D.C. 86 121p. - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. HE 020 313. Kaplowitz, Richard A. Selecting College and University Personnel: The Quest and the Questions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report

ED 282 488

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 020 313

Kaplowitz, Richard A.Selecting College and University Personnel: The Questand the Questions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education ReportNo. 8, 1986.Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERICClearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington,D.C.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.ISBN-0-913317-35-786400-86-0017121p.Association for the Study of Higher Education, OneDupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036($10.00, nonmembers; $7,50, members).Information Analyses - ERIC Information AnalysisProducts (071) Guides Non-Classroom Use (055)

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.*Administrator Qualifications; *Affirmative Action;*Confidentiality; Consultants; Disclosure; EmploymentInterviews; Employment Practices; *FacultyRecruitment; Higher Education; *Personnel Selection;*Search Committees (Personnel); Teacher Salaries;Teacher Selection

ABSTRACTIssues and steps in the search process for both

faculty and administrators are considered, based on a review of thehigher education literature, selected literature from the corporateand industrial personnel field, and conversations with personnelpractitioners and consultants. After discussing organizational tasksfor the search committee and the use of search consultants, attentionis directed to ways to identify and reach prospective facultymembers, salaries issues such as the labor market and equity, andtemporary and part-time faculty members. Aspects of confidentialityin the search process are addressed, including: the problems ofdisclosure or openness in a search, sunshine laws, and maintainingconfidentiality. Affirmative action in the later 1980s is alsodiscussed, including the latest statistics, governmental and judicialshifts in direction, and affirmative action policies and proceduresfor personnel search and selection. Factors that contribute toadministrative leadership are examined, along with attributes andskills that support the performance of presidents, chief academicofficers, and other selected campus administrators. Additional topicsdiscussed include: reviewing references, interviewing candidates, andthe campus personnel office. (SW)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

SdectingCollege apdUniAersit.

Irsotillici

1H(

.1(

IC* ctur.-1. V

iI

Selecting College and University Personnel:The Quest and the Questions

by Richard A. Koplowitz

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8, 1986

Prepared by

ERICPublished by

Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington University

ASI-WrAssociation for the Study of Higher Education

Jonathan D. Fife,Series Editor

"1ZI

Cite asKaplowitz, Richard A. Selecting College and University Person-nel: The Quest and the Questions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Educa-tion Report No. 8. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Studyof Higher Education, 1986.

Cover design by Michael David Brown, Inc., Rockville, MD.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites individualsto submit proposals for writing monographs for the Higher Edu-cation Report series. Proposals must include:1. A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than five pages.2. A 75-word summary to be used by everal review committees

for the initial screening and rating of each proposal.3. A vita.4. A writing sample.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 86-70537ISSN 0884-0040ISBN 0-913317-35-7

Imacr Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, D.C. 20036

ASH* Association for he Study of Higher Edut ionOne Dupont Circle, Suik 630Washington, D.C. 20036

DimOfficeofEducitkind

Research and ImprovementUS DepartmentdEekmatim

This publication was partially prepared with funding from theOffice of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Depart-ment of Education, under contract no. 400-86-0017. The op"anionsexpressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions orpolicies of OERI or the Department.

1MECUTIVE SUMMARY

The selection of the faculty and the administrative leader-ship on campus is at the very heart of the future off theacademic enterprise. Institutions seek to recruit and hirethe finest people possible, and the selection processes usedinclude many elements of the monomythical quest or jour-ney. The use of the search committee in the selection ofcampus leaders has evolved into an almost hallowedapproach. Additionally, consultants are now providing sup-port and assistance in recruitment on a number of cam-puses. Findings about the search committee processinclude many positive elements. Procedural and societalissues, however, need to be addressed so that the potentialpitfalls can be avoided while the best candidates are found.

What Helps Search Committees Function Well?The number of ways to increase the likelihood of an effec-tive search include:

1. The process is highly politicized, particularly at thepresidential level. Be sure that search committee mem-bers are constituency-inclusive.

2. Search committee dynamics can be superlative or bit-ter. Trust and open communications among committeemembers are important contributors to a positive envi-ronment and may need direct focus and attention.

3. There is no perfect candidate or perfect position; fur-ther, a superb candidate for one campus in one situa-tion might be a disaster on another. It is important todelineate the particular needs of the campus (for thenext five years at the very least) at the time of thesearch in order to determine the kind of leadershipneeded.

4. Actively seek candidates, including those who may behappily employed elsewhere. Good networking skillscombined with effective and affirmative outreach arenecessary in order to generate a good candidate pool.

5. Consultants are used more than in the past. A range ofproviders of consulting services is available. Consul-tants are most helpful in three ways: structuring thesearch, locating good candidates, and checking refer-ences. If consultants are to be used, make that deci-sion early in the process.

6. Good candidates are lost when confidentiality isbreached or absent; take steps throughout the processto assure that confidentiality is maintained.

Selecting College and University Persoanel iii

7. Faculty salary inequities arise from the non-academicmarketplace. Salary inequities raise issues of compara-ble worth and of fairness. These issues need to beresolved internally on campus, so that differences gen-erated by them do not end up expressed as hostilityfocused on candidates for positions.

8. Women are gaining in numbers of administrativeappointments; minority gyoup members are not; fur-ther, the long-term pool of minority candidates hasstarted decreasing. Extra efforts are needed to main-tain these initial successes of women, and to increa.the development of minority gyoup members. Effectiveaffirmative action programs help.

9. The Supreme Court strongly upholds affirmativeaction; the Executive Branch, under its current leader-ship, does not.

10. True sensitivity to and concern for people may be theprime attributes of lel iership; looking for these traitsappears more importan: than particular degrees or pub-lications.

11. Checking references requires maintaining confidential-ity while securing accurate information; proceed withcaution. Reference checks are important to determinewhether a candidate has the necessary strength andcourage to reach out, to survive some failures, and tokeep trying, without ever losing sight of the individualpeople who are the most important part of any organi-zation.

12. Interviews assess sociability and verbal fluency butdon't predict administrative success. When a candidateis invited to a campus for an interview, in-depth, two-way interviewing is important if the selection is to bebased on the qualities needed for that campus ratherthan on a slick or showy style. In an interview, learn-ing why a candidate took a particular course of actionis more revealing than what was done.

13. Personnel offices provide helpful support services inacademic searches; make use of them.

14. Remember that candidates are vulnerable to the pro .cess that focuses so much energy and attention onthem; be caring and thoughtful.

iv

6

Why is Confidentiality So Important?Confidentiality is important in order to secure the verystrongest possible candidates in a search. Search commit-tees tend to look more for proven competence than forpotential, particularly when seeking to fill a high-levelvacancy. Most people with proven competence already areat work and most often that work involves sensitive politi-cal relationships. Some of those people may be willing toconsider a move. But, while they are employed elsewhere,they are unwilling to take a chance on eroding their effec-tiveness on their current campuses.

The folklore, and now even a good bit of the literature, isreplete with horror stories of candidates whose interest in aposition became known on the home campus with some-times quite negative results; candidates know those stories,and they are reluctant to risk having their careers jeopar-dized in like manner. McLaughlin and Riesman havefocused significant attention on this issue.

What Societal Issues Need Attention?Two larger societal issues also need to be addressed. Onerelates to open meeting laws, and the other to the result ofapparent social inequities. Clear evidence reveals thatmany good candidates are withdrawing from, or not evenallowing their names to be considered in, high levelsearches in states which search "in the sunshine." Theold, secret ways of doing business too often were not in thebest interests of the public. Sunshine laws are clearlyintended to be, and for the most part very much are, in thepublic interest. However, good leadership from withinpublic higher education, working with other comparablyconcerned public agencies, needs to seek legislative re-examination of that aspect of sunshine laws that requiresthe public listing of candidates and public discussionsatr-it the professional and personal reputations of those

'Wes.. .ond, there is a need for multiphasic attention to

actively develop the talent and abilities that are not ade-quately coming to maturation in our minority populations.If we are to have a broadly constituted faculty in 20 years,now is the time to increase broadly based social efforts toreach and nurture that future faculty.

Selecting College and University Personnel

7

ADVISORY BOARD

Roger G. BaldwinAssistant Professor of EducationCollege of William and Mary

Susan W. CameronAssistant Professor and ChairHigher/Postsecondary Education ProgramSyracuse University

Clifton F. ConradProfessor of Higher EducationUniversity of Arizona

Elaine H. El-KlawasVice PresidentPolicy Analysis and ResearchAmerican Council on Education

George D. KohAssociate Dean for Academic AffairsSchool of EducationIndiana University

David W. LeslieProfessor and ChairDepartment of Educational LeadershipFlorida State University

Yvonna S. LincolnAssociate Professor of Higher EducationUniversity of Kansas

Selecting College and University Personnel vii

8

CONSULTING EDITORS

Paul A. AlbrechtExecutive Vice President and DeanClaremont Graduate School

G. Lester ApdersonProfessor EmeritusPennsylvania State University

Robert C. AndringaPresidentCreative Solutions

John B. BennettDirector, Offfi,:e on Self-RegulationAmerican Council on Education

Carole J. Blanc,Associate Professor, Family Practice and Community HealthUniversity of Minnesota

L. Leon CampbellProvost and Vice President for Academic AffairsUniversity of Delaware

Judith A. Clementson-MohrDirector of Psychological ServicesPurdue University

Mark H. CurtisPresident EmeritusAssociation of American Colleges

Martin FinkelsteinAssociate Professor of Higher Education AdministrationSeton Hall University

Andrew T. FordProvost and Dean of CollegeAllegheny College

Roderick S. FrenchVice President for Academic AffairsGeorge Washington University

Timothy GallineauVice President for Student DevelopmentSaint Bonaventure University

Milton GreenbergProvostAmerican University

Selecting College and Universiry Personnel 9 Ix

James C. HearnAssociate Professor, Educational Policy and AdministrationUniversity of Minnesota

Jules B. LaPidusPresidentCouncil of Graduate Schools in the United States

Theodore J. MarcheseVice PresidentAmerican Association for Higher Education

Arthur S. MarmadukeDirectorEureka Project

John D. MarshallAssistant to the Executive Vice President and ProvostGeorgia State University

Judith B. McLaughlinResearch Associate on Education and SociologyHarvard University

Richard M. MillardPresidentCouncil on Postsecondary Accreditation

L. Jackson NewellProfessor and DeanUniversity of Utah

Steven G. OlswangAssistant Provost for Academic AffairsUniversity of Washington

Thomas J. QuatrocheProfessor and Chair, Educational Foundations DepartmentState University College at Buffalo

F. Andrew SchafferVice President and General CounselNew York University

John P. SciaccaAssistant Professor, Health, Physical Education, and RecreationNorthern Arizona University

Thomas R. WolaninStaff Director, Subcommittee on Postsecondary EducationUnited States House of Representatives

1 0

CONTENTS

Foreword

Acknowledgments

The Quest and the Questions 1

The Search Process 5The Selection of Administrators 5Steps in the Sczch and Selection Process 8Organizational Tasks for the Committee 9The Poo: of Candidates 16Screening and Interviewing the Top Candidate(s) 18

Faculty Recruitment 21Sources for Recruiting Faculty Members 21Salary Issues: Market and Equity 23Temporary and Part-time Faculty Members 24

The Use of Consultants 27Providers of Consulting Services 27How to Make the Most of the Services Available 29Concerns and Caveats 31

Confidentiality and Sunshine Laws 35Openness and Disclosure 35Sunshine Laws 37Maintaining Confidentiality 38Looking Toward the Future 39

Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity 41Statistical Update 41The Governmental and Judicial State of Affairs 43Policies and Procedures 46Critical Long-Term Issues 47

Desired Administrative Attributes 53Leadership 54The Presidency 55Chief Academic OfficersDeans, Et Al 58Department and Division Heads 60Other Campus Administrators 62

References 65Written References 65Seeking Additional Information 66False Credentials 70

Interviewing CandidatesConducting the Interview

7375

Selecting College and University Personnel xi

11

Personnel Office 81

Summary and Implications 85

References 89

Index 99

xii

12

FOREWORD

The issue of selecting competent personnel reminds me ofa conversation I had with a senior colleague recently. Hewas bemoaning how hiring practices had changed in recenttimes. "In the old days, it was easy," he explained to me."We always invited our old friends to the campus. Thosewho were able to walk across the campus pond were inter-viewed." While the hope of finding a person of super-human capabilities has not changed, the practice of tappinginto the closed network of friends and acquaintancestheso-called "old boys' club"is no longer tolerated.

This report, with the apt subtitle of "The Quest and theQuestions," could also be called "The Myths and the Real-ities." While the desire to continue to do things as theywere done in the past may still be strong, many past prac-tices do not meet the strict rules of accountability andacceptability that are needed today. Hiring practices arefurther complicated by considerations that are external tothe traditional borders of the campus. For example, col-leges and universities must now compete with industry fortalented scholars and researchers, which in the processdrives salaries upward.

The value placed on openness, as evidenced by sunshinelaws, conflicts with the need for confidentiality. The recog-nized benefits of equal opportunity and affirmative actionfurther necessitate the need for being proactive in fillingpositions.

As external pressures have increased, techniques in thepersonnel selection process have also changed. Collegialnetworks, bolstered by the ever-growing professional asso-ciations and annual conferences, have never been wider.Job announcements, carried in popular press as well astrade newspapers, have never received more exposure.Never before has the business of running higher educationinstitutions been so closely observed. Demands foraccountability have called for wider representation in theselection process, especially on search committees. Recog-nition of the complexity of personnel selection has led tothe appearance of a new breed of consultants on campuses,the professional headhunters.

Indeed, the author of this monograph is himself of thisnew breed. Richard Kaplowitz, when he is not tending tohis duties as dean of the college at the New England Insti-tute of Applied Arts and Sciences, is the president of

Selecting College and University Personnel xiii

13

TEEM, Inc., a consulting firm offering a variety of ser-vices, including personnel training and evaluation. In thisreport, he offers a comprehensive review of the literatureavailable on selecting competent personnel. He offers spe-cific advice on such common procedures as forming andrunning a search committee, qualities to look for in a can-didate, how to conduct a useful interview, and how to getworthwhile references.

For most of us, selecting new personnel is a duty as dis-tasteful as it is necessary. It is time-consuming, sometimesunrewarding, and difficult. Yet is is one of the most vitalfunctions of any successful institution. This report will he/pchief personnel officers and search committee participantsto understand how to make the best use of their time andenergy. The difference can be between getting the rightcandidate and reconstituting the committee all too soonagain for another try.

Jonathan D. FifeSeries EditorProfessor and DirectorERIC Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington University

xiv

14

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is true indeed that some things need to be believed to beseen. I am most grateful to those nutritious friendsbegin-ning with Lisette, Dave, and Robwhose support, help,and encouragement keep me sane and happy; they believedin this book.

I also would like to express my appreciation to:those colleagues who so willingly shared their profes-sional knowledge, expertise, research, and tradesecrets, including most particularly David Riesmanand Judith Block McLaughlin for their very graciouslyextended sense of common purpose;my colleagues at New England Institute of AppliedArts and Sciences, who kept the campus operatingwell while I was writing;Mark, Nancy, and Rob, who helped in the final stagesof manuscript production;my editor and special friend, Lisette.

Selecting College and University Personnel xv

15

THE QUEST AND THE QUESTIONS

Contrary to the ancient myth, wisdom does not burstforth fully developed . . . it is built up, small step bysmall step, from most irrational beginnings (Bettelheim1977, p. 5).

Asked to consider the search and selection process inhigher education, Jungian analysts might suggest thatsearch committees and candidates alike follow the path ofa mythical journey or quest. The steps on this path include:

A call is heard;A decision is made to heed the call, to make the jour-ney;Trials are encountered and faced;Often a dark, no-progress stage (being stuck "in thebelly of the whale") is-encountered;Progress is made and problems are solved, generallywith the help of allies and nutritious friends;The treasure is gained;A magic flight back to one's own land completes thejourney (Campbell 1968).

The selection of academic personnel and particularly ofacademic leadership often conveys a sense of the mythicaland mystical. The search committee goes through an elabo-rate quest, each candidate undertakes an elaborate jour-ney, and the end result for each is, hopefully, the additionof a unique treasure to the real world of the particular col-lege campus. The desired result certainly will meet onecharacteristic element of each mythical tale, that "this isabsolutely unique; it could not have happened to any otherperson, or in any other setting" (Bettelheim 1977, p. 36).

In the 14 years since the American Council on Educa-tion's handbook on selecting academic administrators waspublished (Kaplowitz 1973), many articles, a number ofdoctoral dissertations, and several books have been writtenon various aspects of the search and selection process.This literature has focused on, elaborated upon, andreported research related to the various steps in the pro-cess. It has provided current information on legal and pro-cedural aspects of interviewing and appointments. And ithas developed a context for the patterns of seeking and

The selectionof academicpersonnel andparticularly ofacademicleadershipoften conveysa sense of themythical andmystical.

Selecting College and University Personnel 1

16

selecting academic personnel in the late 1980s and into the1990s.

The following review of the available literature isdesigned to assist in the quest by reporting the current wis-dom, practices, and findings, and by helping each personinvolved in a search and selection process formulate thequestions that must be answered in order to gain, as anultimate treasure or end goal, administrators and facultymembers who will steadily focus on asking, "How doesthis or that make us a better place to learn?" (Healy 1985,

p. 22).In order to seek widely for the best wisdom available,

three main categories of sources have been used. The pri-mary source is the literature of higher education. A secondarena for review is suggested by the assertion that:

The administration of higher education is increasinglytaking on the characteristics of corporate management. . . Personnel decision making has become more formaland more centralized on campuses across the country. . . (Increasingly), professional employees have . . .

come under the influence of the personnel office (Kem-erer, Mensel, and Baldridge 1981, p. 17).

Selected literature from the corporate and industrial per-sonnel field, therefore, also is drawn upon in this ieview.

The third source is somewhat more amorphousthoseformal and informal conversations, at professional meet-ings and by telephone, with colleagues who are personnelpractitioners and consultants. These conversations yieldsome of the most basic realities and data of current prac-tice. Some colleagues have published their findings, andtheir writings are cited. In other cases, people who dealwith some of the very sensitive issues of personnel selec-tion and placement have spoken freely only with theknowledge that their comments will not be formally attrib-uted to them.

Following is a review and discussion of

The steps of the search process, with separate chap-ters on administrative and faculty selection;Some major issues within that process, including theemergence and use of search consultants, confidential-ity vs. open searches, and affirmative action;

2 17

Specific aspects of the search, including administra-tive position requirements, securing useful and accu-rate references, and interviewing candidates effec-tively.

A brief look at the personnel office on campus concludesthis work.


18

THE SEARCH PROCESS

The Selection of AdministratorsSearches for college and university personnel includesearches for administrators, for faculty members, and fornon-academic support staff members. This chapter willreview and discuss the steps in the search and selectionprocess that is used primarily for the recruitment of admin-istrative personnel. Subsequent chapters will address par-ticular aspects and issues of faculty recruitment and therecruitment of support personnel.

In presidential and academic administrative searches,the use of a search committee has become just aboutunquestioned.

Whatever the ideal procedure may be, for most institu-tions the first step is the appointment of a search andselection committee or committees (Nason 1980, p. 15).

The perceived campus need for politically legitimatedappointments appears to be a paramount factor in the cen-trality of the search committee in the process; additionally,the primacy of the search committee comes from the rec-ognition of both the volume of work done by committeemembers and the collective wisdom that a good committeecan bring to the enterprise. Consultants sometimes areemployed to support and assist search committees.

A recent study began with the hypothesis "that universi-ties have been unable to recruit and hire their first-cheicecandidate for a position" (Rodman and Dingerson 1986, p.25). Their findings, to the contrary, were that in 123searches for academic deans, 84.6 percent reported thatthey were able to hire their first-choice candidate. (Thereare some observers who would cite that result as furtherevidence of their contention that search committees cometogether around the candidate who represents the lowestcommon denominator.)

When administrators are sought in such areas as financeand institutional advancement, outside consultants workingwith presidents more often may be engaged to recruit,screen, and identify several or one key nominee for avacancy. At that point, the candidate(s) in question mostoften will be invited to visit the campus, both to help sellthe job to the candidate, and for a test of chemistry withkey campus personnel. Such visits tend to have very differ-


19

ent overtones and undertones than do visits emerging fromthe work of search committees.

Quite frequently a vacancy occurs without the luxury ofsix to nine months advance notice. Normally, an actingadministrator is appointed to fill the position in the interim.De Zonia suggests that, where possible, "the board shouldconsider the desirability of appointing a non-candidate . . .

as acting" (1979, p. 34). Nason more strongly asserts thatacting presidents can come from inside or outside the insti-tution, with "one absolute!), essential condition being thathe or she is in no way a candidate for the permanent posi-tion" (1980, p. 14).

Campus realities, however, quite often reveal caseswhere an "acting" administrator is appointed with everyexpectation that the "acting" ultimately will be the appoin-tee. Search committees generally are convened even inthese cases; faculty cynicism can (legitimately) abound inwhat seem likely to be "wired" searches. In at least onesuch case, however, the slowness with which a reluctantsearch committee got itself organized and under wayallowed the acting dean enough time to alienate totallyboth her faculty and the upper-level administration in theuniversity, and to lose the "sure" appointment to an out-side candidate.

The importance of avoiding both the appearance and thereality of predetermined searches, and the negative feelingsand institutional images that can result from invelving out-side candidates in such situations, are noted frequently(Bisesi 1985; Felicetti 1984; Kaplowitz 1973). Campusesget mixed guidance when exploring the issues which sur-face when strong internal candidates exist. One perspec-tive states:

Every effort should be made to find someone already oncampus for the job. No external names should be solic-ited, much less screened, until the committee hasexhausted all internal possibilities. The presidencyshould be posted internally like any other job opening.The committee should solicit nominations and pursuewhatever in-house names emerge. Only if the internalpossibilities are unacceptable should the committeeadvertise and actively recruit names (Bisesi 1985, p. 23).

