We are just completing our search for the founding dean
of our School of Engineering and Applied Science. The finalists are all impressive but the
search process itself has also been impressive.
In doing a search, the process and transparency matter as much as the
results. This was made clear in a recent
conversation with a friend who is visiting another school for a semester. This school doesn’t have a tradition of
shared governance, doesn’t provide for a strong faculty voice even on faculty
issues, doesn’t have open searches for key positions, and doesn’t provide for
transparency. Consequently, the faculty who
should take key leadership roles and who would make a clear and positive
difference, just sit on the sidelines as much as they can or else they look to
leave.
Our process started with the election of the 6 faculty
representatives on the search committee, which in this case came from the two
departments involved in the new school, engineering and computer science. Given the respective sizes of the department,
four engineering faculty (including the department chair) were elected and two
computer faculty (also including the department chair). In addition to the faculty there are three
senior administrators (including me) and three trustees . The faculty, administrators and our search
firm consultant next determined a preliminary search timetable and also
determined where ads and announcement should go in addition to the
search/recruitment activities that all of us, especially the search firm, would
be involved in.
All of us looked at every resume that came in. There was
no preliminary screening undertaken, but there was a firm commitment on the
part of every person on the committee that we would preserve all candidates’
confidentiality up to the point that they had been selected to be, and agreed
to be finalists. Once a person became a finalist, the identities of the
finalists would be made known to all the faculty and we would then undertake
comprehensive due diligence.
Coming up with a list of individuals to interview was not
easy. First, we had many highly
qualified candidates and second we were sometimes far apart initially on some
of the preliminary ranking. We kept at
it and ultimately came up with a list of 10 candidates to interview. Not every committee member voted in favor of
all ten. Most did however, and those who
didn’t at least knew that their voices had been heard and considered.
As a committee, we interviewed every candidate for an
hour. We did 4 interviews on the first
day; 6 on the second; and the final two shortly thereafter. Though in previous high level academic
searches, we have interviewed up to 8 candidates on a single day, I am more and
more certain that up to four in a single day is the right number and that 6 or
8 is simply too many given the attention that needs to be paid to each.
Once the interviews were complete, we also completed our
list of finalists. Just as we were doing
so, one superior candidate withdrew from the search for personal reasons but
the pool was robust enough that we could just move on. Once again we did not all agree on every
finalist. But there was a high level of
agreement as we fully discussed every candidate and provided all the time
necessary to make all views known and bring all pertinent facts to the
attention of the committee.
And here we are, the finalists are selected, and checking
of references is underway. But we do
more than just check with the names on the list that the candidate has provided
us with. We insist on checking off the
list as well, and many of us on the committee are making use
of the contacts we have at the schools the candidates work at.
No comments:
Post a Comment