Moving Up

Then Came the Rumor

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 Dennis M. Barden

The interview was over and the candidate for a top leadership position had left. The search committee had spent months dissecting his résumé, deconstructing his cover letter, and conducting intensive interviews. The trustees had heard his presentation, asked more questions, and done the meet-and-greet. We, the search consultants, had provided the appropriate references, verified employment data and degrees, and searched through the public records for any issues or problems.

Everyone had performed as expected, and the time had come to make a selection and an offer.

Then came the rumor: Someone from the candidate's former place of employment called to make sure we knew that he and his wife had begun their relationship while still married to other people.

Had we missed something? How were we going to confirm or refute that kind of rumor in the next hour? How could it be put into perspective for the board as it prepared to vote on the candidate's suitability to lead the institution? Would the rumor kill his candidacy? And if it did, was the other finalist as good a choice for the institution? A million more thoughts and questions flashed by in the blink of an eye.

But wait a minute. Why did any of that matter?

The candidate had been an outstanding performer in both of his most recent jobs. There was no hint of scandal at either place, including at the campus he was serving when he met his wife. There was every reason to believe that he would do an outstanding job of leading the organization in question and that his behavior would be perfectly appropriate, probably exemplary.

Was our initial concern about marriage or morals? Would a whiff of scandal undermine the effectiveness of the candidate's leadership? Was there something about the institution that made such moral judgments reasonable? What if the institution was faith-based? What if a previous leader had been ousted because of a scandal? What if the constituency is particularly conservative on such social matters?

Boards will always exercise their prerogative, indeed their responsibility, to identify and to attract executive leadership that "fits," and issues of perception are almost always a critical part of that analysis.

Perception Is Reality

We needed to confirm or refute the rumor immediately so the committee could consider the candidate on his merits.

The search committee's leadership and I immediately began to reach out to trusted sources in the candidate's background. We went back to the references whom the candidate had provided, asking questions that must have seemed awkward at best and intrusive at worst. Finally, we spoke to the candidate directly, asking him to respond to the rumor. Within an hour, we had convinced ourselves that the rumor was not only false but very likely willfully malicious, and we reported it thusly to the board.

The trustees understood the situation immediately and agreed that the candidate's story was reasonable and credible. They also understood that they might not be the last to hear the rumor, that it might come up again if the candidate were to be hired. The members of the board are people of good faith trying to do the right thing, but the right thing includes protecting the organization against an erosion of confidence in its leadership. Surely they would not be able to set the record straight with every constituent who might hear the rumor. Should they put themselves in a position to have to try?

In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye states the simple truth that "Good news will stay and bad news will refuse to leave." Whether or not federal employment law allows it, every institution will make judgments -- on the basis of "fit" -- that take into account perception.

That is not only inevitable; it is reasonable. In this true story, if our candidate's effectiveness would be undermined by rumors of his past -- even a past that had nothing to do with the workplace and even if the rumors were patently false -- the board would be in violation of its responsibilities to its constituents if it did not take those facts into consideration in its decision making.

There are real human costs to such a decision, of course, not the least of which is the branding of the innocent, and honorable people will take such unintended consequences into account. Nonetheless, the job of a governing board -- or of any hiring authority -- is to make an appointment that will be maximally effective, and it must build into that equation every reasonable aspect of a person's background, experience, talent, personality, and, yes, reputation.

A Job Worth Doing Right

If taking perception into account in hiring is reasonable, how should a board or other hiring authority do so reasonably? There are at least a few guideposts along that murky path:

• Make sure you understand what is perception and what is reality. If it is reasonable to make decisions based on both, it is incumbent upon the decision makers to know which is which.

• Give the candidate the opportunity to have his or her day in court. If perception may be dispositive, the candidate has the same right to respond to that issue as he or she does to respond to questions about job history, performance, or philosophy.

• When you sit on a search committee or a governing board, check your personal biases at the door. The point of considering a candidate's reputation is to assess whether those perceptions will undermine a person's effectiveness, not whether they offend you on a personal level.

• In that same vein, triple-check how you proceed lest you be accused of hypocrisy. Is the standard by which you are judging this candidate the same as it was for others who have been hired in similar positions? If the position in question requires that its occupant be held to a different standard than others on the campus, is that reasonable and defensible?

• Make a decision that you are willing to stand up and defend. Make sure you understand the ways in which the perception is actually substantive. How will it directly affect the candidate's performance? Would it have an impact on the entire institution or only on some constituents? If the latter, how critical are they to the success of the candidate and the institution as a whole?

• Tell the candidate the truth about the outcome. He or she deserves the straight story of what led to the decision.

The trustees in this case did all of those things. They talked frankly and openly about what was perception and what was reality, what mattered and what didn't, what effect the perception would have on the leadership of the candidate in question should he be hired. They agonized. They argued. They openly admitted their personal biases.

And then they voted not only their consciences but their soundest judgment about what was in the best interests of the institution.

Calling the candidate to tell him the outcome was a dramatic moment. The board was happy. The candidate was happy. He will be a great leader for the institution.