62 0

An alternative perspective recommends:

Even when there is a strong, obvious internal candidatefor an administrative position, a (full) search is heartilyrecommended. If the internal candidate is selected afterthe search, the mandate accompanying that selection ismuch more convincing :han it would have been withouta search. On the other hand, promising internal candi-dates might not seem so strong when compared withexternal candidates who may be uncovered by thesearch process. Search committees must, of course, besure that the search process is honestly and thoroughlyconducted once begun (Kaplowitz 1973, p. 2).

A topic frequently discussed, yet seldom researched, isthe rationale underlying decisions that are made onwhether an inside Or an outside candidate is preferable:

One sometimes helpful and simple construct is thatwhen things have been going well and in desired direc-tions on a campus or in a subunit thereof, leadershipfrom inside may be sought more often; when a changein direction is needed, an outsider may appear moredesirable.A second hypothesis, which seems partially supportedby the research, is that internal candidates for presi-dent are less likely to be successful than are insidecandidates for provost and dean. It can be suggestedthat the president needs to arrive unencumbered polit-ically, while the faculty may be most comfortable withan academic leader who knows the culture of the par-ticular campus and who has earned the trust of col-leagues over years of shared service.One further note is that people who are or have previ-ously served as presidents often seem to be preferredcandidates for the presidency. It may be easier forboard members to imagine someone as a presidentwho already has held that title, and who has done thejob, whether it was done well or otherwise. Thosecandidates usually are outside.

Any and all of these concepts, however, easily are con-founded in light of the specifics of the personalities and


21

political affiliations of the available internal and externalcandidates and of the appointing boards and officers aswell.

Both Nason (1980) and Perry (1984) point out that indus-try trains and develops executive successors and promotesheavily from within, while academia does not. Noting thatonly about 30 percent of college and university presidentsare appointed from within, and 70 percent from outside ofthe institution, Perry says that in higher education:

This decided preference to go outside for new presidentsis primarily due to academe's emphasis on the participa-tory management style . . . [which) . . . does not . . .

encourage the development of a strong executive succes-sion system (1984, p. 215).

Along similar lines, in their study of 110 searches foracademic deans, Rodman and Dingerson (1986) found that35.5 percent were filled by internal candidates, and 64.5percent were filled by external candidates. 1986 researchdata being analyzed by Moden and Miller of Ohio Univer-sity suggests that about half of chief academic officers areselected from within their institutions. Further research onthe rationale for preferring an inside or an outside candi-date would be useful.

Steps in the Search and Selection ProcessThe search process can be divided into a series ofsome-what overlapping stages. Kauffman (1974, p. 33) identifiessix objectives to be met in order for a search committee tobe able to submit a list of recommendations from which theboard will select the next president. Libby (1983) discussesnine steps in community college presidential selection.Kaplowitz (1973, p. 10) delineates 24 steps in eight phasesin the search for academic administrators. The flow chartprovides a sequential summary of those steps (see figure 1).

Nason (1980, 1984) divides presidential selection andappointment into nine major steps with eight checklistsprovided to help assure that each step has been properlyaccomplished. Those steps include:

I. establishing the machinery of search and selection;

8

22

2. organizing the committee, including the role of theperson chairing the committee, staffing, and officeneeds;

3. formulating the criteria;4. selecting the pool of candidates;5. screening candidates;6. interviewing candidates;7. selecting top candidates;8. appointing the president;9. reporting and transition planning.

These stages proviae a context for additional discussion inthose arenas where current issues and concerns transcendor supersede the basic listing of steps to be taken.

Organizational Tasks for the CommitteeA key issue in starting the search process is the delineationof the needs of the institution. Without losing too muchmomentum by becoming trapped in a "paralysis of analy-sis," it is important to take sufficient time to identify thoseabilities and attributes that will be necessary for successover the next five (for presidents, perhaps ten) years forthe person who will be selected to fill the post.

Statements of 'desired qualifications' are usually generalwish lists. It is up to the board to identify the strengths-and capabilities most important to the institution at thepresent time (Kaffer 1981, p. 16).

One approach is to "begin with an evaluation of theissues that will be facing the new administrator and an out-line of the campus's strengths and weaknesses." And, as"no person has done everything that everyone wants in anadministrator," a set of "preferred" attributes is suggested(Bisesi 1985, p. 22). In some cases, it may be appropriateto "sound out the constituencies" to ascertain an institu-tion's current needs (Strider 1981, p. 32). Requirementsviewed as necessary for success in particular administra-tive roles are discussed in the chapter on administrativeattributes.

The listing of abilities and attributes can be undertakenby the trustees when seeking a president or by the presi-dent or other supervisor for other administrators. Alterna-

A key issue instarting thesearch processis thedelineation ofthe needs ofthe institution.


23

1.rONI

Existence of vacancy

is determined

FIGURE 1

THE SEARCH PROCFSS

2.mr011

_.16. Meeting schedule 7......4.

is determinei

12. Preliminary sort

by subcommittee

reject

"No" letters sent

11) weak applicants.

materials filed

Search committee

is formed

Timetable is

prepared

good and 13.

maybe

8.

3.p.m*

Search committee

is charged

Job description

is prepared

Letters of

ackvowledgment

" 44

9.

4. Search committee

convenes

1141i

14.

Places for posting

position selected

410Formal review

by committee

5. Chairperson is Lselected I

Position is

posted

potentially 15

Applications

arrive

reject

"No" letters sent;

materials filed

2 4

strong

Requests sent

for references,

and any other

materials sought

=Or

16Credentials

rive

17.Noomm.lop Committee reviews

credentials

reject

"No" letters sent;

materials filed

21 Evaluation of final candidates

by administrator of board,

posibly including further

interviews

no acceptable

candidate

Review of reserve

candidates or return

to step 7

strong 18;

candidatesInterviews

Reserve

candidates

acceptable 224,

candidate

Job offer

is made

19.Telephone

reference

checks

20.Final candidates are

selected; names are

submitted to upper .

level administrator

or board of trustees

offer 23.

acce1-71.1

offer

rejected

Return to

step 21

25

Announcements

sent to other

candidates

24.Files are

closed

Source: Kaplowitz 1973. By permission.

tively, that task can be assigned to the search committee asone of its first tasks.

Basic organizational tasks include the selection (appoint-ment and/or selection) of the members of the committeeand the person to chair the committee; the charge to thecommittee; development of a timetable, secretarial sup-port, office space, and meeting schedule; preparation of ajob description; deciding where and how the job will beposted and advertised; doing the actual posting. Four keyissues that arise during this phase are: the composition ofthe committee; communicating with candidates; confiden-tiality versus openness; whether a consultant will beemployed to assist in the search.

Composition of the CommitteeThe chief executive officer of a campus or system nor-

mally is appointed by the board of trustees. Therefore, thesearch process is established by the board. In some fewinstances, the board will establish a trustee committee plusconstituency advisory screening committees. The problemwith more than one committee is that the advisory commit-tee can "usurp the function of the selection committee . . .

by concluding that only one candidate is suitable" (Nason1980, p. 15). The potential political fallout when a facultycommittee or an alumni committee develops a favorite can-didate is obvious. In the more usual procedure, with onecommittee composed both of trustees and representativesof other constituencies, sensitivity is needed to address thenumbers of slots to be allowed for each constituency, aswell as whether that constituency will elect its members,nominate several candidates from whom the board willselect, or whether the board will appoint the members.Respective campus norms generally determine the mode ofselection of committee memoei:,.

A survey of presidential search committees found 17-18members on search committees in public institutions, and10-11 members in private institutions (McLaughlin 1983,AII). Forty-eight out of 52 committees reported that fac-ulty members were included on the committee, and 43 outof 52 included students. In public institutions, the majorityof search committees had fewer than half trustees; in pri-vate institutions, 50 percent had fewer than half trustees,and 50 percent included at least half trustees.

12

26

In many cases, the dynEmics of a search committeewould make rather special and very positive case studiesfor a course on the small-group process. Given an opportu-nity to work together, people selected from various constit-uencies, who initially approach their common concernfrom some very different perspectives, can and do developa very positive sense of unity of purpose. In the goodcases, while retaining their respective perspectives, com-mittee members leave partisan loyalties behind in a collec-tive search for the person who will provide the best leader-ship. In a study of 31 searches conducted for deans, forexample, it was reported that the committee members,who were primarily faculty, with some students and a fewmembers of central administration, acted as trustees forthe university community as a whole and not as a group ofdelegates for separate factions (Lutz 1979).

On the other hand, searches can go sourand they cancreate battles with lasting and painful repercussions.Kiersh reports on presidential searches on three campusesthat "had to cope with heavy pressures, both internal andexternal, and with fears that threatened to tear the institu-tions apart" (1979, p. 34):

Brooklyn College, where there was division between aboard committee and a faculty committee; a boardmember is quoted as having said, "The board at timeshas felt ganged up on by the faculty committee"(P. 31).The University of Massachusetts, where several boardmembers, angry at the governor whom they believedhad forced the previous president out of office,"struck back at the governor by sabotaging any candi-date who seemed to carry his blessing" (p. 32).Amherst College, where the faculty voted to boycottthe search after the board of trustees' chairmanannounced the creation of a search committee "whichwould include six trustees plus four non-voting facultyrepresentatives and four non-voting students" (p. 34).Additionally, people believed that in a school coedu-cational only for two years, by indicating that prefer-ence would be given to alumni, the chairman "wasactually saying that only male candidates would beconsidered" (p. 34).


2"7

In 1981, the American Association of University Profes-sors (AAUP) updated its 1966 statement, "Faculty Partici-pation in the Selection . . . of Administrators." Whilerecognizing that "the legal power of appointment rests"with the board, thz AAUP "emphasizes the primary role offaculty and board in the search for a president" (p. 323).With respect to other administrative appointments, theAAUP expects a faculty role that "should reflect the ex-tent of legitimate faculty interest in the position" (p. 324).But there can be significant differences on the extent of that"legitimate faculty interest." Further, while recognizingthat the president makes the final choice for administra-tive appointments, the AAUP asserts, "sound academicpractice dictates that the president not choose a personover the reasoned opposition of the faculty" (p. 324).

An analogy can be drawn between campuses and hospi-tals. In each case, highly qualified doctors (of medicine orof philosophy) have hired administrators, and delegated tothem those management duties which the doctors prefernot to handle themselves. Responsibilities and power grad-ually have accrued to these administrators, and the admin-istrators now make a majority of the operating decisionsabout what will happen in their respective institutions.Good hospital and campus administrators know, however,that should their respective groups of doctors ever unitearound any particular issue, the power to determine whatwill happen often may rest with the doctors.

On campus, when the powers of the boards of trusteesand the powers of the faculty collide, the board has legalsway, and boards can (and sometimes do) appoint presi-dents over the objections of the faculty. However, as it isclear that the faculty does have great power to impact theinstitution in many key ways, head-on power clashes gen-erally are avoided if possible by astute players. Further, inpublic institutions, the political concerns of both the legis-lative and executive branches of state governments can beadditional sources of vectors of power. Given this range ofpowerful forces that can be brought to bear around theselection of leadership on any campus, the argument forcarefully building a constituency-inclusive committeeappears compelling.

14 28

Communicating with Candidates

A college in New England advertised in September withan October reply deadline. After a "thank you for yourinterest, we'll be back in touch" letter, final candidatesheard nothing until the following March. Many were nolonger interested. A surprising number of candidatesnever heard anything after being told "we'll be back intouch." Even candidates who have been interviewed areoccasionally never notified that someone else has beenchosen (Kaffer 1981, p. 16).

It is important to establish, at the start, a clear, consistent,courteous, and timely pattern of comunication with candi-dates. And, unless specifically requested otherwise by acandidate, search-related correspondence is never sent to acandidate's business address, even if marked "personaland confidential."

Careful and detailed recordkeeping is necessary, both forthe efficiency of the search committee and to provide mate-rials in case questions (legal or other) are raised about theprocess. A summary log recording all applications and theactions regarding those applicants is suggested. Addition-ally

For each candidate there should be a file containing theinitial application, additional application materials, writ-ten recommendations, records of telephone calls made,notes of telephone conversations, decisions made by thesearch committee at each stage of the search, interviewrecords, and copies of all correspondencP hetweel theinstitution and the applicant/candidates (Higgins andHollander 1987, pp. 13-14).

Confidentiality versus OpennessTheoreticians and consultants alike emphasize the impor-tance of confidentiality in a search process. This signifi-cance of confidentiality and the impact of openness asrequired by sunshine laws in some states are discussed in asubsequent chapter.


29

ConsultantsThe use of consultants in the search process in higher edu-cation has increased dramatically within the past 10 years.Many factors affect the decision on whether a consultantshould be employed to assist in a given search. The role ofconsultants in educational searches is discussed later.

The Pool of CandidatesSome candidates indicate an interest in a vacant positionthemselves in response to postings; others are nominatedfor a position by various friends of the institution and/or asa result of the active seeking of appropriate candidatesthrough various interpersonal networks.

The once controlling "old boys" network was properlyvilified because of its limited membership. The concept ofreaching out to people who might be able to identify goodcandidates for a vacancy continues to be valued, althoughthe parts of speech have sometimes changed (from net-works to "networking.") As part of the process of evolu-tion, "new girls" networks appeared (Stent 1978); simi-larly, there are networks of members of various minoritygyoups. One particularly helpful source cited for identifyingqualified female candidates for upper-level administrativejobs on campus is the Office of Women in Higher Educa-tion at the American Council on Education, which is coor-dinated by Donna Shavlik and Judith G. Touchton(McMillen 1986b). The Office of Minority Concerns at thecouncil, under Reginald Wilson, can be helpful similarly.The networks of people who are asked by competentsearchers to identify potential candidates generally includeaffirmatively active elements today with a much broaderrange of contacts than was ever offered by the old "oldboys" network.

A key rationale for posting a position is the desire to besur- that the widest possible pool of qualified candidatescan de reached, including those not within the view ofthose who may be asked for nominations as part of net-working. Places to post available positions:

In the United States, the single best location for post-ing administrative positions generally is acknowledgedto be in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

16

30, ;

The "Sunday Education Section" of The New YorkTimes, and, for financial positions, The Wall StreetJournal, also are common posting points.Most colleges advertise vacant positions in their larg-est regional newspapers and in local area papers aswell.Professional journals and newsletters geared to admin-istrative specialitesto business officers, student per-sonnel administrators, etc.,often carry notices ofvacancies. The Association for Continuing HigherEducation and the National University ContinuingEducation Association, for example, each publishnewsletters 10 times a year ("Five Minutes withACHE" and "NUCEA News") which include jobpostings for continuing education administrators."Personnelite," published by the College and Univer-sity Personnel Association, indicates vacancies foruniversity personnel officers.Internationally, such publications as the "TimesHigher Education Supplement" (London) and the"Bulletin" of the International Association of Univer-sities (France) are used (Kaplowitz 1977; Nason 1980).

Several publications have emerged for the specific pur-pose of advertising positions to various minority communi-ties. Affirmative action officers and consultants who haveused these publications report that the ads, which tend tobe expensive, simply don't produce responses. Theybelieve that administrators in higher educationof all eth-nic and racial backgroundswho are actively looking forpositions read the Chronicle postings and their respectiveprofessional journals/newsletters; .hat the other ways torecruit candidatesthrough broad networks and widelysought nominationsprovide the balance of affirmativelysought out candidates.

Two issues are enmeshed in this entire discussionaffir-mative action and the process of actively seeking candi-dates. A later chapter reviews current issues and concernsin the area of affirmative action.

Actively and aggressively seeking good candidates isvital if a search is to include the best possible candidatepool. "There was a time when presidents . . . wereexpected to receive 'a call' to a new post." But, applying

Actively andaggressivelyseeking goodcandidates isvital if asearch is toinclude thebest possiblecandidatepool.


for positions no longer is considered improper, and "com-munity colleges in our survey relied heavily on publicnotices" (Nason 1980, p. 37). However, many of thepotentially best candidates either are not actively seekingpositions, or they at least publicly feel unable to declarethemselves candidates for a new position because of theconstraints of their current situations. The importance ofactively and sometimes persistently seeking candidates isemphasized here: recruitmentincluding postings in allappropriate journalssupported by aggressive networkingby members of the search committee to secure nomina-tions of candidates who might not themselves apply, fol-lowed sometimes by the necessity of educating prospectivecandidates to the value of the position in order to securetheir interest.

Pursuing candidates too aggressively, on the other hand,can infringe on the life of reluctant or non-candidates inharmful ways. During a search in Florida, a person whomthe search committee wanted to recruit specifically hadindicated his unwillingness to serve as a candidate; never-theless, his name was retained on a roster by the commit-tee. Under Florida's sunshine laws, the list of people beingreviewed by the committee, including this non-candidate'sname, was published in the newspapers, with negativepolitical fallout for him on his home campus (McLaughlinand Riesman 1986). Some of the reiated issues for candi-dates are discussed in the chapters on consultants and onconfidentiality.

Finally, to avoid discouraging qualified candidates, com-mittees are advised to advertise only for resumes in an ini-tial posting, and to wait to request references until after atleast a first major screening has taken place. This recom-mendation is made both because, in many cases, a quali-fied potential candidate for a senior-level position may be6 6 wary of letting potential referees know that he/she isconsidering a change in position" (Higgins and Hollander1987, p. 31); and to avoid unnecessarily burdening "thecommittee, the candidates, those serving as candidates'references, and placement offices" (Kaplowitz 1973, p. 17.)

Screening and Interviewing the Top Candidate(s)If the skills and attributes needed for a particular positionhave been properly identified, search committees generally

18

32

are able to reduce fairly quickly the nunitTx of candidatesto a small group. In most searches, reference checkingbegins at this point; in r,ome cases, where the interest ofparticular candidates ;:s being negotiated, the initial nomi-nations included sufficient reference information to pre-clude the need for further checking until very close to theend of the process. A subsequent chapter provides adetailed discussion of securing and interpreting references.

Once a group of primary candidates is identified, themost common process is to invite each candidate to thecampus for interviews and a visit. The notion of having 15candidates parade through the campus in a three-day mara-thon, with each having 60 to 90 minutes of the conunittee'stime, generally is a waste of the committee's and the candi-dates' time. Part of the committee's responsibility is toscreen more thoroughly, raid reduce visitors to betweenthree and five or six candidates.

The best candidates normally want some opportunity tomeet people on the campus and to get a sense of the largercommunity. Visits, which include exposure to various ele-ments on campus, are the norm in most searches otherthan at the presidential level.. One or more meetings withfaculty groups, with various administrative officers, andsometimes with students generally are arranged.

In presidential searches, patterns vary widely. In somecases, particularly where confidentiality may be a particu-lar concern, presidential candidates may meet with searchand/or trustee committees at airport hotels removed somedistance from both the campus and the candidate's home.Toward the other end of the spectrum, some interviews/visits involve extensive on-campus exposure in what canbecome a spectacle. "In its most elaborate form, it will bea two- or three-day ordeal . . . like a beauty contest" (Por-ter 1983, p. 45); it also has been suggested that "the paradeof more than one candidate across the campus invites alocal popularity contest" and that "the vast majority ofcandidates, however, would not dream of accepting with-out knowing something about the institution at first hand"(Nason 1980, p. 63).

Some presidential search consultants now recommendthat, where appropriate in terms of the candidates and thecampus environment, the search committee should identifyone final candidate who then is invited to visit the campus.


33

Concerns in that situation emerge from a sense that thecampus constituencies may feel they've been presentedwith a "fait accompli" when they expected to have inputregarding final candidates. The possible effect may be thatthe new president will arrive on campus with constituen-cies that do not feel invested in her or his success. On theother hand, it has been suggested that:

a. an effective committee will most likely produce ahighly acceptable candidate;

b. because most people on campus feel it important tobe viewed favorably by the new president even if theywere not part of the final screening, they very quicklywill seek to move toward a positive working relation-ship with their new leader.

All candidates invited to the campus usually will havethe technical qualifications kund abilities needed to handlethe position. Visits and interviews tend to serve three pur-poses: to allow for in-depth interviews which might helpmake some fine distinctions among well-qualified candi-dates; to assess the "chemistry" or the "fit" between eachcandidate and the campus community; to sell that positionto the candidate. Some suggest, however, that "thevaunted 'chemistry' between a candidate and the board istoo highly valued over the record of experience" (Porter1983, p. 46).

As each phase of the search is carried out, it is importantparticularly to remember that, in selecting campus leader-ship for the years to come. search committees are not pos-sessed of magical screening &vices, such as swordsimplanted in stones; likewise, candidates are not mythicalheroes with divine guidance, wisdom, or protection. Eachand all are merely mortals, trying to do their respectivebest in a challenging situation:

It is, I believe, insufficiently recognized how vulnerable[candidates] are to the processor how sensitive shouldbe the processthat focuses so strongly on them" (Por-ter 1983, p. 43).

20

3 4

FACULTY RECRUITMENT

In Hixson's cartoon, a department head is seen enthusiasti-cally talking to a candidate for a faculty position:

I'm happy to say we can offer you a temporary assistantprofessorship. Except for salary, benefits, course load,research equipment, and access to tenure, it'll be justlike a regular faculty position" (1985, p. 33).

The increased use of temporary and of part-time facultymembers is, perhaps, one of three key topics in facultyrecruitment in higher education today. The others includeeffective sources for recruiting faculty members and salarydiscrepancies.

Sources for Recruiting Faculty MembersBurke (1986) recently completed a study of faculty recruit-ment at research universities. After referencing 1950s and1960s reports, which reflected closed, preferential, andnepotistic themes in the selection of new faculty at thattime, she notes that:

A change has occurred. . . . Junior faculty recruitmentin the 1980s begins with advertising; the search is publicknowledge, and there is little apparent evidence that theapparent openness of the process is deceptive. . . . Thevalue of open advertising is confirmed by the fact that ofthe 52 assistant professors interviewed, 28 had obtainedtheir positions by responding to advertisements inprofessional journals (Burke 1986, pp. 7-8).

