mar 27, 04:36 PM #
I’m amazed at how f-ed up most departments and institutions are if this is generally true. Nothing in this rings true of my department’s hiring practices in my decade of experience participating in the search process from the other side.
As for administrative searches, I only have indirect experience, but the one bad hire in my time at my institution was not predictable during the search, and all the others were great choices.
Is this dilemma real? And where is it really happening? How widespread is it?
— The Constructivist Mar 28, 04:06 AM #
As an aspiring professor, with years of adjunct teaching experience, I have seen such “safe” hiring practices. I chose to complete a full career “in the field” then complete my Ph.D. Upon my foray into the academic hiring facade my years of professional experience and qualifications were ignored in favor of another younger candidate with 5 years of “professional” experience and one who had been taught by the very members who sat on the hiring committee! My humble observations revealed that the qualifications of this applicant greatly exceeded those of the committee members. Everyone above the selection committee seemed very favorable to my application. Being from the real world, it seems odd that professors dictate who is hired rather than “management.” I wonder how many times theory heavy committee members feel inadequate and threatened by applicants with more experience than they possess?
— Disillusioned Mar 28, 07:04 AM #
The members of committees do not always ask, “Which candidate would be best for the university” but rather “Which candidate would do the most for people like me?” Since the committees now often consist of representatives of ‘political’ constituencies you get lowest-common-denominator appointees. Also, academics are bred to be risk-averse; they then do what they are trained to do.
— Observer Mar 28, 08:41 AM #
I’m at a university that for geographic and institutional reasons might have a hard time attracting top-shelf candidates. If we make offers to the “best” candidates, we spend a month or two in negotiations, and then find ourselves on square one when our top three candidates take jobs at elite schools.
For mediocre schools, there is a fine line between “safe” and “realistic.”
— Reggie Mar 28, 09:24 AM #
At my school, the search committee forwards their finalists to the VPAA, who then chooses the candidate who doesn’t threaten HER. So it goes both ways.
— Pippin Mar 28, 10:46 AM #
I want to confirm whar Reggie said. For many programs, it is unrealistic to go after the stars of the hiring season, since they will likely have offers from more prestigious places.
— Michael Mar 28, 12:02 PM #
My experience as a committee member as well as candidate for several hires (I am now a full-time faculty member) suggests that often, hiring committees do not possess the expertise to know who the best candidate would be, so a less than adequate common sense notion of the specific sub-field is adopted. The candidate that fits this best is then hired. I am also aware of ‘sham’ hiring practices, where a favoured candidate is determined in advance and the hiring process used to justify the choice. It also does not help to have an ‘interdisciplinary’ hiring committee, as this simply leads to confusion, internecine conflict, and compromise. All of this, among other things, leads me to firmly believe that there are insufficient checks and balances in universities and that university governance is far from democratic.
— Jon Mar 28, 12:21 PM #
I’ve worked in two departments, full-time, and I can safely say at this point in my career that the role of personality trumps nearly every other consideration. People will hire new colleagues who do not threaten them with new ideas, or an exciting research agenda that will shine more brightly than theirs. First-hand I have seen committees vote for the person they know the best, or like the best, the “devil you know,” even if that devil is just a few years from retirement with a single book to their names.
Certainly regional considerations play a role … but it’s not like the Iveys don’t hire this way too. I find it absolutely horrible when Iveys launch major searches, and then acedemically inbreed. Gone are the days when Yale would hire a Harvard PhD or vice versa. It’s as though they’re too lazy to even pretend anymore. They just hire their own product, right off the assembly line. That, to my mind, speaks of a state of corruption no less rank than what happens at second- and third-rate places, except they presume the world won’t notice.
— Johnnie Mar 28, 01:09 PM #
This process starts at the top. Asking for the best advocate/hire “for students” and for “their learning” and their “learning experience and creative environment” is essential. The leader’s visit or training/ sharing session with search committees followed by reality presentations by applicants would help. There is always the “stuff the ballot box” approach to stacking a search process but seeking 3-5 best ones plus “reopening” the search process by the leader will help immensely.
— Gordon Mar 28, 01:45 PM #
In response to 3 above (posted by a SUNY professor), please consult the past decade or so of the history of SUNY chancellor appointees (or many, if not, most SUNY campus president appointments).
