The Fund Raiser

Picking the Panel

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines First Person The Rejection Letter I Wish I Could Send If we had to make up a story for why you might be interested in our position, then interviewing you was too risky. Peer Review Hirings and Firings The new law school at the University of California at Irvine gets some high-profile hires ... and other appointment news. Ms. Mentor Does This Make Me Look Old? Advice on how best to dress, and act, when you look as young as your students. Career News Gone, and Being Forgotten Why are some of the greatest thinkers being expelled from their disciplines? Resource Salaries: Faculty | Administrative Presidential pay: Private | Public Financial resources: Salary and cost-of-living calculators Career resources: Academic | Nonacademic Library: Previous articles by topic | by date | by column Career Talk, Ms. Mentor, and more... Landing your first job On the tenure track Mid-career and on Administrative careers Nonacademic careers for Ph.D.'s Talk about your career Blogs

By Mark J. Drozdowski

Now that I've settled into my new role as head of a college foundation, I'm ready to undertake one of my most important tasks -- hiring staff members. Soon I will be invoking that fundamental force of nature known as the search committee.

As a student of higher education, I appreciate the importance of committees in promoting participatory governance, empowering employees at all levels, fostering political buy-in, and serving as the molasses in the engine of progress.

Many people don't know this, but committees actually have a long and distinguished history in academe. The first committee convened in 1635, not long after John Harvard, while sitting around a campfire roasting weenies with a few fellow Puritans, uttered the famous words, "I've got some books I'm looking to unload. Any takers?" Four months, nine meetings, three committee-chair changes, and two subcommittee reports later and -- voilà! -- we had our first benefactor.

Since then, colleges have nurtured the culture of the committee to the point where you now can find committees dedicated to almost any interest on the campus. A research university where I once worked published an exhaustive, and exhausting, list of committees, ostensibly to engender participation. You could choose from literally hundreds of standing and ad hoc panels, including the campus-life committee, the committee on athletic integrity, the student-housing committee, the compensation committee, and of course, the committee on committees. I often wondered how anyone accomplished anything without the help of some committee. Or how anyone had any time to spend on anything other than committee work. I stopped pondering those thoughts when my brain began to throb.

Yet of all those groups, none is more important than the search committee. We're in the people business, after all, and search committees pick people. We can't choose our relatives, but we certainly can choose our colleagues. So as I start gathering folks to help me select my new colleagues, I'll draw upon the knowledge I've gleaned from many years of search-committee participation. I'm happy to share that knowledge here.

What is the correct number of people to constitute a search committee? The answer is six.

Seriously, the real answer is "it depends." I suppose an easy rule-of-thumb is that the size of the committee should reflect the importance of the position in question. The bigger the job, the bigger the committee.

If it's a position of institutional leadership, like a vice presidency, we should offer various campus divisions the opportunity to influence the decision. Alternatively, we could convene a smaller committee to manage the search and involve other campus groups in selecting among a few finalists. Either way, we have to be sensitive to the politics of representation.

Of course, not all key decisions fall to large or even medium-sized committees. Among the list of committees at the aforementioned research university was the mysterious "committee of three." No one could explain who they were or what they did, though we assumed they were terribly important. Not to be outdone, a colleague and I at the university decided to form the "committee of two," which would appear far more powerful. When we needed to make an expeditious decision and couldn't wait for collective input or, more likely, couldn't squeeze a decision out of another manager, we simply moved ahead under the imprimatur of the "committee of two." (For the record, I was Thing One and my colleague was Thing Two.)

"I see we've extended the mailing deadline by a month," a colleague would say. "Who decided that?"

"The committee of two," we'd reply.

"Oh."

No one ever asked. So much for strength in numbers.

Should the hiring manager serve as head of the committee? And if not, should that manager at least serve on the committee? Again, the answer is "maybe."

It depends on how deferential the manager can be. Can he trust the democratic process to work and respect the input of fellow committee members? Or will he veto any decisions he doesn't agree with? Naturally, some on the committee may defer to him because they're hiring his eventual employee. Shouldn't he have the final say anyway?

I once served on a search committee that dealt with this dynamic somewhat differently. We were charged with finding a new vice president for development. I was one of two fund raisers among a group of about 15 staff and faculty members (I think we threw in a student just for yuks). The hiring manager, the vice president for advancement, didn't serve on the committee. He would instead interview the three finalists we recommended to him.

Over six months we met several times and flew in candidates from all over the country. Our three finalists met with dozens of people on the campus, individually and in small groups. The top pick was unanimous, save for one vote -- yes, the vice president for advancement, who, as it turned out, didn't like any of the three finalists.

So we summarily ditched them and reconvened, somewhat dejected, wondering if we would face the same results all over again. We became the no-comity committee. Had the vice president served among us, he could have expressed his concerns about the candidates before we paraded them around campus and built up everyone's hopes. In the end, the university decided to take a more diplomatic approach by eliminating the position altogether and spreading the responsibilities among several managers. We committee members didn't for a minute feel that we had wasted our time, or that of the candidates.

Should the committee include people who will report to the person hired? Let's put this another way: How comfortable would you be with picking your own boss?

When I served on that committee to choose a vice president for development, I was choosing my boss's boss, not mine. I viewed it as an opportunity to control my own fate. Had I been picking my direct supervisor, that would have applied even more.

Some people, however, may feel awkward posing difficult questions to their potential bosses. If you openly challenge a candidate who becomes your boss, will ill feelings linger? Are you more likely to avoid such questions as a result? And what if the person who ranks last on your list -- or even second -- lands the job? Will you worry that the new hire will possibly uncover your opinion of him or her?

Given that staff members may have different levels of comfort with such an assignment, it's probably best to offer them the option of accepting or declining it.

Should the committee include people with experience related to the job at hand? You might think the answer is obvious. Let me state for the record that I would agree. Of course we need people who can decipher a résumé, who can distinguish fluff from real accomplishment. Résumés and cover letters are rife with jargon and references only insiders will recognize. You need people on the committee who can talk the talk. If you're hiring an astrophysicist, you don't want a bevy of poets doing your bidding, do you?

Yes, well, I've long since figured out that logic will sometimes get you nowhere in academe. At another institution where I worked, a committee was formed to hire a major-gifts director. Was any fund raiser included on the panel? Nope. The hiring manager chaired it, but he wasn't a fund raiser. He pulled together a couple of faculty members, a public-relations person, an IT guy, and a librarian. Collectively they had zero years of development experience.

To their credit, they did let us meet their three finalists, but we wondered if anyone had slipped through the cracks. We weren't certain we were interviewing the best candidates from the pool. And who on the committee was going to make reference calls? How would they know what to ask, beyond the usual questions about energy and collegiality?

And let's not dismiss the dent in morale that resulted. The message was clear: We don't value your input. Or so it seemed.

I took it personally, largely because I would be working closely with the individual hired. He or she wasn't going to be my boss or my employee, so the hiring manager couldn't have discounted my participation for the reasons I've already discussed. Yet I had only a limited role in picking the person who would occupy the office next door and the neighboring box on the organizational chart.

So yes, I recommend including people who know something about the field in question. If you're nervous about the boss-employee relationship, ask peers to serve. Hiring a major-gifts director? Include the director of corporate and foundation relations or of annual giving in the mix. Above all, remain mindful of the politics of inclusion.

Finally, should you use a search firm to manage your search? That's a tough question. Even tougher is the question of how best to use a firm's services. Tell you what. Let's save that one for another column. I don't have time now, anyway. I have to go rally some folks together and start hiring people.