Others in the group cited notices "posted on bulletinboards . . . at institutions granting the Ph.D in that particu-lar discipline" (Burke 1986, p. 8). "More than two-thirdsof the departments typically attracted more than 50 appli-cations for an assistant professor opening, and a healthyproportion attracted more than a hundred" (p. 11).

Several approaches are available for reaching and identi-fying prospective faculty members; an effective recruit-ment program will probably make use of an appropriatemix of most or all of them at appropriate times. Theseapproaches include:

Individual identification. For seniorlevel appoint-ments, faculty members within the departments will


be able to identify, by name and location, th.. :-.ev peo-ple in their respective fields. The recruitment ofsenior-level personnel (sometimes the current oremerging "superstars" of higher education) is clearlyan active, aggressive process involving extensive sell-ing; the primary actors usually are key faculty mem-bers working with the help of a dean or preSident.Posting in the professional journal of the discipline.These journals are perhaps the primary source forserious academics who may be willing to consider amove to another campus under the proper conditions.Proper conditions may range from good weather at thenew campus to cloudy academic or socio-politicalweather at the existing site. Those completing doctoralprograms tend to be frequent journal readersor, atleast, frequent readers of journal ads.Posting in the Chronicle of Higher Education. This isconsidered a good source, though perhaps second bestwhen time allows the luxury of using the professionaljournal. While anticipated vacancies can be posted injournals, the lead time required for such postingssometimes can be a minimum of three months, anddepartments that become aware of faculty vacanciesin March, April, or May (much less in July) often areunwilling to wait for the professional journals.Posting at professional meetings. Having potentialemployers and prospective candidates from all overthe country in one place at one time can provide avery valuable opportunity for interviewing for posi-tions about which there has been previous correspon-dence, as well as for initial postings and contacts. Themid-winter meeting of the Modern Language Associa-tion and the late summer meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association are but two of many widelyattended annual meetings. Poorly handled, of course,there can be a "meat market" atmosphere at a profes-sional meeting that many find distasteful.Posting at graduate schools Notices mailed to thevarious heads of departments and programs in the dis-ciplines can be a good source of candidates.Posting in the international arena. Such agencies asthe Association of Commonwealth Universities, theColombo Plan, the African American Institute, the

22

36

Ford and Rockefeller foundations, and the WorldBank can be of help in recruitment.Networking. Direct contact with such people as gradu-ate school department heads, editors, and others whomight know of emerging talent can generate good can-didates. The key issue, as always, is the breadth anddepth of the networks established:

One enterprising department chairman, needing tochoose three faculty members for a newly reorganizedhistory department . . . spent his summer reading manu-scripts under consideration for publication . . . fife] wasable to identify and recruit three recent doctorai recipi-ents, each of whom had a first book published within sixmonths after joining the new institution. Departmentalprestige was rapidly established (Kaplowitz 1977, p. 3459).

Salary Issues: Market and EquityThree Issues that affect faculty salaries intersect and over-lap in a tangled skein: the legal issue of comparable worth,the impact of the non-academic marketplace, and conceptsof fairness on campus. Some of the entangling factorsinclude:

The concept of fairness on a given campus, that"professionals in widely difftgent disciplines of thesame rank and experience . . . (should be) . . . paididentically" (Bergmann 1935, p. 10).On some campuses, faculty members in such alliedhealth fields as occupational and physical therapy whohold (or may be at work on) master's degrees may behired at the rank of assistant professor, while the doc-torate may be required for that rank in the humanities.Some colleges within large universities work hard tohave salaries equalized by rank within the respectivecolleges; however, wide disparities are found amongthe various colleges of that university.A belief that "sex bias is probably implicated in manysalary differentials between academic departments"(Bergmann 1985, p. 8).


37.:,-

An assertion that "income disparities resulting fromdepartmental differences are small in comparison withthose resulting from the tendency for women to beconcentrated in the lower academic ranks and in part-time, non-tenure-track positions" (Sherman 1985, p. 64)."A widening gap between salaries in academe and inthe private sector," complicated by the cycle in which"private-sector demand for people with training inengineering, computer sciences, and businessexpanded more rapidly than the demand for all privatesector personnel as a whole and thus accentuated thedemand for faculty members" (Hansen 1985, p. 6).

Whatever the factors, and however much the use of marketfactors in determining faculty salaries may be "one of themost controversial practices in American higher educationtoday" (Sojka 1985, p. 11), the reality of salaries in thelatter half of the 1980s, as reflected by numerous surveys,is that:

At both private and public institutions of higher educa-tion, faculty members in fields where they are in highdemand are commanding higher than average salariesthis year, with accounting, business, and engineeringtopping the lists (Evangelauf 1986, p. 25).

Temporary and Part-time Faculty MembersOne major result of the "scarce resources and environmen-tal uncertainty" under which colleges and universities havebeen operating for the last decade "has been almost franticattempts to experiment with different modes of academicstaffing" (Mortimer, Lagshaw, and Masland 1985, p. 29).Summarizing their report, these authors note that fixedterm and rolling contracts, non-tenure track appointments,and part-time faculty are three of the strategies at the pointof hire that can help to increase needed institutional flexi-bility (1985, p. 30). The issues and impact of temporaryfaculty members, and of part-time faculty members(reported variously at 25 to 33 percent of all instructionalpersonnel, and as more than half of all community collegeinstructors), are discussed by a number of authors includ-ing Gappa (1984), Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne

24

(1982), Parsons (1980), and Townsend (1986). With respectto part-time faculty:

Our attempt to find norms was seriously frustrated. Ourconclusion was that use of part-time faculty is a highlylocalized phenomenon, that disaggregation, rather thangeneralization, is essential to its understanding (Leslie,Kellams, and Gunne 1982, p. vi).

The qualifications for and use of part-time faculty variesfrom campus to campus and from discipline to discipline.For example, accounting faculties may prefer to have allbasic-level courses taught by full-time faculty members,with expert part-time faculty members brought in to teachtax accounting; mathematics faculties may utilize the part-time faculty members in basic math courses, while themore esoteric theory of numbers and non-euclidian geome-try courses are taught by the full-timers.

Part-time faculty members are recruited predominantlyfrom the local community of the college. Effective andaffirmatively active recruitment techniques include thedevelopment and maintenance of an active file of potentialfaculty members before the need for filling particular posi-tions emerges. Continuing education deans and directors,who often have multiple lines into their communities, canbe good sources of leads for potential part-time faculty.Also, some campuses, particularly those in or near urbanareas, will run ads periodically, indicating clearly that theyare seeking people interested in having their papers on filefor prospective part-time openings.

Along with broad posting and appropriate salary offers,the quest for the best faculty membersthe heart of theacademic enterprisecan be assisted by a careful use ofreferences, by effective interviewing, and by takingappro-priately affirmative action.


3.9

THE USE OF CONSULTANTS

A major shift in the past 15 years has been the increaseduse of outside consultants in the search for campus admin-istrators. Professional associations, non-profit agencies,major corporate search firms, and several dozen indepen-dent consultants have become ;nvolved in helping cam-puses with some or all phases of the search and selectionprocess.

It is clear that an increasing number of institutions, fromsmall church-related colleges to large public universi-ties, from community colleges to prestigious liberal artsinstitutions, are finding it worthwhile to employ consul-tants in searches for college and university presidents(Riesman and McLaughlin 1984, p. 14).

Increased acceptance of the use of outside ;rnsultantson campuses probably can be traced to a confluence ofseveral factors: "the growing recognition that recruitingsuitable candidates for a position exposed to unusual stressmay be difficult," (Rieman and McLaughlin 1984, p. 14);concerns for proper and legal affirmative action proceduresand outreach; the broad acceptance of the practice in thecorporate sector, brought to the campus both by boardmembers and by increasingly visible business school fac-ulty members; and by increasing numbers of successfulcampus experiences with consultants.

Who is providing the consulting services? What servicesdo they provide and how can campuses make the best useof those services? And, what are the caveats and concernsin using consultants in a search?

Providers of Consulting ServicesThe Presidential Search Consultation Service (PSCS) is anot-for-profit consulting group jointly sponsored by theAssociation of American Colleges and the Association ofGoverning Boards of Universities and Colleges. The PSCSwas created in 1976, with initial foundation funding, underthe auspices of the AAC; in 1979, the AGB became acosponsor. (Stead 1985, pp. 19-20). The PSCS is currentlyunder the direction of Ronald Stead, with assistance fromBruce Alton; Frederic Ness, the previous director, contin-ues to assist in searches, along with several other associ-ates. The PSCS, which may be the most visible search con-

A major shiftin the past 15yews has beenthe increaseduse of outsideconsultants inthe search forcampusadministrators.


40

ultation group in higher education, assists in searches forchief executive officers, i.e., college and university campusand system presidents and chancellors.

Many other consultants also offer assistance. The Asso-ciation of Community College Trustees has a search ser-vice. The non-profit Academy for Educational Develop-ment has a search division. One of the many private groupsthat provide consulting services is the Higher EducationAdministrative Search group, based in Denver, whichtends to focus more at the vice-presidential level. Thomp-son and Pendel Associates, in Arlington, Va., a groupwhich specializes in consulting about development to non-profit organizations, undertakes searches for institutionaladvancement officers. Joseph Kauffman, a well-publishedtheoretician and practitioner, consults particularly in largestate university system searches at the presidential andvice-presidential levels. Additionally, major corporate sec-tor executive search firms (Korn-Ferry, Heidrick andStruggles, etc.) trr..e. ,stablished divisions that focus onpresidential and ,t:arches in the not-for-profit sector.(The particular gwri : and individuals listed are cited onlyas examples; more than 1,200 firms conduct executivesearches in the United States [Zippo 1980, p. 47]. This list-ing does not, of course, constitute an endorsement of anyperson or group).

Another group that is sometimes listed in the context ofconsultants/search firms, but which does not do on-siteconsulting, is the Higher Education Administration Refer-ral Service (HEAPS), under the general sponsorship of theNational Association of College and University BusinessOfficers, plus 13 other cosponsor organizations. HEARSmaintains an up-to-date data bank of close to 100 prospec-tive candidates in each of about 70 different campus jobcategories. They will provide the resumes of prospectivecandidates to institutions subscribing to that service. Can-didates can register to be in that data bank for a relativelysmall fee; a "confidential" registration is possible also.HEARS screens and selects candidates on the basis oflisted qualifications for the particular vacancy; HEARSdoes not provide reference checking or other servicesbeyond that pointperhaps placing HEARS someplacebetween simple posting and intensive personalized net-working as a recruitment aid.

28

When considering a consultant, it is important to deter-mine who within the consulting firm will be doing thework. In some cases, the person who makes the proposaleither will conduct or will be a major part in conducting thesearch; sometimes the sourcing and preliminary screeningof candidates is conducted by an associate, and the seniorperson is involved only in final screenings; in some cases,the person who sells the service is unrelated to the personwho will provide it. It seems important to know and becomfortable with the people who will actually be doing thework.

For the campus which considers seeking the help of aconsultant or consulting firm, it is important to rememberthe respective roles and relationships. The campus is theemployer; the consultant is a hired adviser. The style,approach, and methods of the consultant must match or atleast be acceptable within the climate of the individualcampus client. Any consultant selected should reflect aclear sensitivity to and understanding of the respectiveroles, and of the particular campus climate. Consultantscan have a significant impact on the long-term growth anddevelopment of colleges they assist. Good consultantshave enough humility to recognize their own limitationsand biases as well as their power to make positive contri-butions.

How to Make the Most of the Services AvailableIn addition to general help in structuring the search, con-sultants can offer special assistance in four major ways:securing good candidates who might not otherwise beavailable; maintaining confidentiality; checking references;moving the search along swiftly.

Whenever possible, the decision to employ a search con-sultant should be made . . . at the very outset of asearch so that the consultant can guide the organizationof the search process. (Riesman and McLaughlin 1984,p. 14).

Some of the difficulties that can emerge when a search islaunched without adequate preparation can include a cum-bersome search committee structure, an inappropriatechairperson of the search, creation of a committee without


42

prior consultation with constituent groups, and lack of aclear charge to the committee (Stead 1985, p. 2).

Search consultants normally work directly with searchcommittees on the campus. A consultant may be asked tolocate, screen, and recommend independently one or sev-eral candidates; that is most likely to occur when a non-academic presidential staff vacancy, as in finance or insti-tutional advancement, is being filled.

Search consultants can help the campus organize for asearch. They can instruct in the importance of, and helpstructure the search for, confidentiality; assist in the identi-fication and recruitment of candidates who might notrespond to open postings; help in the screening of candi-dates; assist in structuring interviews; conduct referencechecks; help in negotiations of contracts when a candidateis selectedwhich may include educating campuses aboutthe current market salary figures for candidates under con-sideration. Riesman and McLaughlin (1984) provide adetailed discussion of the various ways in which consul-tants can help in a presidential search. These authors cur-rently are at work on a book on the presidential searchprocess; it will include a discussion of consultants in theprocess, as well as several case studies of presidentialsearches. (Publication is scheduled tentatively for 1987.)

A key element that appears to contribute significantly totheir effectiveness is the network of contacts that searchconsultants have established. Many consultants in highereducation searches are, or were, on college campuses inleadership positions and were generally widely involvedwith colleagues in professional associations during thoseyears. Out of these involvements have come the affiliationsthat can provide two of the most important services ofallidentification of qualified candidates and discreet in-depth reference checks.

In the discussion of confidentiality and openness insearches, the unwillingness of many potentially good can-didates to be publically identified as candidates is noted.The informal network is replete with stories of otherwiseinterested candidates who have withdrawn from candidacywhen their names became public. The effective search con-sultant will have both the concern for discretion and theprofessional network that will normally lead to more in-

30 43

depth information on candidates without public disclosureof their candidacy. It is noted, however, that:

. . most consultants will refuse to enter searches at atime when some search committees believe they could beespecially useful: namely, when it comes to checking thereferences and exploring all possible information con-cerning finalists. As one search consultant explained, ifthe person chosen after this final checking turns outwell, no one will remember who the search consultantwas; if the person chosen turns out badly, everyone willblame the search consultant who came in at the end ofthe procedure. The search consultant is not so likely tobe blamed if she or he has been operating with thesearch committee all along (Riesman and McLaughlin1984, p. 23).

Concerns and CaveatsA key concern related to the use of consultants in collegesearches is the feeling, cited frequently on campuses, thatthe constituencies on campt.s will be excluded from theprocess. Reporting on an Oberlin college search, Riesmanand McLaughlin indicate that:

xi- from regarding themselves as excluded by the7loyment of search consultants, many faculty con-

xled that they had more opportunity to influence thesearch . . . (for a new president] . . than they antici-pated (1984, pp. 13-14).

A consultant who heads the non-profit division of amajor executive search firm indicated that she has neverencountered hostility in a faculty group, once the opportu-nity to meet with the faculty established both the legiti-macy of the consultant and the opportunity of the facultyfor inr ut.

In some circles, executive recruiters are known as"headhunters." The key operative element in that fre-quently disliked label is the word "hunter." As has beennoted, an active search for the hunter's "prey" (candi-dates, the "treasure" of the quest from the committee'spoint of view) has become an essential part of a search


4 4

process. As active seekers of good talent, executive recrui-ters always are alert to the existence of such talent aroundthem. Campuses may seek to protect themselves with anagreement from a search consultant that good people meton the campus during the consulting assignment will not berecruited for other positions on other campuses. In the cor-porate world, such agreements sometimes are negotiated,for at least a two-year span of time.

While many campus inhabitants may assume that thereare large numbers of highly capable leaders who are anx-ious for the opportunity to come to their particular cam-puses in an administrative role, that is not always the case.Faculty members and others may need to be educated tothe reality that the best candidates quite frequently arehappy and successful in their current roles elsewhere, andare, in fact, sometimes people who normally read only thefront half of the Chronicle. Riesman and McLaughlin sug-gest that:

Consultants are more likely both to know how to goabout finding appropriate candidates and to have therequisite time and skills needed to persuade someone toconsider a new position (1984, p. 15).

Mottram even more emphatically states that:

The most compelling reason . . . for a college or univer-sity president to employ a search firm when looking for akey administrative officer is the opportunity to learn ofoutstanding candidates that might never surface in anyother way (1983, p. 40).

Search consultants privately express the opinion that, inthe arena of disciplinary academic leadershipi.e., depart-ment headsthere is, and will continue to be, significantlymore faculty resistance to the use of consultants; further,that such resistance often is valid. At times, there has beenmore heated discussion about deanships; consultants sug-gest that some faculty members view the deanship to beprimarily an academic role, while others more accuratelysee the role as primarily administrative.

Two particular issues emerge for candidates when con-sultant- do the reference checking. First, as such checks

32

45

are invariably done orally, it may not be possible for candi-dates to refute a poor and perhaps inaccurate referencewhich may have been gathered by a consultant from anunidentified source.

Another possible hazard is that a consultant, havingheard negative information about a candidate in onesearch, may blackball this candidate in other searchesthe consultant advises (Riesman and McLaughlin 1984,p. 21).

The validity of this concern was reinforced in a privateconversation witt a fairly active consultant; he indicatedthat in a recent search, out of 20 viable candidates whoemerged after a committee's first screening, he already hadsome knowledge of 10 from previous search consultations.

The issue of fees and costs can be a concern to somecampus constituencies, and is an item that recruiters rarelydiscuss in public or private, except in an actual contractproposal and negotiation. Fees range and vary: a flat ratemay be negotiated; fees may be charged on an hourly rateor a per diem rate; and/or the fee may be based on theannual salary of the administrator being hired. For initialguidance, it may be helpful to know that, in the corporatesector, recruiters tend to charge the client company a feethat is someplace between 30 and 35 percent of the firstyear's salary of placed executives.

While some corporate placement fees for middle man-agement positions are contingency-based (contingent onplacement of a candidate), most executive search firmsprefer to work on a fee basis, with installments paid as thesearch progresses; fixed rather than contingent fees appearto be the norm in academia. Fixed fees can serve the inter-ests of both recruiter and client; a key problem with thecontingent pricing method is that the recruiter may be"looking for a quick delivery, not the right person for thejob" (Zippo 1980, p. 48). Expenses incurred by the consul-tant sometimes may be included in a total set fee, or a con-tract can be written which includes the consultant's feeplus expenses incurred. The P.- '3, when funded by foun-dation grants in the earlier y las significantly lessexpensive than other agencie.. irms; that differenceappears to hav,.? been somewha- Larrowed.


46

Finally, a key note and caveat closes this review of con-sultants in the search process: "The client institution mustretain the fundamental responsibility of choosing its presi-dent" (Hartley and Ness 1981, p. 37). An aspect of con-sulting that can be both ego-satisfying and frustrating forconsultants is that they are paid for their opinions and fortheir advice. It always must remain clear within any con-sulting relationship, however, that the client campus orboard retains both the authority and the responsibility tomake the final decisions. "The authority to screen poten-tial applicants can be subcontracted, but not the responsi-bility for ensuring a successful and fair selection process"(Rubenfeld and Crino 1981, p. 76).

34

47

CONFIDENTIALITY AND SUNSHINE LAWS

In search after search held "in the sunshine," I'vewatched colleges get refused by, or very quickly lose,most of the best candidates (search consultant, 1986).

Searches conducted "in the sunshine" are inextricablylinked to issues of confidentiality. The loss of gond candi-dates is identified in each of three key studies (Cleveland1985; Kaplowitz 1978; McLaughlin 1983) as a major cost ofwhat Cleveland labels a "trilemma" of clashing elements:

1. The public's right to know . . .

2. The individual's right to privacy.. .

3. The public institutions's mandate to serve the publicinterest (1985, pp. 3-4).

This chapter touches briefly on four aspects of confiden-tiality in the search process: the problems of disclosure oropenness in a search; sunshine laws; maintaining confiden-tiality; and future considerations.

Openness and DisclosureTwo authors examined the issues relating to confidentialityin presidential searches and the negative effects, for candi-dates and campuses alike, of breaches in confidentialityduring a search (McLaughlin 1983, 1985a, 1985h;McLaughlin and Riesman 1985, 1986; Riesman andMcLaughlin 1984). Having come to the conclusion that"confidentiality is necessary to ensure the quality of thesearch committee discourse and the quality of the candi-date pool" (McLaughlin 1985b, p. 24), they have includedan exploration of sunshine laws as one among a number otways in which confidentiality is lost in the search processin public institutions.

Confidentiality is important because "most major univer-sities will not rely on fresh potential in a new presidentwhen a vacancy occurs. They will look for sc meoneproven track record" (Ashworth 1982, p. Suerdates, Ashworth and consultants alike suggesff., ar.:. foundthrough "piracy," and "the very nature" of the currentpositions of these treasures, these targets for piracy. tendsto makes them unwilling to go public in consideringanother position, "for they do not want to risk eroding

Searchesconducted"in thesunshine" areinextricablylinked toissues ofconfidentiality.


4 St

their effectiveness in their current positions" (Ashworth1982, p. 22).

On occasion, public knowledge of candidacy elsewheremight have a positive effect on an administrator's homecampus. It would be difficult to imagine that the publicknowledge that one had been on the list of the top 30 can-didates in the most recent search to fill Harvard Universi-ty's presidency (1970-71) could have had anything but sal-utary effects. Similarly, during the 1985-86 academic year,it was suggested that John Silber, president of Boston Uni-versity, and James Halderman, president of the Universityof South Carolina, were each under consideration to fill thechair of secretary of education in Washington. Amongmany of their respective constituencies, this was inter-preted as an affirmation of their prominence in the nationalhigher education scene. In most cases, however, the resultof disclosure of one's candidacy elsewhere is, at best, neu-tral. Quite often, it is deleterious. In one of the moreextreme cases:

One university president allowed a search committee toput his name forward in an exploratory way. When newsof his candidacy was leaked to the press, his campusand local community turned on him and his family, ver-bally abusing his children in school, dumping garbageon the front step5 of his home, and publicly denouncinghim as a traitor in the local newspapers. The situationbecame so ugly that he was forced to submit his resigna-tion. When he was not the search's final choice, hefound himself without a job (McLaughlin 1985a, p. 206).