The CHE has covered (in varying degrees of detail) the multiple internal “musical chairs” of SUNY’s chancellorship appointments. Usually preceded by authorizations of higher salary parameters, world-wide searches in SUNY often result in the “discovery” that the “best” candidate is already “inside” the system.
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate Mar 29, 08:44 AM #
As a PhD on the job market for the first time, can someone please tell me how I can be the “safe” candidate? What types of qualities do “safe” candidates have?
— jessica Mar 29, 10:46 AM #
Only an “insider” at each institution would know.
But you can tell a lot by doing some research on the department, the administration, et al. involved in the decision-making.
Their faculty are under-published: Talk about your love of teaching.
No co-curricular activities listed in the catalog?
Talk about how you’d love to organize a student film series, etc.
No Ivy in the pedigrees of your future colleagues? If you’re from Ivy, talk about how you hated the haughty wimps….
Start training yourself to “appear to be” rather than “be” — and then keep that up for seven years.
And then, if you’re in a tenure-stream-lined position, you will not only “be” a “safe” professor — you’ll know how to hire and train the next “safe” candidate, too.
If there are any tenure-stream-lined positions left, that is.
— Anti-hypocrisy Advocate Mar 29, 12:01 PM #
I truly believe I have the best example, I am 6.4 and 275 pounds African American male with a P.h.D.from a carngie I research insitution. I have dedicated myself to the academics; however, I have been put in horrfic situation because of my height, and often at first look, I appear to be an jog. Therefore, I am not taking serious pertaining to my academic capabilities nor my admininstrative experience. It is not fair to judge a person and be atimindated by a perso size or stature. I have great skills, and knowledge of the academy; however, I am not given the same consideration as others, which I truely believe this is the same example in the above caption. I hope professionals stop judging people predicated on looks, weak people cannot and will not help change this world which is FLAT.
— lauer Mar 29, 10:38 PM #
I truly believe I have the best example, I am 6.4 and 275 pounds African American male with a P.h.D.from a carngie I research insitution. I have dedicated myself to academics; however, I have been put in horrfic situation because of my height, and often at first look, I appear to be an jog. Therefore, I am not taking serious pertaining to my academic capabilities nor my admininstrative experience. It is not fair to judge a person and be intimindated by a person size or stature. I have great skills, and knowledge of the academy; however, I am not given the same consideration as others, which I truely believe this is the same example in the above caption. I hope professionals stop judging people predicated on looks, weak people cannot and will not help change this world which is FLAT.
— lauer Mar 29, 10:42 PM #
The questions posted above may show a lack of understanding about the market. With that said, I can only speak about the composition/literature field. Most of us are trained, or so we think, to be researchers, but many colleges and universities need teachers. For example, many small schools need good “generalists,” people who can teach a wide range of courses. These schools do not need specialists because a specialist can only teach, maybe, one or two course sections per semester. In 98% of all institutions, teaching IS important, so you better be able to relate to your students, teach a 4/4 course load, and do a wide range of other activities. Most students are not “elites” and will struggle to understand the terminology you are using, and may struggle to understand the reading material you are giving them. During an interview, if you spend too much time gabbing about your research, you will not get the position. It all depends on what we mean by “first-rate” or “third-rate” folks. First, we have to establish what criteria we are using, and criteria will vary from institution to institution. Most of the above comments imply a one-size-fits-all approach. Research folks are the best and teaching folks are fakes. But that is hardly true. There are those of us who love to teach, and we do some research and writing also. Is it possible then that those who have stronger teaching records or training are “third rate” when those who have strong research records are “first rate?” If so, this is quite problematic. The academic job market is very complex, and I have little doubt that some very good people get passed up unjustly, humans are subjective creatures after all, but many institutions look for the following: a member who can relate to students and faculty well, a member who knows his/her audience when writing a cover letter for the position, and a member who takes teaching very seriously. My first question when screening applications is “Why is this person applying at our institution?” If you cover letter is over two pages long and you ramble on about your research, your letter will see the trash can. I do not care what school you are from. You better have a convincing answer.
— Mike Mar 30, 08:53 PM #
Mike – excellent point.
I’m not saying the search process is perfect, but in seven searches at three different universities, I have never seen a rigged search, never seen a committee lace the applicant pool with losers so the Chosen One gets the job, or choose a candidate they don’t like because they think the Dean will.
At times this sounds like either those who have not yet landed a job explaining that it is because they are too good, or the Ivy League crowd complaining that they can’t catch a break.
— Reggie Mar 30, 09:59 PM #
I have now sat through half a dozen searches and I have found the most important part of the process is the demonstration part, that is, when the candidate has to deliver an actual lesson. All the interviewing and chit chat does not give a good indicator of skills, only the actual delivery. This is also true for reference letters— a waste. We want to see an actual online class created not what the reference tells us the candidate can do.
— Recruiter Mar 31, 12:30 AM #
Most of the problems I have seen were more along the lines of individuals having agendas (hire someone in my field, diversify the faculty, etc) but I do have a personal experience along the lines of the post.
I was passed over for a job once because my research was too good. I was also the stronger candidate in teaching – the person they hired had no teaching experience, and I had strong teaching evaluations. The existing faculty members wanted to keep the status quo. Those with a teaching orientation didn’t want someone coming in and making them look bad when they did their annual review and had done nothing in terms of research.
— me Mar 31, 09:33 AM #
I have a TT job and I’ve been on 4 search committees in the past 5 years, including one stint as chair. The results of each search probably depend on the department, but my experience in a weaker department is that the committee doesn’t know what markers would indicate a “first rate” hire, nor do they want to risk the reality of a “first rate” candidate turning them down. Our motto here is to achieve 100% hiring of our top candidate. Makes it difficult to hire truly “first rate” candidates. And I interpret “first rate” to mean for our specific institution, recognizing that all candidates are not equally “first rate” at all institutions.
— on the TT Mar 31, 11:18 AM #
My experience is not that corruption always prevails, or that the weaker candidate will always get the job. I have been on committees where all the candidates are unknowns, and so the “devil you know” factor does not apply.
But I have also been on committees where the result has, in fact, been foretold. If the people making such prearrangement don’t fess up or make clear declarative statements that they are engaging in corrupt behavior, one can nonetheless discern it when it happens. If “Reggie” has yet to experience this, it might be because he’s at a school where such habits do not prevail. If so, Reggie, take stock of your good fortune. Lots of us have experienced this; such observations are not born of a grudge at not having gotten the job “we deserved.”
If the collective experience is not a uniform one, that hardly disproves that corruption takes place – only that different circumstances provide for different outcomes, even when everything else – members of the hiring committee, etc – remains unchanged. In general, it seems that when a factor other than merit can enter the equation, it will.
I agree with # 14. Check out the credentials of the people in the department; see what kinds of things they write about themselves. If you’re getting the feelingn that the school in N. Dakota has been hiring people who just so happen to come from N. Dakota, then you had better bet they’re interested in retention hiring rather than quality hiring.
— Smithley Mar 31, 12:42 PM #
Lauer—Is it possible that you are being judged for your grammar and spelling skills before people even see you? Check out your local writing center and have people take you more seriously—perhaps it is not your height or race.
— kriminy Mar 31, 01:53 PM #
Sometimes it seems that I was only invited to job talks in order to fill an empty slot next to the predetermined winner of the interview. Of course, it didn’t help that once my car was hit from behind on the way to the interview, and I gave my presentation with Starbucks all over my slacks. Maybe I should have mentioned what happened but the committee seemed tense, as usual. Knowing that a candidate has never held a full-time position, committees ought to give interviewees a break and act more as mentors. Once a prof picked me up from the hotel in an 80s beater and acted really casual. Later he tried to “destroy” my presentation when I contacted him for a critique. The gig went to a local candidate who may have been better who knows. It’s so depressing to walk into a place that not only looks like a prison but could be a place of employment for years. I find it tough to hide my disappointment when interviewing at teaching institutions. I like lecturing but I’m not an entertainer. What good is the Socratic method, if the intellectual level of the discussion is reduced to a junior high school level? I may never get a TT because I don’t dazzle with funny glitzy presentations but my students learn(ed).
— R (DrRock) Apr 1, 02:46 PM #
I might be the odd duck to this post. I am a business industry professional who teaches as adjunct faculty. I teach busienss classes and my instruction is very practical, concise, and rich with business success examples from my professional experience, the local media and the newspaper.