McLaughlin also notes that internal candidates have tocontend with higher levels of scrutiny than do outside can-didates. "If the internal candidate is not chosen president,hc_ or she has to deal with this loss publicly" (1983, p.5.10). Additionally, "an internal candidate may have toconfront an unknown future" with a new boss arriving whomay or may not be comfortable with an unsuccessful appli-cant still on campus. Confidentiality therefore can be ofhelp to the internal candidate as well as to the candidatefrom another campus.

36

4 9

Sunshine Laws

The mandate to serve the public interest is the basis,implicity or explkitly, for most state open meeting laws. . . As they have done before . . . the American peoplethrough their elected representatives reasserted theirright to hold the reins of government in their own demo-cratic hands (Cleveland 1985, pp. 3, 5).

"Open Meeting or Sunshine Laws are statutes thatrequire that meetings of public bodies be held in public"(Kaplowitz 1978, p. 2). Open meeting laws, intended toassure that the general populace is able to remain informedabout the doings of government, appear to have their rootsin this country, rather than in our inherited common law,and can be traced to the First Amendment of the U.S.Constitution. The first state sunshine laws appeared inUtah in 1898 and in Florida in 1905. Both the JosephMcCarthy era of the 1950s and the Watergate era of theearly 1970s are cited as key factors in the relatively recentand rapid expansion of this principle into legislation in all50 states. (Cleveland 1985; Kaplowitz 1978).

Open meeting laws generally include definitions of whatconstitutes a meeting and the list of the topics, if any, thatthe state allows for consideration in executive sessions.Topics allowed in executive sessions might include somerange of personnel matters; collective bargaining; consulta-tion with legal counsel; security; and financial transactionsand plans, particularly relating to real property.

Cleveland's (1985) study provides a thorough update ofthe 1978 (Kaplowitz) discussion about, and legislative sum-mary of, sunshine legislation in the 50 states, along with animportant review of recent judicial findings and interpreta-tions of the laws. Cleveland also defines and discusses the"trilemma" of conflicting interests noted above.

The clearest consensus . . . among observers in statesthat both do and do not allow closed discussions ofper-sonnel matters is around the position that at least cer-tain personnel itemsnotably recruitment and appoint-ment of personnelshould be discussed in confidence(Kaplowitz 1978, p. 21).


50

Two key concerns surface repeatedly when personnelmatters, by law, must be discussed in the open: the failureto recruit and keep good candidates, and the constraints ondialogue in the evaluation of the merits of candidates (oremployees) being reviewed.

Three kinds of damage to the search process are cited:

. . . that most of those who would be the best candi-dates remove themselves frqm the pool, or never allowthemselves to get into the rool . . .

the process undergoes . . . distortions to discourse. . . leading to supetficial discuss:c3s and letters ofreference . . .

an open process is also subject to manipulation forpolitical ends . . . (Cleveland 1985, p. 27-28).

As a specific illustration:

The search for a new president at the University of Flor-ida provides dramatic evidence of the problems of con-ducting a presidential search in the sunshine . . . vir-tually none of the educational and political leaders werewilling to be considered for the position. We know of nocomparable search in which as many candidatesdeclined even to allow their names to go forward(McLaughlin and Riesman 1986, p. 11).

"The effects of openness on the nature of discourse arethe most far reaching of all" (Cleveland 1985, p. 21). Someof the suggested costs include a loss of candor, loss of thefreedom of speech among decision makers, and a tendencytoward simplistic and often trivialized discussions (p. 22).

Some consultants have suggested that very carefulexaminations of the constraints and wordings of some sun-shine laws, in fact, do allow a search process to go quitefar down the road toward its conclusion before openness isrequired. This position is challenged by other observers ofcurrent judicial and legislative decisions on the issue.

Maintaining Contident:dityClearly, in states with sunshine laws that do not makeexceptions for personnel issues, confidentiality cannot bemaintained. In other contexts, however, it is possible to

38

51

attempt to have confidential searches, either through tocompletion, or at least up to the point where final candi-dates are visiting the campus.

Several factors can contribute to leaks when a confiden-tial search is under way, including;

1. The conditions under which the previous presidentdeparted, and/or problems with, or caused by, thedeparting president.

2. Major happenings on the campus that may be unre-lated to the searchbut then, as all presidents learn,nothing that happens on campus is unrelated to them.

3. A campus culture that expects openness.4. The presence or absence of an aggressive press (pub-

lic and/or student press).5. The presence of internal candidates and politics

emerging from that.6. The commitment of individual search committee

members to confidentiality, as well as to their othermembers of the committee, loyalties to constituen-cies, and their pleasure or displeasure with the direc-tions of the board. (McLaughlin 1983, p. 5.4-5.9).

McLaughlin also makes a number of very helpful sugges-tions about how to reduce the likelihood of leaks in presi-dential searches, including initial and periodic discussionswith the committee about confidentiality; dealing effec-tively with the press (perhaps one person only, and, fromothers, a consistent "no comment" may be best); involve-ment of consultants; using diversionary methods of con-ducting the business of the search such as maintaining theoffice and files off campus, and having all expenses paidprivately until after the search is over (1983, 1985b).

From the perspective of confidentiality, the process ofgathering references is one of the most vulnerable points inthe process. Securing references effectively is discussed in4 Ihter chapter.

Looking ':.'oward the FutureAt a symposium held in May 1985, a group of discussantsdrawn from prominent newspapers, higher education asso-ciations, law firms, and elected and appointed public offi-cials met to assess the Cleveland (1985) report. The partici-


52

pants emphasized the business that can be conductedeffectively, and in the public interest, in the open. Theyalso addressed the "most fundamental question involved ingovernance under open meeting laws . . . the determina-tion of those topics that warrant . . . moving from publicinto executive session" (Kaplowitz 1978, p. 2).

The major thrust at this symposium was that "there isfar more than most boards commonly assume that can bedone in the open." Calling for guidelines to "help govern-ing boards understand how much business they can con-duct in public," participants agreed that the financial con-dition of the institution, evaluations of programs and of theinstitution as a whole, and personnel policies and proce-dure should be openly discussed, but that evaluations ofindividuals should be kept secret (Winkler 1985, p. 13).

It is hoped that the focus brought to bear on this issue,under Cleveland's direction, by the Hubert H. HumphreyInstitute of Public Affairs will serve to encourage states timodify that singular aspect of open meeting laws where theimpact is so evidently negativethe personnel arenawithout vitiating the very important public interest aspectsof these laws. In the meantime:

Support for the concept of open meetings is broadlybased. . . . The advice suggested repeatedly is that it iscrucial for all board members to know the provisions ofthe sunshine law under which :hey govern, and to becareful to work within those provisions (Kaplowitz 1978,

p. 23).

Or, in the words of one of the participants at the 1985 sym-posium, "Openness is here to stay.. . . boards had betterlearn how to operate within the laws" (Winkler p. 13).

40

53

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Under a headline that answers the question before askingit, Gelbspan and Kaufman asked:

Who has a better chance of getting a job in Boston: ablack worker seeking membership in the bricklayers' orironworkers' unionor a black professor seeking a fac-ulty appointment at Harvard, the Massachusetts Insti-tute of Technology, Boston University or Northeastern?(1985, p. 1)

The headline's answer was "Blacks Faring Better InTrade Unions Than On Campuses." The authors furtherassert that, at least in the Boston area, "private universi-ties . . . are steadily losing black faculty" (p. 18). A tabletitled "Full-time Black Faculty in Area Colleges and Uni-versities" reflects declines in the percentages of black stafffrom 1979 to 1985: MIT, 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent; North-eastern University, 3.3 percent to 2.14 percent; Tufts Uni-versity from 1.6 percent to 1.5 percent; and Wellesley Col-lege from 3.7 percent to 3 percent. In the Boston area, onlythe University of Massachusetts at Boston increased itspercentage of black faculty members during the six-yearperiod cited from 6.9 percent to 8.03 percent (p. 18).

These figures provide one indication of a multifacetedissue in higher educationfacets that include statisticalinformation, governmental and judicial shifts in direction,affirmative action policies and procedures for personnelsearches and selection, and some critical long-term issuesfor higher education. The evolution of affirmative actionlegislation has been traced in detail elsewhere (e.g.,VanderWaerdt 1982, pp. 77-79). This chapter will focus onissues in affirmative action in the later 1980s.

Statistical UpdateIn a field where much data is collected and yet little iswidely available, some of the best data on percentages offemales and minority group members in the administrationsand faculties of two-year American colleges and universi-ties come from two studies undertaken by Joseph Hankin,president of Westchester Community College. In present-ing his findings, Hankin reported "both good news and badnews" (1984, 1985). Studying 86.6 percent of all U.S. pub-lic community colleges, Hankin (1985) found:


29.4 percent of the administratora were female.36.6 percent of the faculty members were female.13.4 percent of the administrators were members ofminority groups.10.2 percent of the faculty members were members ofminority groups.39.2 percent of the administrators were female andlorminority group members, an increase from 25.7 per-cent in 1975.42.8 p.. cent of the faculty members were female andlor minority group members, an increase from 39.2percent in 1975.

Another study, on academic deans hired in colleges anduniversities with more than $1 million in federal researchsupport, stated that "white females nearly doubled the rateat which they are filling academic dean positions (15.5 per-cent) compared to the rate at which they arc vacating posi-tions (8.2 percent)"; black males and females, however,"made no gains" in achieving academic deanships (Rod-man and Dingerson 1986, p. 28). Hispanic participation inthe administration of 106 California community collegeswas found to be concentrated in fewer than 25 percent ofthe 70 college districts (Rivera 1983).

A study of women chief student-affairs officers reflectedthat they were younger somewhat than male chi,J student-affairs officers (average ages 37 vs. 44), that more than halfof each group held comparable doctoral degrees, thatwomen were more likely to be at smaller and at privatecolleges than men (56 percent of women in institutions withpopulations under 2,000), and that, while a larger percent-age of the women held faculty rank, men with faculty rankwere more likely to be at higher ranks (Evans and Kuh,1983).

A non-statistical report on a comparative study on theattitudes of mid-level managers toward affirmative actionand toward employment of women in the public sector in1973 and in 1983 found that:

It is likely that these 1983 managers have internalized atleast the symbolic message of equal opportunity. . . . andthe majority acknowledged their own responsibilities forimplementation (251) . . . Gone are the overt jokes or

42

55

hostile comments about "women can't do that" (256). . (and) that equal opportunity goals are being inter-nalized but that a residue of traditional sex role expecta-tions is retained by both managers and workers (Huckle1983, p. 257).

While Wilson (1985) noted that "the number of blackstudents in higher education doubled from 600,000 to 1.2million between 1960 and 1980" (p. 20), he also found that"black participation in higher education peaked in the late1970s and has declined gradually during the 1980s" (p. 21).Other statistics reflecting declines in more recent yearsincluded a drop in the proportion of black New York Stateyoungsters who go to college, from 20.7 percent in 1975 to19.4 percent in 1980, and of Hispanic students in thatper5od, from 20.4 percent to 16.1 percent; a drop in minor-ity students receiving student aid of 12.4 percent in 198384 from two years earlier (Hankin 1986). Further, blackparticipation rates in postgaduate education have declinedsince the early 1970s with significant implications for futurestaffing.

The Governmental and Judicial State of AffairsWhen the Reagan administration took office in 1981, con-cerns were expressed that the enforcement of affirmativeaction laws and policies would suffer. These concerns wereanswered by the administration with statements that theaffirmative action offices would have no reductions in staff.That response was received with some doubts. For exam-ple, the apocryphal "street talk" among human resourcepersonnel at New England high-tech government contrac-tors was that, while there might be a promise of no reduc-tion in staffing, the total annual travel budget for the gov-enment's New England regional affirmative action officewas to be $11, which would clearly have some impact onfield enforcement.

A summary of the very positive progress made in theUnited States with respect to equality of opportunity since1941, attributed in large measure to governmentally re-quired and court supported affirmative action, is follow-ed by the statement that "the Reagan Administration . . .

has adopted (and appointed persons to carry out) a phil-osophy opposed to affirmative action" (Wilson 1985, p. 20).

norther, blackparticipationrates inpostgraduateeducationhave declinedsince the early1970s withsigmficantimplicationsfor futherstaffing.


56

For many, remedy for inequitable treatment has beenfound in federal executive agencies' enforcement of equalopportunity requirements, and ir the courts. Numbers ofour campuses operate within the terms of negotiated affir-mative action plans and goals, recorded id court supervisedsettlements known as cons".nt decrees. Affirmative actionrequireulents have generally been reinforced by court deci-sions. An example is the ruling, based on findings by thefederal district court, thal the University of Rhode Island"was guilty of disciiminating against female faculty mem-bers" (Watkins 1985, p. *.r) by offering lower starting sala-ties and lower ranks; the approval of both the faculiy unionand the affirni.tive action officer at URI are now mandatedbefore any candidates can be offered faculty positions."Juage Selya criticized the miversity for what he called'high-level' footdragging over affirmative action for morethan a decade" (p. 24).

The Civil Rights Commission has concluded that "sevenof the nine judges have now approved the most vigoroussort of affirmative action" (Wilson 1985, p. 20). Even deci-sions in the courts, however, can be clouded. William B.Reynolds, the United Sta.-es Assistant Attorney Generalfor Civil Rights, has been at the center of several contro-versies over the interpretations of Supreme Court rulings.A 1984 decision

. . was interpreted by Mr. Reynolds as barring anypreferential treatment of minorities unless the individu-als aided could prove that they had personally suffereddiscrimination . . . He used that interpretation to try tooverturn dozens of consent decrees . . . sixfederalappeals courts have rejected his interpretation (Fields1986b, p. 10).

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (Case No. 84-1340)was decided by the Supreme Court in May 1986. Whilestriking down an affirmative action agreement that pro-tected the jobs of minority schoolteachers doring layoffs, amajority of the court

. . rejected a central tenet of the Administration'sattack on affirmative actionits contention that the

44

57

Constitution bars any race-consck,us preferences inemployment, except to aid proven victims of bias . . .

Justice Sandra D. O'Connor said in a concurring opin-ion last week that she and her colleagues agreed that anaffirmative action plan "need not be limited to the reme-dying of specific instances of identified discrimination. . . In the deciding opinion, Justice Lewis F. Powell,Jr., indicated that hiring goals would be more accept-able to the Court than preferential layoffs" (Fields1986a, pp. 1, 15).

Interpretations of this decision have been mixed. Within 10days, it was reported that Assistant Attorney General Rey-nolds, who has been conducting a campaign to rewriteExecutive Order 11246, said that the decision

. . would require the Administration to repeal at leastpart of an executive order that has been used to requirecolleges, universities, and other employers with govern-ment contracts to launch affirmative action programs tohire and promote more women and members of minoritygroups (Fie)ds 1986b, p. 10).

Reynolds' interpretation "was immediately rejected by aspokesman for the Labor Department, which enforces theorder" (p. 10).

On July 2, 1986, the Supreme Court spoke even moredefinitively, with rulings that

. . rejected the Reagan administration's reading of a1984 Supreme Court decision, which it contended sup-ported its view that affirmative action may be used onlyin helping identified victims of past discrimination, notmembers of disadvantaged groups generally (Shepard1986, p. 1).

This clear statement came in a pair of 7-2 votes:

The Supreme Court, repudiating the central principle ofthe Reagan administration's civil rights policies, yester-day strongly endorsed the use of affirmative action,including specific racial goals, to remedy past employ-ment discrimination. The Court, for the first time, said


58

federal judges may set goals and timetables requiringemployers who have discriminated to hire or promotespecific numbers of minorities . . . The decisions wereamong the clearest pronouncemerus on affirmative actionin the Cou I's history (Kamen and Marcus 1986, p. 1).

Policies and Procedures"An effective affirmative action program is designed toprovide equal consideration for all applicants for facultyand staff positions" (VanderWaerdt 1982, p. 4). "Affirma-tive action and equal opportunity provisions call for seek-ing the best possible person for a job, regardless of race,sex, age, or other extraneous factors" (Kaplowitz 1973, p.7). An institution "must go out and search all the avenues,nooks, and crannies to find the best candidates . . . it mustnever forget the meaning of the words 'affirmativeaction' " (Hankin 1985, p. 14). In summary, it is necessaryto actively (affirmatively) seek out qualified candidatesfrom all arenas, and to be sure that each candidate is evalu-ated for the position on the basis of her or his individualqualifications and fit for the position in question.

Pursuant to Executive Order 11246, an AffirmativeAction plan must contain two basic ingredientsnarra-tive sections which describe the contractor's good faithefforts to achieve affirmative action in employment, andstatistical analyses which analyze the contractor's prog-ress and problem areas, including the setting of annualgoals to remedy identified deficiencies (Stewart, Stickler,and Abcarian 1985, p. 1).

It is neither the focus nor the intent of this section todetail the policies, procedures, and practices that contrib-ute to an effective affirmative action office. Further, suchan attempt would be redundant, as that need has beenaddressed very comprehensively by VanderWaerdt (1982).While search-related notes from that work are cited in thisreview, attention is referred to the text in its entirety for adetailed yet non-technical introduction to effective andequitable affirmative action on campus. The need forinvolvement of the affirmative action officer in each phaseof the search process from its beginnings is clearly deline-

46

59

ated by VanderWaerdt (pp. 19-26); she specifically sug-gests that one role for the affirmative action director mightbe that of "the campus expert on hiring" (p. 20).

The affirmative action director needs to demonstrate aclear commitment both to the special interests representedby that office and to the overall welfare of the institution.That includes ensuring that candidates identified throughaffirmative action networks have the necessary qualifica-tions for the particular post to be filled. Further, it requiresthat the affirmative action officer model and demorutratethe high professional standards we seek of all search par-ticipants. The affirmative action officer who leaks confiden-tial information about the search, in an effort to force asearch committee's hand, damages the credibility of allaffirmative action efforts on that campus.

Well-designed and effectively administered affirmativeaction programs do work. The success of the University ofMassachusetts at Boston in increasing the proportion ofminority faculty members on campus can be ascribed tothe strong commitment of the chancellor to ethnic diver-sity, which was manifested in 1979 through a formal orga-nizational increase in the power of the (very effective)director of affirmative action (Reynolds 1986). Similarly,Hyer's (1985) case studies reported and illustrated success-ful programs that led to increases in the proportion ofwomen faculty members on three very different types ofcampuses; the key factors found common to these suc-cesses were:

1. commitment and leadership from the toppresidentsand/or provosts;

2. women speaking out in their own behalf and provid-ing leadership and energy;

3. in two of the cases, government pressure for an affir-mative action plan as an initial catalyst.

Critical Long-Term IssuesIn order to hire qualified people, the qualified people haveto be there in sufficient numbers to provide an adquatepool of candidates. In too many searches, one woman and/or one minority group member ends up among the 6 or 10or 15 final candidates identified. At least in part, thatappears to be because, statistically, sufficient numbers of

Selecting College and University Personnel 60 47

qualified women and of qualified minority members are notyet available for us to be able to totally ignore sex or race.Action still needs to be affirmative in any given search togenerate a pool of well-qualified candidates that includeswomen and minorities in reasonable numbers. And itappears that the pace at which the pool is developing isdifferent for women and for minority members.

An affirmative action officer indicated that finding quali-fied women is less difficult than it used to be. She cited herown campus, which had been statistically "overutilized"in terms of women on the basis of the 1970 census, whichthen became "underutilized" on the basis of 1980 data,because of the significantly increased availability ofwomen. Increasing numbers of women appear to be "inthe pipeline." While the numbers of women on campusesare increasing, women still are significantly underrepre-sented in major college policy making positions, womenadministrators are paid less than male administrators, andthe problems are especially severe for minority women.(Finlay and Crosson 1981).

On the other hand, observers have noted that in 1979blacks represented only about 4 percent of all professionaland doctoral degree recipients (Hankin 1985); and a"decline in new black Ph.Ds from 1,400 a year in 1979 toabout 1,000 a year today" (Gelbspan and Kaufman 1985,p. 18). Additionally, the career directions selected by blackcandidates don't favor higher education:

"Fewer blacks than expected are emerging from theacademic pipeline . . . (the equal opportunity officer)blamed the phenomenon on more lucrative opportunitiesin corporate and professional jobs and a decline in thedemand for teachers" (Gelbspan and Haufman 1985,p. 18).

These two trends were joined in a September 1986 frontpage Chronicle headline, "Women Flock to GraduateSchools in Record Numbers, but Fewer Blacks are Enter-ing the Academic Pipeline" (McMillan and Heller 1986,p. 1). Statistics reflect a negative change of 19.2 percent inthe numbers of blacks in graduate schools between 197677 and 1984-85, an actual decline of about 12,500 blackstudents. Graduate school enrollment increased for His-

48

panics (by about 4,000, an increase of 20.4 percent) and forAsians (by about 10,000, an increase of 54.5 percent);40,000 more women ( +7.8 percent) also were enrolled,although

Women's representation in mathematics and the sci-ences, however, remains spotty. . . . women received just9 percent of the 1,078 doctorates awarded in physics andastonomy in 1985. In mathematics, they earned 15 per-cent of the Ph.Ds and in chemistry, 20 percent . . . (And]women with science doctorates have a higher unemploy-ment and underemployment rate than men (McMillanand Heller 1986, p. 25).

Perhaps the key long-term issue is the development of thepotential of all students who might someday staff our col-leges and universities. Gelbspan and Kaufman cite the rec-ollections of one black scholar:

Although he excelled as a student at Harvard, wi,nninghonors and voted head of a student academic council,he watched his professors invite white students to theirhomes to court them for their faculty potential. He neverreceived such an invitationdespite his outstanding rec-ord (1985, p. 18).

Recognizing that "we must not expect monodimensionalsolutions to multidimensional problems," Hankin urgesmultifaceted approaches to attract and recruit minority fac-ulty members, including "mentors and role models, net-works and nurturing climates" (1985, p. 16). He encour-ages support for programs like New Jersey's HispanicLeadership Program; societal attention to the intertwinedissues of housing, employment, and education; involve-ment of female and minority alumni to help recruit pros-pective students if white males are the only available cam-pus-based recruiters; devotion of time and attention to theretention of minority students moving toward the comple-tion of the various academic end points; and the recruit-ment and development of minority administrators fromamong the faculty (1985, pp. 16-17).

Aside from the need to draw upon the talents of the bestfrom all sectors of society, the need to have females and


62_

members of minority groups in leadership positions as oneaspect of affirmative action has been noted frequently. Thereason usually suggested is that it is important to providerole models for female and minority students and facultymembers. Seeing female and minority leaders also is quiteimportant for non-female and non-minority group membersas wellparticularly if so many of the stereotypes thatbedeviled previous generations are to be absent from theminds of future generations.

VanderWaerdt lists steps for the chief campus officers totake to assist in short- and long-term efforts, includingbeing informed; highlighting efforts in speeches; workingwith community leaders to engage their help in recruitingboth faculty and students; supporting professional develop-ment programs on campus; and questioning hirings andpromotions which do not contribute to goal achievement(1982, p. 8).

Women may have had different career patterns thanmen; if the career patterns of men are taken as the"norm," then the resumes of women may appear deviantto a search committee. Careful readings of the resumes ofwomen, attention to job requirements rather than previouscareer paths, distinguishing between candidates who haveheld particular positions and those who have performedjobs well, and reading the research that candidates havedone are suggested as ways of assuring that female candi-dacies do not fail unfairly (Bartlett and Barnes 1978).

Specific recent actions to help "convince minority groupmembers that faculty careers will, in the future, be presti-gious, rewarding, and available" (McMillen and Heller1986, p. 26) include increased graduate and postdoctoralfellowships in Florida (the McKnight Foundation's BlackDoctoral Fellowship Program); a joint Ford Foundation/National Research Council five-year minority doctoral fel-lowship program; similar legislatively funded programs inNew Jersey, Michigan, and Connecticut. New Jersey'sMinority Academic Careers Program is cited as a modelbecause it forgives students one-quarter of their loan foreach year they teach in the state after they receive theirdegree. The Big 10 plus the University of Chicago havesponsored fellowships since 1978 that help support minor-ity students in graduate programs in the sciences. A newNational Consortium for Educational Access ". . . intends

50

63 "

to identify minority undergraduates at 26 historically blackcolleges and help support them through Ph.D programs atnine research universities" (McMillen and Heller 1986,p. 26). Programs in California also are focusing on alertingtalented minority undergraduate juniors and seniors toopportunities in graduate education.

Other recommendations and approaches to the develop-ment of women and minority group members includeadministrative training programs as a strategy for advanc-ing in higher education administration (Kanter and Whea-tley 1978); organizations, networks, and caucuses, alongwith internships and other training programs (Finlay andCrosson 1981; Stent 1978); vita banks of minority andwomen candidates, although these have met with mixedresults at best (Heller 1985); increasing the number ofwomen and minority group members on governing boards,providing such specifically tailored developmental activi-ties as the appointment of women to budget and financecommittees, and planned mentor relationships (Ernst 1982;Moore 1982); developing sponsorship among people whohave political savvy and strength, and whose judgment andrecommendations are trusted (Kauffman 1978).


64

DESIRED ADMINISTRATIVE ATTRIBUTES

The effect of the successful adventure of the hero is theunlocking and release again of the flow of life . . . thisflow may be represented . . . dynamically as a streamingof energy (Campbell 1968, p. 40)

"Looking for 'God on a good day' " (Healy 1985, p. 45);seeking "the president as 'reasonable adventurer' (Pray1979, p. 22); trying to find "executives possessed ofremarkable strengths . . . who know how to handle adver-sity" (McCall and Lombardo 1983, p. 26, 30); the quest,the search for the monomythical heroes, for leadership, forrenewed vitality in the academic endeavor.. . .

It is difficult to recruit, identify, and select the "right"leadership for a campus. Even with the increasing numberof books and articles filled with good advice, and despitethe best efforts of search committees, we frequently fail.

In a . . . study of 32 colleges that had selected newdeans, only slightly more than half of the deans selectedindicated they would accept the position again if giventhe choice. About the same percentage ofmore than ahundred responding search-screening committee mem-bers said they would select the same person as dean ifthey had the opportunity to choose again (Lutz 1979,p. 261).

Further, the "right" person at a given point in an institu-tion's development no longer may be appropriate 6 or 10years later. The "builder" president may be a very ego-strong, internally-directed person who is able to push,cajole, convince, and sometimes bully boards, faculties,and/or legislatures into supporting major campus facilityand program expansions. That is a process, however, thatcan deplete political capital, and create what gradually canbecome a critical mass of enemies. Successful "builder"presidents quite often are forced eventually to leave theirexpanded campuses, to be succeeded by low key, other-directed, listening and stabilizing leadership, for a "consol-idation" phase. Similarly, the need may be for an adminis-trator who is a tough labor negotiator at one point in thedevelopment of a faculty union on campus, and for a con-ciliator at another. The "right"qualifications and attributesare often situational.

The "right"qualificationsand athibutesare oftensituational.


65

To assist in the selection of effective leadership for thecampusthis chapter reviews some of the current researchon factors that contribute to effective leadership; it thenexamines so-ne of the particular attributes and skills thatseem to support the effective performance of presidentsand of chief academic officers, and, more briefly, of otherselected campus administrators.

LeadershipPresidential leadership, although not the only ingredient,has been found to be a crucially important factor in a studyof successful colleges thai are growing and that are strivingfor academic excellence. An orientation to people, vision,opportunity consciousness, visibility, and a practicalapproach are suggested as some of the key traits of effec-tive campus leaders (Gilley, Fulmer, and Reithlingshoefer1986). Numerous similar lists of the traits of effective lead-ers have been compiled. Attributes on these lists generallycan be grouped in one of three ways: interpersonal abili-ties, personal attributes, and technical management skills.Two of the most helpful such compilations are those ofMcCall and Lombardo (1983) and Walker (1979).

Assessing 20 out of 41 executives who had successfully"arrived" against 21 who had their upward movement"derailed," McCall and Lombardo found that "the mostfrequent cause for derailment was insensitivity to otherpeople" (1983, p. 28). Overall, they identified 10 categoriesof fatal flaws, eight were intra- or inter-personal, and twowere technical.

Only two things . . . differentiated the successful fromthe derailed: total integrity, and understanding otherpeople. (Integrity means) . . . I will do exactly what I sayI will do when I say I will do it. (And) . . . if I change mymind, I will tell you well in advance so you will not beharmed by my actions (McCall and Lombardo 1983,p. 30-31).

Walker (1979, p. 2-5) identifies the world views of less-and more-effective campus administrators, suggesting thatthe less effective administrators are "taken" with the sta-tus of their position, and preoccupied with its authority andprivileges; react with threat, and a punitive sense of "going

54

66

after" those who have come after them; view decisionsindividually rather than in a larger context of interactiveproblems; eventually view faculty members as perverseand students as naive and mischievous. Conversely, moreeffective administrators wear the status and privileges ofoffice lightly, separating themselves from their office withegos that "are not bulky." They view the academic com-munity as a group of legitimate constituencies with differ-ing interests. Their administrative style is pragmatic; theyview administration as a process, and events as beingrelated. They also have a sense of self-confidence.

The Presidency

The choice of a new president or chancellor is the mostimportant and far-reaching responsibility of any board(Gale 1980, p. 4).

Studies have been validating the long held belief that presi-dents "make a difference" (Kerr 1984). This section gath-ers some of the findings and observations of both theoreti-cians and practitioners to suggest the qualities that mightbe desired when seeking new presidential leadership.These include:

Being a "reasonable adventurer"a president wholistens well, gets staff viewpoints and help, yet makesdecisions alone; who expects much of both self andstaff; who is open in thought processes; who is afriend without being a buddy to associates; and who istime conscious, priority conscious, and goal oriented(Pray 1979).In a community college, knowing the historical,social, and economic undercurrents of the college;using the organizational structure to facilitate progresstoward goals; communicating openly through formaland informal networks; identifying and avoiding egotraps; knowing and influencing positively the cultureand values of the college (MacTavish 1984).In a secular private liberal arts college or university,the president needs to "be qualified to serve as theinstitution's philosophical, community, political, aca-

Selecting College and University Personnel6 7 55

demic, and administrative leader" (Freeman 1985, p.29).All presidents need the capacity for educational lead-ership; a commitment to excellence; teaching andadministrative experience; a capacity for sound orga-nization; tact, diplomacy, patience, and a sense ofhumor; the gift of persuasion; broadness, tolerance,and a demonstrated concern for the betterment ofsociety (Strider 1981).Instead of seeking God on a good day, Healy believesthat "universities need leaders who can think, dream,envision, and image the future" (1985, p. 22); also,leaders who can be spokespersons and symbols; who,because the job is so very reactive, have an internalawareness of when the job is being done well; whohave the knowledge of how to relax and take vaca-tions.Fisher and Tack (in research to be put.lished in 1987)suggest that the most effective college presidents arerisk takers who rely on respect, believe less in closecollegial relationships than typical presidents, worklonger hours, make decisions more easily, and confideless in other presidents than do their counterparts atother institutions (McMillen 1986a).Presidents who have increased institutional strengthmake strong appointments; devote considerable timeto the details of management; appear to have a highlydeveloped intuition for finances; establish priorities fortheir own agendas and concentrate on those; valueand trust their faculties but, at the same time, resistfaculty incursions on management prerogatives; theyknow the fundamental nature of higher education andwhat things will not work (Mayhew 1979).

Fisher (1984) categorizes power as being charismatic,expert, coercive, legitimate, and/or reward-based. He sug-gests that charismatic leadershipwhich inspires trust andconfidence with a combination of distance, style, and per-ceived self-confidenceis the primary key to effectiveleadership, and, when coupled with expert and legitimatepower, to an effective preGidency.

One study reflects some differences between professedperceptions of an ideal candidate and the focus on the

56

68e

interpersonal attributes in lists of effective presidentialleadership. Findings were that 77.9 percent of facultymembers in Oklahoma desire administrators who arehigher in initiating structure than in the considerationdimension, 17.6 percent desire a higher considerationdimension, and 4.5 percent desire both characteristicsequally (Ghaemmaghami, 1984).

Green carefully notes swings of the pendulum withrespect to leadership styles. Further, she warns that, while"adversity often breeds the wish to find a saviora heroicindividual who can make the bold and difficult decisions"(1986 p. 18)when a leader, acting under stress, has usedpowcr to move an institution singlehandedly:

. . . damage will be done to long-term issues, to morale,and to the institutional value system. When the crisis haspassed, the leader will inevitably have to pay attentionto the frightened and demoralized faculty who were notfully part of the rapid change process . . . to ignore thetraditions of faculty input and the need for self-determi-nation threatens the ability of an institution to continueto plan, adapt, and move forward as a body.. . . Facul-ties will find a way to sabotage academic decisionsabout which they were not consulted . . . Few can leadlong without the consent of the governed (Green 1986,pp. 18-19).

Suggesting that "definitions of effective contemporarybusiness management sound like classic descriptions ofcollege presidents" (1986, p. 20), Green concludes thatthere is no single formula for successful presidential leader-ship; rather, that leadership is situational, and presidentsneed a personally authentic approach to leadership that issolidly grounded in their convictions.

In the (not-very-distant) past, the list of requirements fora president would have included an additional item: anable, available, and supportive spouse. In light of societalchanges still unfolding, it appears sufficient to indicatethat, while a supportive spouse is a nice thing to have inanyone's personal and professional life, she or he no longeris a part of the official presidential "deal," unless sepa-rately contracted with and hired. The gender and maritalstatus of presidents are no longer assumed. Presidents way


601

be male or female; if the presidents are married, theirspouses may be professionals in their own arenas, parentsof small children, and/or graduate students; and their rolesmay change as their own lives evolve. "Trustees mighthave to consider. . . . that they can no longer pay the priceof getting two persons for one salary in this changing soci-ety" (Thompson and Thompson 1983, p. 46). On a relatedsubject, it is noted that son-ta presidents have even begunto use the on-campus "president's house" as an entertain-ment area only, while living in privacy with their familiesoff campus. A final commentary on the listing of qualifica-tions for the presidency is Trachtenberg's observation:

I was quite struck by the fact that before I came to (thiscampus), the faculty seemed terribly concerned aboutmy academic background and about my position on avariety of matters having to do with teaching, research,learning, and scholarship. After my inauguration, how-ever, I was steuck by how unpopular I could become bycontinuing to address these very issues (1981, p. 8).

Chief Academic OfficersDeans, Et Al.

The title "dean of the faculty" . . . suggests . . . thatthe officer so designated is the focus of the relationsbetween the faculty of a univerfity and the corporateentity as represented by the president and the board . . .

the dean of the faculty should be both the chief represen-tative of the president to the faculty through the schoolsand departments and the recognized representative ofthe general faculty in the higher levels of universityadministration . . . His job is to be a leader in the educa-tional functions of the university (Brown 1977, p. 204).

Brown suggests some qualities that help the individualfunction effectively, including an ability and willingness tosimplify bureaucratic practices, and spending much timeon extended face-to-face interactions with senior officers,department heads, and faculty members.

Four factors found to be indicators which discriminateeffectively between poor and outstanding academic deansare: intellectual efficiency; flexibility; knowledge about theposition; and judgment (Skipper 1982).

58

70

The criteria which appear to have a bearing on a dean'slikelihood to succeed were examined (Heald 1982). Cri.?', aused by search committees looking for dems of educationwere gathered in two war- first by examining the jobpostings, and then by surveying the cha:,persons of thosesearch committees; then, the opinions of the deansselected as a result of those same searches were surveyedfor the deans' collective sense of the factors that pv,important for their success on the job. Seven key factorsappeared on both group's lists of their 10 most importantcriteria. Lnadership skill and decision making skills w..:rethe two top factors on each list. The othei five criteriacommon to both the committees' and deans' lists were:sensitivity to faculty needs, program development skills,faculty relations sLills, communica:ions skills, and a visionfor education. Further, several inconsistencies betweenpublished criteria and those actually considered importantwerenoted in Heald'r. study:

"Demonstrated scholarship" was the most frequentlycited criterion in published postings, yet search chail--persons ranked it as the 13th most important ,-riterinfor selection, and deans as 27th most important forperforming the job. Similarly, research commitn,-!nt,which was the third most often published criterion,was ranked as 19th and 25th by chairpersons anddeans, respectively."Vision for education" was included on only two listsof published criteria, yet it was ranked ninth in impor-tance by tft,: search committee chairr.rsons, and thirciin importance by the deans. "Rculty relations sks"was on the published list of only one institution, yet itwas ranked seve-,th by search chairper.:ons and sixthby deans."Planning and evaluation skills" were cited in onlytwo of the position postings, yet they were ranked fifthin import by the deans; similarly, "health and vit3r"was listed by only one institution, yet it was ranked asseventh most important by the deans (Heald 1982).

An earlier study (Reid and Rogers 1981) similarly exam-ined the mechanics of the search process, the compositionof search committees, the reasons for candidate selection,


71

and the background data of successful candidates in 45schools that hired provosts or vice presidents for academicaffairs. Two key findings reported were that experience asa dean was more important than experience as a depart-ment chair for candidates in large institutions, while thereverse was true in small, private institutions; and that fac-ulty members reached beyond their own limits in selectingleadership, e.g., selected candidates had more, and moreprestigious, publications than did the faculty membersselecting them.

In a study that examined both the managerial skillsneeded by deans and the various career paths to the dean-ship, out of eight categories of management skills listed,the two most important skills were identified as (1) pro-gram planning and implementation, and (2) using personneleffectively (Sagaria and Krotseng 1986). This study alsofound that two pathsfaculty to chairperson to dean, andother-administrator to deandeveloped necessary skillsfor the management aspects of the deanship better than didother paths to the deanship.

In a personalized review on his 11 years of service asdean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Harvard, Rosov-sky (1987) reflected on the management skills needed foreffective senior-level university administration. Heincluded being able to

listen to constructive gossip:balance a number of special interests;deal with the press;ask for money ("an excellent way to test the free mar-ket") (p. 39);avoid confusing the privileges of representing one'sinstitution with personal entitlement;take charge of 15,000 people and rather large budgets.

In summary, Brown (1984) suggests that the leadershiproles of chief academic officers include strategic planning,budgeting, an awareness of emerging technologies, facultyleadership, and faculty development, all of which are besteffected through a participatory leadership strategy.

Department and Division HeadsRather than seeking a department head with a typical post-ing coat seeks a "recognized specialist in late-16th-century

60

72

Spanish mysticism, schoiarly publications essential," anappropriate job description for a department head mightmore reasonably read:

Experienced arbitrator needed to restore effectiveness todivided department. Excellent health, a good sense ofhumor, practical administrative experience vital; somepublications helpful" (Hilt 1986, p. 80).

Three very distinct types of positions might be identifiedunder the gem.ral heading of "department and divisionheads." These include.

1. The department head in a major university, quiteoften filled on a rotating basis by senior scholars fromwithin the department, none of whom want the dis-tractions of the job, and each of whom fills it for atwo- or three-year term as a professional obligation;

2. The division head, particularly in a community ormoderate-sized four-year college, who in actualitymay be filling many of the ro'es of a deanship but witha different title;

3. The department head within a divisional structure,filled sometimes as a very first step in an administra-tive career ladder, sometimes for titular and someadditional financial recognition of the lead teacher in asmall department, and sometimes used as a haven forvery senior faculty members where less direct class-room contact with students is in everyone's bestinterest.

Tucker suggests that, in baccalaureate institutions"department chairpersons perceive themselves primarilyas faculty members with some administrative responsibili-ties," while in two-year colleges it is the reverse (1984

p. 30). Summarizing research on what department chairsdo, Booth (1982) indicates that chairs in comprehensiveuniversities spend about 21 hours per week in departmentaladministration, including recordkeeping, budgets, physicalfacilities, personnel management including faculty develop-ment, and liaison duties.

"In assessing the essential qualifications of an effectivechairman, I would put intuitive integrity first" (Brown

. Sel-Pctedcandidai.,,s hadmore, andmoreprestigious,publicationsthan did thefacultymembersselectingthem.


73

1977, p. 190). Additional qualifications listed by Bp Iwninclude: a sense of organization; a sense of balancebetween organization and scholarship; humility to seekadvice and to delegate; a willingness to accept responsibil-ity when decisions must be reached; artful leadership; awillingness to assure a proper balance in the diverseapproaches to learning and the varied subareas of instruc-tion within the discipline. Burke notes that "participatorymanagement requires a skilled leader (chairman) for opti-mum results" (1986 p. 6), and she suggests that:

Selection of chairmen who can lead a department toconsensus, and chairmen who can develop the environ-ment of mutual trust and shared goals where consensualbehavior thrives, is crucial (1986, p. 29).

Other Campus AdministratorsFisher (1985) examines the managerially valuable but little-studied role of the presidental assistant. He suggests thatthe presidential assistant is an extension of the personalityand role of the president; needs the president's completeconfidence and to be consistently involved in the presiden-tial business; fills a function that is defined exclusively interms of the president's best interests. There may not bethe slightest appearance of threat to the president or vicepresidents. The person must be able to subordinate his orher ego, be available as a confidant(e) to the president,function without power in her/his own right, respect thepresident, and be able to handle feelings of being lonely,isolated, and invisible. Some of the key characteristics ofthe good presidential assistant include altruism; an abilityto perceive reality and accept it; being able to developdeep interpersonal relationships with others; knowing thatan institution does not have the capacity to care or returnaffectiononly people do; and being able to laugh a lot,mostly at oneself, as well as being able to see the fun inany situation (Fisher 1985).

Simmons (1983) has written about the particular rolesand responsibilities of administrative officers in small col-leges. Noting that the small college president is generallyaway from campus between one-third and one-half of thetime, she suggests that much of the day-to-day manage-

62

7 4

ment is delegated to vice-presidential level officers, who"must command the respect not only of the president butof the college community;" the majority must be "articu-late spokesmen for the college;" at least one "should havefamiliarity with data analysis;" they must be able to gatherintelligence for the president in her or his absence, and beable and willing to provide uncensored information uponthe president's return. She also suggests that, in the smallcollege, flexibility and a willingness to work far beyond thenormal scope of any given job description, particularly atthe middle management level, is critical to the welfare ofthe enterprise.

Bussey (1981) suggests that the qualifications for a suc-cessful college alumni director include having good peopleskills, dedication, enthusiasm, honesty, good communica-tion skills, humility, and the ability to manage money well.

In addition to a knowledge of basic fiscal management,the qualifications for administrators in finance positionsshould include good verbal ability, attention to detail, andan ability to see the overall picture (Fear 1984).

Finally, the overall importance of building a presidentialteam is central to the success of the chief administrativeofficer. Uehling (1981) suggests that the key characteristicsof such a team should include: individuals whose strengthscomplement the president's and each other's; a balancebetween those who are fast-moving and those whoaredeliberate, and between those with task orientations andthose with people orientations, as well as between idf...alistsand pragmatists. Uehling also notes that waiting for theright candidate can be painful, but selecting the wrong can-didate can be even more costly. And, "in the last analysis,the president decides who the members of the team willbe" (p. 28).

Placement specialists often remind us that there art: noperfect candidates, and no ideal jobs. The context and con-ditions of the campus, recent college and larger world his-tory, and the characteristics of candidates must jointly beassessed. It is perhaps possible to derive a general sensethat, no matter what the position, search committees needto seek a humane person, someone who is able in interix ;--

sonal dealings, with personal integrity that is evidenced inprevious work, and with at lc...A some ability to handle thefinancial and technical aspe,),:, of organizational management.


`-;t

REFERENCES

One of the most difficult arenas to discuss adequately inthe search and selection process relates to seeking, secur-ing, and evaluating meaningful and reliable references.

In "the best of all possible worlds," we might be able toseek and obtain written references which are accurate intheir assessments, indicate both the strengths and theshortcomings of the candidates, and provide detailed sup-port thereof. For a number of reasons, we do not find our-selves in that world. Levine, reporting the results of a sur-vey of corporate personnel managers, indicated that thetwo most popular areas of formal inquiries made of pre-vious employers are the dates of employment and whetherthe employee would be eligible for rehire (1984, p. 9). Mostpersonnel officers "are reluctant to release some or allinformation" to others about their former employees, yetthey "seek the same information when they are hiring. Thereason for this "give little, ask much' practice was caution,not deceit," and a fear of libel suits (Zippo and Greenberg1982, p. 52).