The students need to learn and the academic community needs to support that. Period.
Students don’t need marketing theory, they need knowledge on how to market. Accountants need to know the rules for accounting, not theory on the whys and hows.
Nobody will hire a student for their theory. They will be hired for their skills and knowledge.
Institutions need to be more practical.
— Mark Apr 3, 11:18 AM #
Kriminy – Its sad that you consider yourself an educator or even educated.
— PCD Apr 3, 11:30 AM #
PCD, you astonish me, especially since you yourself make a blatant error. I agree with kriminy—too many errors in that post. Anyway, I’m very interested in this topic and would like to hear more. I’ve been rudely treated in interviews (by tenured women, for some reason). My publications cover a range of subjects and genres; they include top-tier literary journals; I have a first-tier public-school degree, yet I find it almost impossible to get an interview. Back to PCD, I notice that this program underlines typos, so …
— halcroves Apr 3, 03:36 PM #
To Dr. Rock,
I just did my first interview, and I did not get the position. However, I did dazzle them with a glitzy presentation with audio, video and websites. The search committee was laughing and smiling during my demonstration, and we chatted so much after the interview, that I had to excuse myself because the next candidate was coming in! My point is, I do not know why I was passed over, but showy presentations are definitely not a sure bet.
— Super Duper Apr 3, 06:04 PM #
Re: 28
Back in the dark ages when I was on the job market, I, too, had the experience of giving a dazzling interview.
I did not get the position, and I knew that even before I gave the presentation which dazzled. How?
Well, as a child learning to read, I once caught the teacher with her book upside down, reciting “See Spot run”, etc. When I told her the book was not in position, she announced “I can read upside down.” So I went home and practiced as a seven-year old.
Thus, just before the presentation, as I sat in the chairman’s office chatting with him, I glanced across the desk and read the names of the candidates for the position — upside down. Lo and behold, one of them was the spouse of a senior professor in the department.
Liberated from stress because I knew that the search was likely a fake, I gave a relaxed, stellar presentation.
I didn’t get the job — but neither did the spouse, BTW. After my presentation, the department was so split that the university hired four grad student assistants instead.
Sound familiar? Lesson for search committees: Planning for “safe” isn’t always as safe as it appears….
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate Apr 3, 10:19 PM #
I would welcome some advice. After my publisher lost his job and I lost my book contract, I was advised to resign my tenure-track position in a scholarly field (at a university not particularly friendly to the Humanities). I resigned and soon thereafter got a contract for a book of poems with a prestigious university press. The book came out, and I came down with a serious illness that kept me off the market. Thinking that I could still move over into creative writing (I had published a lot of poetry in first- and second-tier literary journals), I kept writing. I wrote a screenplay that is now under consideration in Hollywood and that has been noticed in international competitions. I wrote and published political essays, two scholarly articles, and more poems. Then I wrote a play and a libretto, which I’m trying to get produced. My FCEs and student evaluations were almost all enthusiastically positive, and my letters of rec are, I’m told, also positive. I have a first-tier Ph.D. from the department whose grad program was then the most highly ranked in the country. I’m close to unemployable in the for-profit sector. Was that job loss fatal, even though I was qualified to change fields? What’s wrong with me? Thanks, Hal
— halcroves Apr 5, 06:06 PM #
halcroves: Qualified to change fields? Almost no one does and search committees are a bit dubious about it. They may think these things if you’re moving from field X to Y:
1) Well, he/she is still an X at heart. Is he/she really going to be working for us or for dept X?
2) Couldn’t hack it in X?
3) What if he/she decides to change to field Z in a few years? Is he/she really committed?
4) Someone from field X can’t possibly teach the nuances of field Y.
5) Coming from a different field, you may have a somewhat different slant on things. Some people may find this disturbing.
6) Coming from a different field, you’ll undoubtedly not know/believe a few crucial things in field Y. These will be held against you, but no credit will be given for knowledge in field X.
7) You’re and X, we’re department Y.
Now, a good search committee won’t take these objections too seriously, but all it takes is a small amount of doubt if there is another good candidate around…
To have much hope at all, you need to think about answering these worries, or (better yet) avoiding them. (And, if you figure out how, please tell me…)
— variable Apr 6, 06:45 AM #