It was also reported that "78 percent include on theirapplication forms a place vvhere applicants can indicatethat they grant the prospective employer permission wcheck references" (Levine 1984, p. 9). This practice sup-ports the belief that, if api.licants have signed such anauthorization, they are more likely to tell the truth, particu-larly since such statements usually include a clause thatgives permission to end consideration for employment, orto terminate after employment starts, if there has been anymisrepresentation on the application (Fear 1983, p. 76;Vecchio 1984, p. 26)..

Written ReferencesIn this lit;gious age, referees rarely write about anythingbut the Jsitive aspects of a candidate. Occasionally, theperceptive reader of a reference can discern some of whatis not being said, but even the "between the lines nega-tive" has become less common. The two things that onealibe.i reasonably hope for from written reference s are that(1) thinking and caring referees will provide nam tive sup-port for the fine qualities attributed to the candidate, pro-viding at least some solid reason to accept the positivesnoted; (2) one would be a weak candidate indee if she or

Selecting College and University ?ersonnel 65

76

he were not able to find at least several people willing tosay good things about him or her.

In at least one academic arena letters of reference doappear to carry particular weight: the selection of new fac-ulty members. Burke (1986) found that letters of referenceare extremely important as a screening device for newresearch faculty members, and that the identity of theauthor of those letters is one key factor in assessing theletters. When members of a search committee are review-ing written letters of recommendation, they might notethat:

Sometimes a reference reveals more about its writerthan about the applicant. . . .

Letters from faculty members, discussing their stu-dents, are often written paternalistically regardless ofthe student's previous background, age, or experi-ence . .

If a reference is negative, there may be clues that itreflects a hostile personal relationship between itswriter and the candidate. If so, is it possible to attrib-ute the fault to the candidate or the writer? Is it possi-ble that the letter was written by a superior piquedthat a subordinate may be leaving, either because anequally good replacement would be hard to find orbecause of jealousy about the prospective promotion?On the other hand, could it be that the negative refer-ence is the only honest one in the bunch?Positive and important personal attributes that mightcome through in references include high energy levelsand initiative; the quality of scholarship might also bereflected (Kaplowitz 1973, p. 21).

ceeking Additional Information.:ssuming that a candidate has reached a point where sheor he is in serious consideration for a position, furtherinformation supporting the claims of the candidate, reflect-ing strengths and weaknesses, and assessing the candidatefor the particular position on the particular campus will beneeded and sought.

The seeking of references in any format can be fraughtwith dangereven more so for the candidate than for thesearch committee, yet with potential problems for each. If

66

77

references are sought carelessly, for example, a candidatemay feel publicly exposed on her or his home campus, andmay withdraw from candidacy, weakening the pool of goodcandidates for the position. While this issue is discussed ingreater depth under the topic; of confidentiality and open-ness in the search, the need to respect the confidentiality ofcandidates cannot be stated too often.

Information on candidates may be sought both fromthose people suggested as referees, and from others not sonamed. In either case, the committee needs to ascertain,with each candidate, whether and when referees may becontacted. If a candidate has asked that people on thehome campus not be informed of the candidacy, thatrequest for confidence needs to be respected. If a candi-date has indicated that a supervisor may be contacted onlyif the candidate is a finalist for the position, then when thecandidate becomes a finalist (one of 3, not of 18), it isappropriate and necessary that the candidate know of thatstatus, and give permission to contact people on the homecampus.

Some of the issues at that point include how and fromwhom to seek references, how to do so discreetly, and howto get references that are helpful and accurate. Oneapproach is to have a consultant involved in the process,and to let the consultant do the reference checking. Anadvantage of this approach is that the consultant may havea network that allows for more in-depth, yet still discreet,checking than might otherwise be available to a campus.Good consultants are trusted by their contacts, who maytell them real truths that would not be shared with anyoneelse. Most searches are conducted, however, without theinvolvement of a consultant.

Some committees assign one member to do the referencechecking for each candidate to assure a uniform approachand uniform reporting back to the committee. Others pre-fer to involve several members of the committee. In eithei.case, an interview which is structured yet which has suffi-cient open-ended questions for good discussion is recom-mended; when several different callers are involved, for-mal structure is necessary.

It is appropriate and generally quite useful to check withthe referees named by the candidate as the primary sourcesof information. Candidates generally will suggest individu-


78

als either to whom they have reported, or with whomthey've worked as colleagues, and/or, on some occasions,individuals who have reported to them. It is suggested thatthis last case can reflect a key issue often overlooked bysearch committees, and yet a very important question foradministrative effectiveness: How well does the candidatebuild a team and develop the people reporting to him orher? Also, in some cases, a candidate's former secretaryparticularly an executive secretary or administrative assis-tantcan provide more thorough and accurate informationthan any three vice-presidents.

In addition to referees named by the candidate, searchcommittees sometimes feel a need to seek additional infor-mation from other sources, independent sources who mayconfirm or raise questions about the information alreadygathered. Again, confidentiality can be an issue.

At the stage at which references are being checked, theperson's candidacy often can be disclosed to the referee.However, the sometimes more subtle appiaaches used byconsultants also can be used by committees. A good con-tact is a discreet contact. Frequently, among the membersof the committee, one or more people will have friends onthe past and/or current campuses of a candidate . . .

friends who truly can be trusted, both for accurate infor-mation and for an ability to keep a confidence. Suchresources can be very helpful, and it is amazing how oftena committee contains sufficient resources within itself tocheck in that way on each final candidate.

Determining performance in positions prior to the cur-rent position generally can be done with a bit more com-fortbut, even there, confidentiality should be requestedfrom referees. Everyone connected with the search pro-cess in more than casual ways has a treasury of horrorstories relating to the checking of references. One fre-quently repeated problem begins when a member of asearch committee calls a colleague on a candidate's homecampus. The colleague is generally a member of the paral-lel department, someone with whom a drink might havebeen shared once at a professional meeting. That col-league's loyalties, reliability, and ability to be discreet aretotally unknown. Such calls are invitations to disaster, andin fact have precipitated problems for more than candidateand committee.

68

79

When calling about candidates whose confidentiality isimportant, one approach sometimes used is to suggest thatthe individual in question has been nominated for the par-ticular position, but is not yet a candidate and may noteven know of the committee's interest, and that the com-mittee is calling to determine whether it is appropriate topursue the candidacy. Quite frequently, as in the case ofnominations and/or active recruiting where good prospec-tive candidates have been identified by the search commit-tee, that is the truth; on the other hand, this approach isnot helpful or appropriate if the candidate has visited thecampus and that visit most likely is known to the referee.

When calling a referee, a search committee caller willgenerally identify him- or herself, name the position forwhich the candidate is being considered, and ask if the per-son can talk at that time or would rather set an appoint-ment to discuss the nominee or candidate. For active can-didates, it is appropriate to indicate that the call is beingmade to verify information given to the committee by thecandidate. A list that has been used with some degree ofsuccess to conduct reference checks for administrativecandidates includes the following questions:

1. What was the exact title of the position held by thecandidate?

2. What did you think of him/her?3. Did the candidate have responsibility for the super-

vision of others? How many? How was it handled?4. How closely was it necessary to supervise the candi-

date?5. Was she/he willing to accept responsibility?6. Did the candidate have any responsibility for policy

formation? How was that handled?7. Did the candidate develop any new plans or pro-

grams? Were they effectively developed? Effectivelypresented?

8. Did the candidate finish what he/she started?9. How well did the candidate get along with people?

10. Why did she/he leave?11. Does the candidate have any personal difficulties

that might interfere with effectiveness on the job?12. What are the candidate's outstanding strong points?

Everyoneconnected withthe searchprocess inmore thancasual wayshas a treasuryof horrorstories relatingto thechecking ofreferences.


s

13. What are the candidate's weak points? (Kaplowitz1973, p. 26).

It is important, Of course, to listen carefully and Ectivelyto the referee. While body language can't be observed, theuse of certain voice tones, phrases, and sometimes misdi-rections can be very telling. In one recent search, a cam-pus head who was called for a reference on his vice-presi-dent suggested that, while competent, the vice-presidentperhaps was not able to make the hard decisions when nec-essary. When this conversation was reported in detail tothe search committee, committee members somehow feltunsatisfied because of something in the manner in whichthis opinion had been stated. The committee checked fur-ther. They found that, in fact, the vice-president was run-ning the institution, and had managed to retain the confi-dence and support of the faculty while making significantnecessary (and "hard-) budgetary adjustments.

Occasionally, answers may seem ambiguous, or the ref-eree's opinion of the candidate's suitability for the particu-lar position may be unclear. Often a clear-cut response canbe evoked with a summarizing statement that calls for spe-cific agreement or disagreement, for instance, by using themore appropriate of two suggested statements:

I take it that you don't recommend the applicant veryhighly for the position, or I take it that you recommendthe applicant very highly for the position (Fortunato andWaddell 1981, p. 128).

In summary, it is necessary to discreetly, carefully, andthoroughly research candidates.

False CredentialsA separate yet related iss is the question of false claimson resumes. Noting that "most applicants do present theircredentials honestly," Vecchio makes several suggestionsto help detect deceptions. Items to watch for include:

Deliberate creation of uncertainty/ambiguity, as"attended 'x' university;"Vague, shifted, omitted dates;

70

81

Differences between honors from, and membership in,professional organizations;Omissions, abbreviations, peculiar wordings, and/orodd or puzzling inclusions (Vecchio 1984, p. 27).

Several precautionary actions that may be taken include:

Circulating the applicant's papers among specialistswithin the field (a norm for academic candidacies, atleast);Obtaining a work sample (perhaps something the can-didate has published, if appropriate);Getting documentation such as official transcriptswhich must be done for all candidates at the samelevel to avoid possible charges of bias (securing offi-cial transcripts always is recommended before anyappointment is made, and, while an irritant to candi-dates earlier in the screening, is generally an appropri-ate precautionary step with respect to all finalists);Doing reference checks;Including the statement about misrepresentations sug-gested above on the application form (Vecchio 1984,p. 26).

Finally, if someone with false credentials slips through, heor she needs to be removed as quickly as the forgery isdiscovered (Vecchio 198A p. 27).


82

INTERVIEWING CANDIDATES

Hundreds of books, manuals, and articles havedescribed how a good employment interview should beconducted. Most of these assume that the interview willbe rational and objective, and produce a sound decision.But, according to . . . Webster, this is nonsense (Zippoand Northart 1983, p. 79).

Arvey and Campion (1982) express some wonder at whythe interview continues to be so popular as a method forselection when the fragmented research that exists pro-duces little of value to selectors. While acknowledging thatit is difficult to identify any equally efficient alternative,their review of available research reflects that:

1. interviews are valid as a work sample of such behav-ior as sociability and verbal fluency;

2. interviews are not valid in the selection process aspredictors of job performance, despite the great faiththat interviewers have in their judgment;

3. interviews do give the interviewer an opportunity tosell the job to the candidate.

Nevertheless, as Burke notes, "there is general agreementthat the interview is the pinnacle of the upward climb . . .

the place where the candidate can perform brilliantly orself-destruct" (1986, p. 14).

We can anticipate the continuation of interviewing as akey aspect of the selection process in higher education forseveral reasons: the sociability of a prospective facultymember or administrator is of significance to the variouscampus constituencies involved; "the interview must beregarded as a two-way process" (Palmer 1983, p. 34) togive the candidate an opportunity to assess the particularcampus as a prospective professional home; we in fact donot have any equally effective alternative. It would seemappropriate, therefore, to gather the best available wisdomon how to make the interview as useful and effective a partof the quest as possible.

The extensive treatment of the interview process byFear (1984), which (deservedly) was named by the Ameri-can Society for Personnel Administrators as the year'smost outstanding human resource management book,strongly suggests the value of a carefully planned and


83

1CNI,

structured interview. This will enable interviewers toaccomplish their two broad objectives, "to develop rele-vant information and . . . to interpret the information theybring to light" (p. 85). He suggests that interviews seek toascertain:

how diligently they (the candidates) will be willing towork;whether they are likely to get along well with people;whether they can adapt to the environment;whether they can solve complex problems; andwhether they have the potential for leadership (Fear1984, p. 86).

To get the answers to those and similar questions, vary-ing approaches are suggested. "The interviewer's ques-tions . . . must be as tough as the problems that will facethe executive who gets the job" (Ginsburg 1980, p. 32).Citing such comments as: "It was obviously a setup for theinternal candidate . . ." and "I was given 10 minutes infront of a panel of 12, eight of whom said nothing . .

Palmer (1983) suggests that each aspect of the interviewmust be handled as a public relations process.

For faculty candidates at research universities, Burkereports a tripartite interview process:

I. A presentation by the candidate to faculty membersand graduate students with research interests similarto those of the candidate. Viewed by many as themost important aspect of the interview. Often calledthe "group professional activity" or "job talk."

2. Individual meetings with current faculty members,during which those faculty members' research and"what life is like" at the institution are frequently dis-cussed; also, meeting with graduate students and,sometimes, with the appropriate dean(s).

3. The semisocial periods, which have "to be consid-ered very semi," as much grilling and testing of"whether the candidate will fit in as a colleague" takeplace during these times (1986, pp. 15-17).

There appears to be general agreement that good inter-viewing can and should be taught (Fear 1984; Felton and

74

84

Lamb 1982; Goodace 1982; Palmer 1983). On the otherhand, the amount of structure recommended for interviewsdoes vary. Bouchard, Deane, and Roots suggest that "aselection interview should be as structured as possible, yettailored to each particular applicant" (1983, p. 6), whileGoodace 0982) prefers a more semistructured approach,with signiLcant amounts of flexibility.

Conducting the InterviewNoting that "the actual moment of entering the room is adaunting one, even for the most experienced candidates,"Palmer (1983, p. 36) suggests that the person chairing agroup interview rise and shake hands with the candidate,and then introduce the other members of the panel byname and position. As candidates will then "promptly for-k,ct these, the use of name cards would be helpful" (p. 37).It has been noted that some members of the campus com-munif.L., particularly those who may be serving on searchcommittees for the first time, also may approach the firstinterview(s) with a degree of trepidation.

A typical interview might begin with an attempt to estab-lish informal rapport, then include an explanation of thepurpose and agenda, a gathering of information, somedescription of the job and organization, and time foranswering the candidate's questions; it might concludewith an expression of appreciation to the candidate, and anindication of what will happen next in the process (Bou-chard, Deane, and Roots, 1983). McVicker (1986) warnsthat the interviewer(s) need to be well prepared before theinterview begins, to have reviewed carefully each candi-date's materials before the interview, and to have notes onperL:ent information given and desired and specific ques-tions th tt need to be asked.

To actually gather the desired information, Fear pro-vides a number of detailed recommendations on how keyinterview tasks might be accomplished; the new inter-viewer will find his book to be of significant value. In brief,his suggestions include:

1. Seek to have the candidate do as much as 85 percentof the talking, and use carefully worded questions todo so.

Selecting Coege and University Personnel 75

85

76

2. Exhibit helpful interviewing skills, including appro-priate encouraging non-verbal behavior, the judi-cious use of the calculated pause in listening,encouraging voice tone, and positive verbal and non-verbal reinforcement to appropriately recognizeachievements. Soften direct questions with suchphrases as: "Is it possible that" . . . "How did youhappen to" . . . "Has there been any opportunityto" . . . "To what do you attribute" . . . "might". . . "perhaps" . . . "to some extent" . . . "some-what" . . . and "a little bit."

3. Begin with smal talk to help the candidate get usedto hearing his/her voice in that environment.

4. Bridge the gap beimeen the small talk and the firstquestion with a comment such as, "Let me tell you alittle bit about our discussion today"; include anoverview of the interview.

S. Ask candidates to talk about the details of each pre-vious job, including duties and responsibilities, joblikes and dislikes and any special achievementsalong the way. "The comprehensive introductoryquestion represents the single most important tech-nique for getting applicants to do most of the talk-ing" (p. 102).

6. Use followup questions and comments to helpprobe more deeply for clues to behavior by examin-ing three key areas of previous jobs: achievementsand strengths demonstrated; development needsidentified ("Did you get any clues to your develop-ment needs as a result of working on those jobs?You know, we all have some shortcomings . . ."(p. 298)); factors that have provided job satisfactionfor the individual.

7. "The interview that results in no unfavorable infor-mation is inescapably a poor interview" (p. 89). Playdown unfavorable information, e.g., saying that aperson has faced up to prior problems serves toacknowledge them without making light of them.This will make discussion of areas for growth moreacceptable to the candidate. However, if an inter-viewer "gives the slightest indication that judgmentis being adversely influenced by unfavorable infor-

8 6

mation . . . (the interviewer) . . . will get no furtherinformation of this kind" (pp. 101-102).

8. Don't ask questions that "lead" to a particularanswer. "There is a wonderful phrase'To whatextent'that makes any question open-ended . .

'To what extent were you successful on that job?'(p. 109). Similarly, the question, "How did you feelabout that situation?" is a more neutral way of ask-ing a question, and helps get an objective response.

9. Make sparing but judicious use of "Why" questions,because the reasons that an individual took somecourse of action can tell a great deal about the candi-date's judgment and motivation.

10. Construct hypotheses about the candidate's behav-ior, based on early clues, and then test thesehypotheses with probes at appropriate intervalsthroughout the discussion (1984, pp. 89-121).

Higgins and Hollander suggest that questions in an inter-view should evoke descriptions of how candidates havebehaved in specific situations in the past. "The argument isthat past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior"(1987, p. 69). One difficulty with this otherwise validapproach is that it can tend to mitigate toward candidateswho have held similar positions in the past. It is much eas-ier unfortunately to hire someone who has already servedas a president (even if unsuccessfully) than to hire some-one who may have all of the requisite skills but "justhasn't done the job before."

Ginsburg suggests structuring an interview with morepointed questions. He provides a specific listing of 35 ques-tions that he believes an interviewer should isk, and heoffers 25 questions that the intervie.ver might exp.:a to beasked by a candidate who "tests reality aggressively"(1980, p. 34). A typical Ginsburg question to a candidate is:

I assume that at some point you were in head-on compe-tition with an individual . . . for promotion or status or. . . something of that type. What would your competitorsay about you in terms of your strengths and weak-nesses?" (p. 33).

Ginsburg suggests that good candidates can be expectedto include such questions as "What are the strengths and


,8 7

weaknesses of my prospective subordinates?" (p. 35), and,"Why did my predecessor leave the position, what wereher or his strengths, weaknesses, accomplishments, fail-ures?" (p. 36). In academia, good candidates generallytend to be asking those same questions, but rather moreindirectly than directly. The good candidate generally willhave the answers to those questions by the end of a day ofcampus-based interviewing, more often as a result of goodlistening and indirect questioning than of asking the moredirect questions suggested by Ginsburg.

QueL,ions about likes and dislikes on a job can generatemany valuable clues: "discussion of reasons for leavingjobs may provide clues to assets . . . (and/or to) . . . liabili-ties" (Fear 1984, p. 192). However, examining the reasonsfor changing jobs

. . is one of the most delicate aspects of the interview,since many applicants are sensitive about their reasonsfor having left certain jobs. The: efore, we try to get thisinformation spontaneously and indirectly by probing forjob dislikes. If this fails, however, we have to approachthe situation more directly with a softened follow-upquestion such as, "How did you happen to leave thatjob?" In posing this question, the interviewer should, ofcourse, give particular attention to her facial expres-sions and vocal intonation, in order to give an appear-ance of seeming as disarming and permissive as possible(Fear 1984, p. 190).

In asking questions during an interview, it is importantto remember Equal Employment Opportunity consider-ations, i.e., keep questions job related; do not ask ques-tions of women or minority group members that would notbe asked of others; do not ask women (and men) aboutplans for marriage, children, or childcare; do r 1/4 oldercandidates about retirement plans (Fear 1984) topicsgenerally considered inappropriate: and la sotv... cases ille-gal, are sexual preference, religion, national origins, handi-caps, and age (Bouchard, Deane, and Roots 1983).

And for heaven's sake, don't try to trick the applicantinto giving you information or coyly say, "I know I'mnot supposed to ask this, but. . . ." A smart applicant

78

88

will reply, "You're right, you're not!" and cross you offthe list of possibilities (McVicker 1986, p. 68).

When a candidate comes to a campus for an interview,that candidate is considering a cluster of major changes inher or his life, including new responsibilities, frequehtlyincluding a new geographic location and distancing fromexisting social and professional support systems, and oftenincluding similar relocation issues for family members aswell. Candidates expose themselves, to allow interviewersto examine, and then pass judgment, on the very centralprofessional and personal elements of their lives. Inter-views are structured to allow and help members of searchcommittees extract and examine the pertinent informationon candidates, to help examine the fit between those candi-dates and the campus context. Particularly because candi-dates have made themselves open in this process, membersof the search committee must demonstrate the highest lev-ds of personal and professional courtesy and considerationto all of their candidates in both the formal and informalportions of candidates' visits and interviews.


PERSONNEL OFFICE

While the personnel function on campus historically hasbeen quite separate from the academic endeavor, such fac-tors as the complex legal and statistical aspects of affirma-tive action, the increased formalization of recordkeepingand decision making, the greater complexity and centrali-zation of benefits administration, and the availability oncampus of increasingly able 5)ersonnel professionals havebegun to blur some of the lines bttween academic and non-academic personnel administration.

A key work (Fortunado and Waddell 1981) provides acomprehensive treatment of the traditional roles andresponsibilities of the personnel administration function inthe context of 'nigher education, including wage and salarymanagement, position analysis, employment, affirmative»ction, benefits, devek,pment, and personnel record-keeping.

The empkyment function of the personnel office focusesprimarily on the rtcruitment of campus support staff. Ingeneral, support personnel on a campus are a caring, hard-working, and valuable component of the academic enter-prise. They rovide assistance to faculty members in thepreparation of course materials and of manuscripts report-ing research findings; they often represent availability andcontinnity to students; and they are generally a majortratistnitter of a given campus' tone and culture.

A detailed discussion of the recruitment and selection ofsupport personnel, which is beyond the purview of thisbook, is found in Fortunado and Waddell (1981, pp. 86139). Additionally, the College and University PersonnelAssociaticn provides much useful and timely material in itsjournals. AI third major resource for tho Tecruitment andselection of support staff is the staffing section of the com-prehensive corporate sector handbook published by theAmerican Society for Personnel Administration (Yoder andHeneman, Jr., editors, 1979, pp. 4.1-4.296; updates of thehandbook are scheduled for release in six parts, to be pub-lished twice a year beginning in the fall of 1987).

With respect to academic staffing, the role of personneiofficers will vary from campus to campus. "Intruders" intothe academic arena occasionally are met with hostility. Incases where the chief per.;onnel administrator and/or theaffirmative action officer have become the campus expertson the search process, and are able and willing to provide

Theemploymentfunction of thepersonneloffice focusesprimarily ontherecruitment ofcampussupport staff


90

both technical and recordkeeping assistance, faculty hostil-ity has turned into an appreciative welcome. In somecases, personnel and/or affirmative action officers hold anex-officio slot on search committees. It follows, ofcourse,that the personnel officers serve to help with the technicalprocess, and they do not seek to intrude on the judgmentsof academic competence. Personnel and affirmative actionoffices that are structured to use computers for recordkeeping and for word processing can also provide that kindof support in academic searches.

Additionally, the personnel office can be of particularassistance in the preparation of materials for candidates forall positions. Some of the information needed by presiden-tial candidates, such as a true picture of the institution'sfiscal situation and the depth of alumni support (Mundinger1982), will come from the board. On the other hand, asense of the campus and its community very helpfully canbe gathered by, and be available from, the personnel officefor all candidates for employment at the college.

Salary information is an area that is extremely delicateon some campuses, and yet is open and published on oth-ers. Where that information is in the public domain, per-haps in the form of salary schedules, having the schedulesavailable through a personnel office can be extremely help-ful to the search committee. Similarly, a package describ-ing health, retirement, and Mated benefits generally ismuch mo..t comprehensively gathered by personnel peoplethan by academics.

The personnel officer can be of further help in thebroader area of salary administration by maintaining cur-rent information on faculty and administrative salaries incomparable colleges both nationally and regionally. Ifadministrators and librarians are aierted to assist, the per-sonnel office also could maintain current articles on relatedtopics, including presidential pay levels (Manley 1984), thecurrent year's copy of the Association of American Uni-versity Professors annual edition ofAcademe that focuseson the economic status of the profession, copies of Collegeand University Personnel Association salary studies, etc.A file of studies on the costs for hiring academic adminis-trators also would be of interest. For example, the studyby Dingerson, Rodman, and Wade (1982) reflects a

82

91

(by now long outdated) mean cost of $8,631 to fill selectedacademic positions.

In summary, then, the personnel office can play anincreasingly helpful support role in the selection of aca-demic personnel on campus.


92

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

The selection of the facult; and the administrative leader-ship on campus is at the very heart of the future of theacademic enterprise. It therefore appears imperative torecruit and hire the finest people possible. This chapteraddresses two kinds of issuesthe practical issues thatcan make the search process effective and efficient, andthe related larger societal issues.

The use of the search committee in the selection of cam-pus leaders has evolved into an almost hallowed approach.There are many positive results of the committee process;several issues, however, need to be addressed so that thepotential pitfalls can be avoided while the maximum goodis obtained.

I. Careful thought and planning are necessary before asearch committee is convened. It is important toensure that the board of trustees (for a president) orthe president will have and maintain the ultimateresponsibility for the selection and appointment ofadministrators on campus. At the same time, affectedconstituencies need to have a sense that their Segiti-mate concerns .tre being heard and listened to. Recog-nizing the strong thrust for confidentiality once thesearch begins, it is necessary to ensure a process forthe selection of committee members that will generatea committee whose members are trusted by the var-ious constituencies.

2. Once the committee is structured, its policies andprocedures should be clear, and clearly transmitted tothe campus at large. Similarly, the position should beposted as broadly as possible.

3. There is a considerable difference, however, betweenpublic disclosure of procedures and the need to main-tain confidentiality, particularly in presidential andvice-presidential searches, if a full range of top candi-dates is to be developed. It is important for the com-mittee members and for the campus at large to bereminded, probably several times, of the need for,and the value of, confidentiality.

4. Committees need to seek out candidates for vacanciesactively and aggressively. In some cases, the bestcandidates indicate their interest in the position them-selves; in others, the best candidates are happily at


93

work in another position, and are not even thinkingabout the possibility of moving to another job. Cast-ing out a wide net, through a range of postings, con-tacts, and conversations, will produce the best candi-date pool.

5. The pool of able and capable female administratorsand faculty members has increased significantly overthe past 15 years, and there is no reason to anticipateany change in that development. Reaching out tolocate those women, and evaluating them against theneeds of the position rather than against an outdatednotion of resume experience, is important if a fullrange of roles is to be filled, and a full range of rolemodels is to be available.

6. The pool of available members of minority groups isless large, which makes it all the more important toactively and affirmatively seek and find good adminis-trators and faculty members in that pool.

7. When a candidate is invited to a campus for an inter-view, in-depth two-way interviewing is important ifthe selection is to be based on the qualities needed forthat campus rather than on a slick or showy style.

8. Similarly, reference checks are important to deter-mine whether a candidate has the strength and cour-age to reach out and try, and to survive some failures,and to keep trying, without ever losing sight of theindividual people who are the most important part ofany organization.

9. Additional formal research on selected aspects of thesearch and selection process in higher educationcould be very helpful. Three particular areas in whichsuch research and literature are sparse to non-existentare: the dynamics and politics of the process ofselecting and appointing one person from among sev-eral final candidates; factors which can maximize theefficacy of interviews; issues relating to the selectionand subsequent success of internal vs. external candi-dates.

Two la.ger societal issues also need to be addressed.There is a need for multiphasic attention to activelydevelop the talent and abilities that are not adequatelycoming to maturation in our minority populations. If we

86

94

are to have a broadly constituted faculty in 25 years, nowis the time to increase broadly based social efforts to reachand nurture that future faculty.

There is, additionally, a need to develop allies with com-mon concerns about the limitations on personnel practicesthat result from the legal requirement in some states tohold discussions of personnel issues "in the sunshine."The old, secret ways of doing business, too often, werequite far from the best interests of the public. Sunshinelaws are clearly intended to be, and for the most part verymuch are, in the public interest. Good leadership fromwithin public higher education, working with other com-parably concerned public agencies, is needed, however, toseek legislative re-examination of that aspect of some sun-shine laws that requires the public listing of candidates,and public discussions about the professional and personalreputations of those candidates.

When the hero-quest has been accomplished . . . thenorm of the monomyth requires that the hero shall nowLegin the labor of bringing the runes of wisdom . . .

back into the kingdom of humanity, where the boon mayredound to the renewing of the community.. . . (Camp-bell 1968, p. 193).

The conclusion of a ruccessful search is only the begin-ning of a new pii.ase of Cme life cycle of a campus. May allof your quests and journeys be successful!


95

REFERENCES

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education abstracts andindexes the current literature on higher education for the Office ofEducational Research and Improvement's monthly bibliographicjournal, Resources in Education. Most of these publicationsareavailable through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service(EDRS). For publications cited in this bibliography that are avail-able from EDRS, ordering number and price are included. Read-ers who wish to order a publication should write to the ERICDocument Reproduction Service, 3900 Wheeler Avenue, Alexan-dria, Virginia, 22304. When ordering, please specify the docu-ment number. Documents are available as noted in microfiche(MF) and paper copy (PC). Because prices are subject to change,it is advisable to check the latest issue of Resources in Educationfor current cost based on the number of pages in the publication.

American Association of University Professors. 1981. "FacultyParticipation in the Selection, Evaluation, and Retention ofAdministrators. Academe 67(5): 323-24.

Arvey, R.D.; and Campion, J.E. 1982. "The Employment Inter-view: A Summary and Review of Recent Research." PersonnelPsychology 35.

Ashworth, Kenneth H. 1982. "Searching, Searching, Gone. WillPublic Disclosure of Presidential Search Proceedings DriveCandidates Away?" Change 14(3):

Bartlett, Bertrice, and Barnes, Elizabeth. 1978. "Women's Vitaeand the Problem of Perceiving Competence." Position Paper.ED 192 048. 45 pp. MF$1.00; PC$5.44.

Bergmann, Barbara R. 1985. " 'Comparable Worth' for Profes-sors." Academe 71(4): 8-10.

Bettelheim, Bruno. 1977. The Uses of Enchantment. New York:Vintage Books.

Bisesi, Michael. 1985. "Presidential Search: Four SpecificTasks." AGB Reports 27(2): 22-23.

Booth, David B. 1982. The Department Chair. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Report No. 10, Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation for Higher Education. ED 226 689. 60 pp. MF$1.00; PC$7.29.

Bouchard, Ronald A.; Deane, Nancy H.; and Roots, David R.1983. Intenier. Guide For Supervisors. Washington, D.C.: Col-lege and University Personnel Association.

Brown, David G., ed. 1984. Leadership Roles of Chief AcademicOfficers. New Directions for Higher Education No. 47, SanFrancisco: JosseyBass.

Brown, J. Douglas. 1977. "Departmental and University Leader-ship." In Academic Departments, edited by Dean E.McHenry. San Francisco: JosseyBass.


96

Burke, Dolores L. 1986. "In Search of the Best: Junior FacultyRecruitment in American Research Universities." Witzenhau-sen/Dohrenbach: Paper presented at the Fifth InternationalSeminar on Staff, Program and Organizational Development inHigher Education.

Bussey, Rodney C. 1981. "How to Hire: Alumni Relations Direc-tor." CASE Currents 8(8): 26-27.

Campbell, Joseph. 1968. The Hero With A Thousand Faces. 2ded. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Carpenter, Don A. 1979. "Presidential Search, Utah Style." AGBReports 21(5): 13-18.

Cleveland, Harlan. 1985. The Costs and Benefits of Openness.Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Uni-versities and Colleges.

De Zonia, Robert H. 1979. "Acting Presidents Should Act LikePresidents." AGB Reports 21(6): 32-36.

Dingerson, Michael R.; Rodman, John A.; and Wade, John F.1982. "Procedures and Costs for Hiring Academic Administra-tors." Journal of Higher Education 53(1): 63-74.

Eaton, Judith S. June 1984. "Tapping Neglected LeadershipSources." In Emerging Roles for Community College Leaders,edited by Richard L. Alfred, Paul A. Elsner, R. Jan LeCroy,and Nancy Armes. New Directions for Community CollegesNo. 46, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ernst, Richard J. 1982. "Women in Higher Education LeadershipPositionsIt Doesn't Happen by Accident." Journal of theCollege and University Personnel Association 33(2): 19-22.

Evangelauf, Jean. May 14, 1986. "Professors in High-DemandFields are Getting Higher-Than-Average Salaries, 2 StudiesFind." The Chronicle of Higher Education 32(11): 25, 28.

Evans, Nancy J., and Kuh, George D. Spring 1983. "Getting tothe Top: A Profile of Female Chief Student Affairs Officers."Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Admin-istrators, and Counselors 46(3): 18-22.

Fear, Richard A. 1984. The Evaluation Interview. 3d ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Felicetti, Daniel A. 1984. "The Search Process: The Candidate'sPerspective on Avoiding Common Institutional Errors." SanFrancisco: Paper presented at the Conference on Post-second-ary Education. ED 251 056. 26 pp. MF-$1.00; PC-$5.44.

Felton, Barbara, and Lamb, Sue R. 1982. "A Model for System-atic Selection Interviewing." Personnel 59(1): 40-48.

Fields, Cheryl M. May 28, 1986a. "High Court Backs AffirmativeAction in Certain Forms." The Chronicle of Higher Education32(13): 1, 15-18.

90

97

June 4, 1986b. "Justice Department Official Says HighCourt Ruling Requires Repeal of Affirmative Action Order."The Chronicle of Higher Education 32(14): 10.

Finlay, Cheryl S., and Crosson, Patricia H. 1981. "Women inHigher Education Administration: Status and Strategies."Administrator's Update 2(3): 1-7. ED 200 120. 7 pp. MF$1.00; PC$3.59.

Fisher, James L. 1984. Power of the Presidency. New York:American Council on Education/Macmillan.

. 1985. "Presidential Assistants: An Unsung Resource."AGB Reports 27(6): 33-36.

Flake, Carol. 1986. "While You're Alive, Be Alive." MyrtleBeach, S.C.: Paper presented at USC/Coastal Carolina Col-lege's "Expo '86."

Fortunato, Ray T., and Waddell, D. Geneva. 1981. PersonnelAdministration in Higher Education. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Freeman, Lewis. 1985. "Changes in Membership of Search Com-mittees and College Presidential Qualifications." Unpublishedpaper. New York: Columbia University.

Friedman, Robert S. 1983. "Presidential Selection: Making ItWork." AGB Reports 25(5): 44-46.

Gale, Robert. 1980. "Foreword." Presidential Search, by JohnW. Nason. Washington, D.C.: Association of GoverningBoards of Universities and Colleges.

Gappa, Judith M. 1984. PartTime Faculty: Higher Education ata Crossroads. ASHE-ERIC/Higher Education Report No. 3,Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Educa-tion. ED 251 058. 129 pp. MF$1.00; PC$12.84.

Gelbspan, Ross, and Kaufman, Jonathan. Nov. 11, 1985. "BlacksFaring Better in Trade Unions Than On Campuses." BostonGlobe 228(134): 1, 18.

Ghaemmaghami, Sedigheh. 1984. "Faculty Perceptions of anIdeal College President in Oklahoma's Public FourYear Col-leges." Ed.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University.Reported in Dissertation Abstracts International. November1985. 46(05): 1203A.

Gilley, J. Wade; Fulmer, Kenneth A.; and Reithlingshoefer, SallyJ. 1986. Searching for Academic Excellence. New York: Mac-millan.

Ginsburg, Sigmund G. 1980. "Preparing for Executive PositionInterviews: Questions the Interviewer Might Askor BeAsked." Personnel 57(4): 31-36.

Goodace, James G. 1982. The Fine Art of Interviewing. NewYork: Prentice Hall.


98

Green, Madeleine F. 1986. "Nesidential Leadership: Changes inStyle." AGB Reports 28(1): 18-20.

Hankin, Joseph N. 1984. "Affirmative Action in Two-Year Col-leges, 1983-1984." Cambridge: Paper presented at the NationalConference on Issues Facing Black Administrators at Predomi-nantly White Colleges and Universities. ED 244 710. 10 pp.MF-$1.00; PC-$3.59.

-. 1985. "Where the (Affirmative) Action Is (or Is Not): TheStatus of Minorities and Women Among the Faculty andAdministrators of Public Two-Year Colleges, 1983-84."Orlando, Fla.: Paper presented at the annual National Confer-ence of the College and University Personnel Association.

Hansen, W. Lee. 1985. "Salary Differences Across Disciplines."Academe 71(4): 6-7.

Hartley, Joyce F., and Ness, Frederic W. 1981. "The PresidentialSearch Service." AGB Reports 23(1): 37-39.

Heald, James E. 1982. "Education Deans and Their Selection."Journal of Teacher Education 33(1): 47-49.

Healy, Timothy S. 1985. "Looking for 'God on a Good Day.' "AGB Reports 27(2): 22-23.

Heller, Scott. June 26, 1985. "Colleges Trying 'Vita Banks' as aTool to Attract Mirority Candidates for Jobs." The Chronicleof Higher Education 30(17): 17, 20.

Higgins, John M., and Hollander, Patricia A. 1987. A Guide toSuccessful Searches for College Personnel. Asheville: CollegeAdministration Publications.

Hilt, Douglas. April 30, 1986. "More Collegiality Could FosterCivilized Behavior in Academe." The Chronicle of HigherEducation 32(9): 80.

Hixson, Vivian S. July 17, 1985. ' 'Cartoon." The Chronicle ofHigher Education. 30(20): 33.

Huckle, Patricia. Fall 1983. "A Decade's Difference: Mid-LevelManagers and Affirmative Action." Public Personnel Manage-ment 12(3): 249-257.

Hyer, Patricia B. May/June 1985. "Affirmative Action forWomen Faculty: Case Studies of Three Successful Institu-tions." The Journal of Higher Education 56(3): 282-299.

Kaffer, Robert E. September/October 1981. "Presidential Search:How to Ruin It." AGB Reports 23(5): 16-18.

Kamen, Al, and Marcus, Ruth. July 3, 1986. "Race-based HiringPlans are Upheld." Boston Globe 230(3): 1, 6.

Kantor, Rosabeth M., and Wheatley, Margaret J. 1978. "Womenin Higher Education Administration." Carnegie CorporationReport Summary. Washington: Association of American Col-leges. ED 162 572. 8 pp. MF-$1.00; PC-$3.59.

92 99

Kaplowitz, Richard A. 1973. Selecting Academic Administrators:The Search Committee. Washington: American Council onEducation.

. 1977. "Recruitment, Appointment, Promotion, and Ter-mination of Academic Personnel." In The International Ency-clopedia of Higher Education. Asa S. Knowles, editor in chief.San Francisco: JosseyBass.

. 1978. "The Impact of Sunshine/Open Meeting Laws onthe 'Governing Boards of Public Colleges and Universities."Position Paper, prepared for the Association of GoverningBoards of Universities and Colleges. ED 272 059. 33 pp. MF$1.00; PC$5.44.

Kauffman, Joseph F. 1974. The Selection of College and Univer-sity Presidents. Washington: Association of American Col-leges.

. 1978. "Strategies for Identifying and Advancing Womenin Higher Education." Chicago: AAHE Panel. ED 166 998.7 pp. MF$1.0O; PC$3.59.

. 1980. At the Pleasure of the Board: The Service of theCollege and University President. Washington: AmericanCouncil on Education. ED 152 406. 122 pp. MF$1.00; PC$10.99.

Kemerer, Frank R.; Mensel, Frank; and Baldridge, J. Victor.Spring 1981. "Twilight of Informal Faculty Personnel Proce-dures." The Journal of the College and University PersonnelAssociation. 32(1): 17-25.

Kerr, Clark. 1982. "Crisis in Leadership." AGB Reports 24(4):4-7.

. 1984. Leaders Make a Difference. Washington: Associa-tion of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Kiersh, Ed. September 1979. "Presidential Searches: Divided WeStand." Change 11(6): 29-35.

Leslie, David W.; Kellams, Samuel E.; and Gunne, G. Manny.1982. PartTime Faculty in American Higher Education. NewYork: Praeger.

Levine, Hermine Z. 1984. "Consensus: Report on the October1983 Questionnaire." Personnel Magazine 61(1): 6-9.

Libby, Patricia A. 1983. In Search of a Community College Presi-dent. Annandale: Association of Community Colleges. ED 229067. 41 pp. MF$1.00; PC$5.44.

Lutz, Frank W. 1979. "The Governance Implications of DeanshipSelection: And Other Selected Thoughts on the Process."Research report. University Park: Pennsylvania State Udiver-sity. ED 174 135. 23 pp. MF$1.00; PC$3.59.

MacTavish, Margaret. 1984. "Defining and Locating EffectiveLeaders." In Emerging Roles for Community College Leaders,

Nelecting College and University Personnel 937.`

100

edited by Richard L. Alfred, Paul A. Elsner, R. Jan Le Croy,and Nancy Armes. New Directions for Community CollegesNo. 46, San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Manley, Frank. September/October 1984. "Presidential Pay: NotExactly Lavish." AGB Reports 26(5): 36-39.

Mayhew, Lewis B. 1979. Surviving the Eighties. San Francisco:JosseyBass.

McCall, Morgan W., Jr., and Lombardo, Michael M. February1983. "What Makes a Top Executive?" Psychology Today17(2): 26-31.

McLaughlin, Judith B. 1983. "Confidentiality and Disclosure inthe Presidential Search." Ed.D. dissertation, Harvard Univer-sity.

. March 1985a. "From Secrecy to Sunshine: An Overviewof Presidential Search Practice." Journal of the Association forInstitutional Research 22(2): 195-208.

. May/June 1985b. "Plugging Search Committee Leaks."AGB Reports 27(2): 24-30.

McLaughlin, Judith B., and Riesman, David. Summer 1985. "TheVicissitudes of the Search Process." Journal of the Associationfor the Study of Higher Education 8(4): 341-355.

. Summer 1986. "The Shady Side of Sunshine." TeachersCollege Record 87(4): 471-494.

McMillen, Liz. Nov. 5, 1986a. "Most Effeck ve College Presi-dents are 'Risk Takers' Who Rely on Respect, Not Popularity,Study Finds." The Chronicle of Higher Education 33(10):11, 13.

. Dec..3, 1986b. "Women's Groups: Going the Old Boys'Network One Better." The Chronicle of Higher Education33(14): 15-17.

McMillen, Liz, and Heller, Scott. Sept. 10, 1986. "Women Flockto Graduate School in Record Numbers, but Fewer Blacks areEntering the Academic Pipeline." The Chronicle of HigherEducation 33(2): 1, 25-26.

McVicker, Mary Frech. December 1986. "The Seven DeadlySins of Interviewing." Pace 13(12): 67-69.

Moore, Kathryn M. 1982. "What to do Until the Mentor Arrives?Professional Advancement Kit." Washington, D.C.: PositionPaper prepared for the National Association for Women Deans,Administrators, and Counselors. ED 234 2%. 14 pp. MF$1.00;PCnot available EDRS.

Mortimer, Kenneth. 1986. "Academic Staffing: Be Flexible andFair." AGB Reports 28(2): 29-31.

Mortimer, Kenneth; Bagshaw, Marque; and Masland, Andrew.1985. Flexibility in Academic Staffing: Effective Policies and

94

1 01

Practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1,Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Educa-lion. ED 26067. 121 pp. MF-$1.00; PC-$10.99.

Mottram, Richard A. Winter 1983. "Executive Search Firms asan Alternative to Search Committees." Educational Record64(1): 38-40.

MUndinger, Donald C. 1982. ' What a Presidential CandidateNeeds to Know." AGB Reports 24(2): 41-45.

Nason, John W. 1980. Presidential Search. Washington: Associa-tion of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. ED 238358. 94 pp. MF-$1.00; PC-not available EDRS.

-. 1984. Presidential Search. Revised Ed. Washington:Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.ED 247 877. 122 pp. MF-$1.00; PC-not available EDRS.

Palmer, Robin. 1983. "A Sharper Focus on the Panel Interview."Personnel Management 15(5): 34-37.

Parsons, Michael H., ed. 1980. Using Part-Time Faculty Effec-tively. New Directions for Community Colleges No. 30, SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, Robert H. 1984. How To Answer a Headhunter's Call.New York: American Manasement Associations.

Porter, Earl W. 1983. "The Presidential search as the PresidentsSee It." AGB Reports 25(1): 43-47.

Pray, Francis C. 1979. "The President as 'Reasonable Adven-turer.' " AGB Reports 21(3): 45-48. EJ 205 040.

Query, Lance. 1985. "Librarians and Teaching Faculty: DisparityWithin the System." Academe 71(4): 13-16.

Reid, John Y., and Rogers, Sharon J. 1981. "The Search for Aca-demic Leadership: Selecting Chief Academic Officers in Ameri-can Colleges and Universities." Washington, D.C.: Paper pre-sented at a meeting of the Association for the Study of HigherEducation. ED 203 801. 12 pp. MF-$1.00; PC-$3.59.

Reynolds, Pamela. June 25, 1986. "Accentuating the Affirma-tive." Boston Globe 229(360): 41.

Riesman, David, and McLaughlin, Judith B. 1984. "A Primer onthe Use of Consultants in Presidential Recruitment." Change16(6): 12-23.

Rivera, Manuel G. 1983. "Hispanic Participation in the Adminis-tration of the California Community Colleges: 1981-82."Fresno, Calif.: Paper presented at the Annual Conference ofthe Association of Mexican American Educators. ED 238 622.44 pp. MF-$1.00; PC-not available EDRS.

Rodman, John A., and Dingerson, Michael R. 1986. "UniversityHiring Practices for Academic Administrators." The Journal ofthe College and University Personnel Association 37(2): 24-30.


'.102

Rosovsky, Henry. 1987. "Deaning." Harvard Magazine 89(3):34-40.

Rubenfeld, Stephen, and Crino, Michael. 1981. "Are Employ-ment Agencies Jeopardizing Your Selection Process?" Perscn-nd 58(5): 70-77.

SagEstria, Mary Ann D., and Krotseng, Marsha V. 1986. "Deans'Managerial Skills: What They Need and What They Bring tothe Job." The Journal of the College and University PersonnelAssociation 37(2): 1-6.

Shepard, Ira M. July 21, 1986. "Supreme Court Affirms Affirma-tive Action Remedies Under Title VII." Personnelite. Collegeand University Personnel Association. 13(22): 1.

Sherman, Malcolm J. July 3, 1985. "The Controversial Theory of'Comparable Worth' on College Campuses." The Chronicle ofHigher Education 30(18): 64.

Simmons, Adele. 1983. "Organizing and Staffing a Small Col-lege." In Management Techniques for Small and SpecializedInstitutions, edited by Andrew J. Falender and John C. Mer-son. New Directions for Higher Education No. 42, San Fran-cisco: JosseyBass.

Skipper, Charles E. 1982. "Four Indicators of AdministrativeEffectiveness." Paper. New York: American EducationalResearch Association. ED 216 634. 8 pp. MF$1.00; PC$3.59.

Sojka, Gary A. 1985. "An Administrator's View: Balancing Aca-demic Performance and Market Conditions." Academe 71(4):11-12.

Stead, Ronald. 1985. "UpFront." AGB Reports 27(3): 2-3.Stent, Angela. 1978. "Academe's New Girl Network." Change

10(6): 18-21.Stewart, Robert; Stickler, I. Bruce; and Abcarian, Michael V.

1985. "Complying with Affirmative Action in 1985." The CEOManagement Letter Update 5(10): 1, 4-6.

Strider, Robert L. 1981. "Memo to a Search Committee." AGBReports 23(1): 32-36.

Taylor, Robert A. 1984. How to Select and Use an ExecutiveSearch Firm. New York: McGrawHill.

Thompson, Patricia, and Thompson, Hugh. 1983. "One for theMoney, Two for the Show." AGB Reports 25(3): 44-46.

Townsend, Barbara K. May 28, 1986. "Outsiders Inside Aca-deme: The Plight of Temporary Teachers." The Chronicle ofHigher Fehr.ation 32(13): 72.

Trachtenberg, Stephen J. 1981. "Not What It's Cracked Up toBe." In Academic Leaders as Managers, edited by Robert H.Atwell and Madeleine F. Green. New Directions for HigherEducation No. 36, San Francisco: JosseyBass.

96

103

Tucker, A. 1984. Chairing the Academic Department: LeadershipAmong Peers. New York: Macmillan.

Uehling, Barbara S. 1981. "Building a Presidential Team." InAcademic Leaders as Managers, edited by Robert H. Atwelland Madeleine F. Green. New Directions for Higher EducationNo. 36, San Francisco: JosseyBass.

VanderWaerdt, Lois. 1982. Affirmative Action in Higher Educa-tionA Sourcebook. New York: Garland.

Vecchio, Robert P. 1984. "The Problem of Phony Resumes: Howto Spot a Ringer Among the Applicants." Personnel 61(2):22-27.

Walker, Donald E. 1979. The Effective Administrator. San Fran-cisco: JosseyBass.

Watkins, Beverly T. July 17, 1985. "Court Orders University toGive Faculty Union and AntiBias Officer Power to Veto JobOffers." The Chronicle of Higher Education 30(20): 23-25.

. June 4, 1986. "Successful Colleges Found Headed byPresidents Who Are 'People Oriented,' Doggedly Persistent."The Chronicle of Higher Education 32(14): 1, 22.

Wilson, Reginald. 1985. "Affirmative Action: The Current Sta-tus." AGB Reports 27(3): 17-21.

Winkler, Karen J. May 29, 1985. " 'Sunshine' Laws Less Harm-ful to Colleges than Report Charged, Critics Say." The Chroni-cle of Higher Education 30(13): 13.

Yoder, Dale, and Heneman, Herbert G., Jr. 1979. ASPA Hand-book of Personnel and Industrial Relations. Washington: TheBureau of National Affairs.

Zippo, Mary. September 1980. "Getting the Most Out Of AnExecutive Search Firm." Personnel 57(5): 47-48.

Zippo, Mary, and Greenberg, Karen. November/December 1982."Roundup." Personnel 59(6): 52-53.

Zippo, Mary, and Northart, Pamela. 1983. "Review of 'TheEmployment Interview: A Social Judgment Process,' byEdward C. Webster, S.I.P. Publications, 1982." Personnel60(1): 79.


10.4

INDEX

A

AAC (see Association of American Colleges)AAUP (see American Association of University Professors)Academe, 82Academic rank

salary differences, 23sex discriminaton, 44women, 24

Academic staffing, 24, 81Academy of Educational Development (AED), 28ACE (see American Council on Education)Accounting

faculty salary, 24part-time faculty use, 25

ACHE (see Nssociation for Continuing Higher Education)"Acting" pk.. .tions, 6Administrators

desired attributes, 53-63handbook on selection, 1organizational fit, 9selection, 5-8women and minority groups, 42, 48

Advertisements (see Posting positions)AED (see Academy of Educational Development)Affirmative action

director responsibility, 47, 81enforcement/litigation, 43-46job posting, 17policies/procedures, 46-47statistics, 41-43

African American Institute, 22AGB (see Association of Governing Boards of Universities and

Colleges)Allied health fields: faculty rank, 23Alton, Bruce, 27Alumni director, 63American A3sociation of University Professors (AAUP), 14, 82American Council on Education (ACE), 1, 16American Psychological Association (APA), 22American Society for Personnel Administrators, 73, 81Amherst College: search boycott, 13APA (see American Psychological Association)Applications: recordkeeping, 15Asians, enrollment, 49Association for Continuing Higher Education (ACHE), 17Association of American Colleges (AAC), 27


105

Association of Commonwealth Universities, 22Association of Community College Trustees, 28Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges

(AGB), 27

Big Ten: fellowships, 50Blackballing, 33Black colleges, 51Black Doctoral Fellowship Program, 50Blacks

administrators, 42affirmative action, 47faculty opportunities, 41students, 43

Boston, Massachusetts: black jobs, 41Brooklyn College: committee devisiveness, 13"Bulletin" (French newsletter), 17Business fields: faculty salary, 24

CaliforniaHispanic administrators, 42minority group graduate study, 51

Campus climate, 81Campus constituencies, 31Campus visit (see also Interviews)

interviewing, 86purpose, 5-6top candidates, 19-20

Candidatesexternal, 7-8f ..lty, 74favorite, 12females, 16first-choice, 5"fit." 20internal, 6-8, 36, 39, 74interviewing, 73-79pool, 16-18, 35screening top, 18-20

Career pathsdeans, 60women, 50

Caucuses, 51"Chemistry" of candidate, 20

100

106

Characteristics of leadership, 53-63Charismatic leadership, 56Chief academic officers, 58-60Chief personnel administrator, 81Chronicle of Higher Education, 16, 17, 22, 32Civil Rights Commission, 44College and University Personnel Association (CUPA), 17, 81, 82Colombo Plan 22Committees (see Search committees)Communication with candidates, 15Community colleges

black staff, 41presidential leadership qualities, 55presidential selection, 8

Comparable worth, 23Confidentiality

breaches, 35need for discretion, 30, 85maintaining, 38-39reference checking, 67, 68, 69significance, 15sunshine laws, 35-40

Conflicting interests, 37Connecticut: minority doctoral fellowships, 50Consultants

campus constituencies, 31-.32effective use of, 29-31fees and costs, 33-34final decision, 34institutional fit, 29leaks, 39reference checking role, 32-33, 67resistance to, 32service providers, 27-29trend toward, 5, 16

Contracts: staffing options, 24Corporate management

administrator characteristics, 2promoting from within, 8

Costsadministrator hiring, 82-83consultants, 33

CUPA (see College and University Personnel Association)

Deanscandidate choices, 5


107

career paths, 60desired characteristics, 58-60internal vs. external candidates, 7, 8of education, 59role, 32women and minority groups, 42

Decision: final authority, 34Degree requirements, 23Department heads

desired attributes, 60-62experience, 60interaction with deans, 58role, 32

Divisiveness, 13Disclosure, 31, 35-36, 85Division heads, 60-62Doctoral degrees, 42, 48

Engineering: faculty salary, 24Equal opportunity (see also Affirmative action)

interview questions, 78policies/procedures, 46-47

Evaluation skills, 59Executive Order 11246, 45, 46Executive sessions, 37Experience as sdection criterion, 60

Facultyaffirmative action, 47board relationship, 14campus visit role, 19consultant rapport, 31desired administrator leadership, 57interaction with deans, 58junior, 21letters of reference, 66nurturance of future, 87part-time, 24-25personnel office relationship, 82private sector competition, 24recruitment, 21-26salary issues, 23-24search boycott, 13search committee membership, 12, 13

102

108

sex discrimination, 44temporary, 24-25women and minority groups, 42

False credentials, 70-71Fellowships, 50Finance administrators, 63First Amendment, 37First-choice candidates (see Candidates)"Five Minutes with ACHE" (newsletter), 17Florida

aggressive recruitment effect, 18minority group fellowships, 50sunshine laws, 37

Ford Foundation, 23, 50France: job postings, 17

Governor's candidate, 13Governing boards (see Trustees)Graduate schools

job posting, 22minority enrollment, 48-49

Halderman, James, 36Handbooks

administrator selection, 1support staff selection, 81

Hankin, Joseph, 41FIarvard University: presidency, 36HEARS (see Higher Education Administration Referral Service)Heidrick and Struggles, 28Hero-quest, 87Higher Education Administration Referral Service (HEARS), 28Highcr Education Administrative Search, 28Hispanics

administrators, 42Hispanic Leadership Program, 49students, 43, 48-49

Humphrey (Hubert H.) Institute of Public Affairs, 40Humanities: faculty rank, 23

Institutional needs, 9Integrity, 54, 61Internal candidates (see Candidates)


109

International Association of Universities, 17Internships, 51Interpersonal skills, 54-55Interviews

conducting, 75-79consultant role, 30interviewer responsibility, 75objectives, 74screening procedures, 18-20selection method, 73-74structure, 74-75validity, 73

Journalsjob posting, 17, 22personnel selection guides, 81

Kauffman, Joseph, 28Korn-Ferry, 28

Leadershipinterpersonal skills, 54presidential, 55-57"right," 53-54

Leaksaffirmative action, 47confidential search, 39

Legitimacy of appointments, 5Letters of reference, 65-66Litigation: affirmative action, 44-45Logs of applications/actions, 15

McCarthy era, 37McKnight Foundation, 50Management skills, 60Massachusetts Institute of Technology: black staff, 41Mathematics faculty use, 25Meetings: professional, 22Mentors, 49, 51Michigan: minority doctoral fellowships, 50Minority Academic Careers Program, 50

104

Minority groupsaffirmative action litigation, 44-45employment statistics, 41-42fellowships, 50interviews of, 78long-term issues, 47-51, 86-87recruitment, 86trustees, 51

Modern Language Association (MLA), 22

N

National Association of College and University Business Officers(NACUBO), 28

National Consortium for Educational Access, 50National Research Council, 50National University Continuing Education Association, 17Ness, Frederic, 27Networking

candidate pool, 16job posting, 18, 23minority groups, 49

"New girls" networks, 16New Jersey

Hispanic Leadership Program, 49Minority Academic Careers Program, 50minority doctoral fellowships, 50

New York: minority students, 43New York Times, 17Newsletters, 17Newspapers: job posting, 17, 22Non-candidates: desirability of appointing, 6Non-tenure track appointments, 24Non-voting committee members, 13Northeastern University: black staff, 41"NUCEA News" (newsletter), 17

0O'Connor, Sandra D., 45Oberlin College: campus constituency, 31Office of Minority Concerns (ACE), 16Office of Women in Higher Education (ACE), 16Oklahoma: administrator leadership, 57"Old boys" networks, 16Open meeting laws, 37Openness (see Confidentiality; Sunshine laws)Organizational tasks, 9-12


PParticipatory management, 8Personnel office, 81-83"Personnelite" (newsletter), 17Planning skills, 59Political factors

candidate selection, 86favorite candidates, 12leaks, 39public institutions, 14

Posting positions, 6, 16-18, 22Powell, Lewis F., Jr., 45Presidency

affirmative action commitment, 47"builder," 53internal vs. external candidates, 7, 8job posting, 6leadership, 55-57preferred attributes, 9, 54-55, 58presidential team, 63public knowledge of candidacy, 36search process, 5spouses, 57

Presidential assistants, 62Presidential Search Consultation Service (PSCS), 27, 33Press: leak possibilities, 39Private institutions

high demand faculty, 24presidential leadership qualities, 55search committee size, 12women administrators, 42

Private sector salary competition, 24Professional development programs, 50Promoting from within (see Candidates/internal)Provosts

affirmative action commitment, 47internal candidates, 7

PSCS (see Presidential Search Consultation Service)Public institutions

affirmative action, 41high demand faculty, 24openness and disclosure, 35-36political factors, 14search committee size, 12

QQualifications, 53-63

106 112

RReagan Administration, 43, 45Recordkeeping, 15, 81, 82Recruitment

aggressive, 18, 85campus; 32community resources, 25faculty, 21-26job posting/networking, 18women/minority groups, 49, 50

Referenceschecking, 19, 30, 31, 32, 66-70, 86false ccedentials, 70-71negative, 66precautions, 71role, 65waiting for, 18written, 65-66

Research universitiesfaculty recruitment, 21interviewing for, 74minority group fellowships, 51

Resumes: advertising for, 18Reynolds, William B., 44, 45Risk takers, 56Rockefeller Foundation, 23Role models, 49, 50

S

Salariesadministrators, 48faculty, 23-24information availability, 82sex differences, 44, 48

Scholarship as selection criterion, 59Screening procedures, 18-20Search committees

chairperson, 29charge, 30communicating with candidates, 15composition, 12-14confidentiality vs. openness, 15consultant use, 16, 30interviewing candidates, 79non-voting, 13organizational tasks, 9, 12


113

pitfall avoidance, 85-86potential divisiveness, 13prevalence, 5reference letter review, 66

Search processadministrator selection, 5-8damage to, 38efficiency, 85flow chart for, 10-11steps, 8-9"wired," 6

Secretaries: reference checking, 68Sex bias: salary/rank, 23, 44Shavfik, Donna, 16Silber, John, 36Site visit (see Campus visit)Small colleges

administrative officers, 62administrator experience, 60women administrators, 42

Spouses, 57Staffing patterns, 24Stead, Ronald, 27Student affairs administrators, 42Students

black, 43campus visit role, 19graduate student opportunity, 51search committee membership, 12, 13

Sunshine laws, 37-38, 87Supreme Court: affirmative action rulings, 44, 45, 46Support staff, 81

TThinkers, 56Thompson and Pendel Associates, 28Times Higher Education Supplement (London), 17Touchton, Judith G., 16Transcripts, 71Trustees

search process authority, 12, 14women/minority members, 51

Tufts University: black staff, 41

U

U.S. Department of Labor, 45U.S. Secretary of Education: position opening, 36

108

114

University of Chicago: fellowships, 50University of Florida: sunshine law effect, 38University of Massachusetts: sabotaged candidate, 13University of Massachusetts at Boston

affirmative action, 47black staff, 41

University of Rhode Island: sex discrimination, 44Utah: sunshine laws, 37

VVacancy: unplanned, 6Vice-presidents, 62-63"Vision for education" as selection criterion, 59Visit (see Campus visit)Vita hanks, 51

Wall Street Journal, 17Watergate era, 37Wellesley College: black staff, 41Wilson, Reginald, 16"Wired" searches, 6Women

affirmative action, 47candidate pool, 16graduate school enrollment, 49interviews of, 78long-term issues, 47-51percentages of staff, 41-42recruitment, 86representation in sciences, 49salary differential, 24, 44trustees, 51

World Bank, 23Wygate v. Jackson Board of Education, 44


115

ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTS

Starting in 1983. the Association for the Study of Higher Educationassumed cosponsorship of the Higher Education Reports with the ERICClearinghouse on Higher Education. For the previous II years, ERIC andthe American Association for Higher Education prepared and publishedthe reports.

Each report is the definitive analysis of a tough higher education prob-km. based on a thorough research of pertinent literature and institutionalexperiences. Report topics, identified by a national survey, are written bynoted practitioners and scholars with prepublication manuscript reviewsby experts.

Eight monographs (10 monographs before 1985) in the ASHE-ERICHigher Education Report series are published each year. available indi-vidually or by subscription. Subscription to eight issues is $60 regular: $50for members of AERA, AAHE, and AIR: $40 for members of ASHE.(Add $7.50 outside the United States.)

Prices for single copies, including 4th class postage and handling, are$10.00 regular and $7.50 for members of AERA, AAHE, AIR, and ASHE($7.50 regular and $6.00 for members for 1983 and 1984 reports. $6.50regular and $5.00 for members for reports published before 1983). If faster1st class postage is desired for U.S. and Canadian orders. add $.75 foreach publication ordered: overseas, add $4.50. For VISA and MasterCardpayments, include card number, expiration date, and signature. Ordersunder $25 must be prepaid. Bulk discounts are available on orders of 15 ormore reports (not applicable to subscriptions). Order from the Publica-tions Department, Association for the Study of Higher Education, OneDupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/296-2597. Writefor a publication list of all the Higher Education Reports available.

1986 Higher Education Reports

I. Post-tenure Faculty Evaluation: Threat or Opportunity?Christine M. Licata

2. Blue Ribbon Commissions and Higher Education: Changing Academefrom the Outside

Janet R. Johnson and Laurence R. Marcus

3. Responsive Professional Education: Balancing Outcomes andOpportunitiesJoan S. Stark, Maki) lm A. Lowther, and Bonnie M.K. Hagerty

4. Increasing Students' Learning: A Faculty Guide to Reducing Stressamong Students

Neal A. Whitman, David C. Spendlove, and Claire H. Clark

5. Student Financial Aid and Women: Equity Dilemma?Mary Moran

6. The Master's Degree: Tradition, Diversity, InnovationJudith S. Glazer

7. The College, the Constitution, and the Consumer Student: Implica-tions for Policy and Practice

Robert M. Hendrickson and Annette Gibbs

8. Selecting College and University Personnel: The Quest and theQuestions

Richard A. Kaplowitz


116


1. Flexibility in Academic Staffing: Effective Policies and PracticesKenneth P. Mortimer, Marque Bagshaw, and Andrew T. Masland

2. Associations in Action: The Washington, D.C., HigherEducation Community

Harland G. Bloland

3. And on the Seventh Day: Faculty Consulting and SupplementalIncome

Carol M. Boyer and Darrell R. Lewis

4. Faculty Research Performance: Lessons from the Sciences andSocial Sciences

John W. Creswell

5. Academic Program Reviews: Institutional Approaches, Expectations,and Controversies

Clifton F. Conrad and Richard F. Wilson

6. Students in Urban Settings: Achieving the Baccalaureate DegreeRichard C. Richardson, Jr., and Louis W. Bender

7. Serving More Than Students: A Critical Need for College StudentPersonnel Services

Peter H. Garland

8. Faculty Participation in Decision Making: Necessity or Luxury?Carol E. Floyd


I. Adult Learning: State Policies and Institutional PracticesA. Patricia Crosr and Anne-Marie McCartan

2. Student Stress: Effects and SolutionsNeal A. Whitman, David C. Spendlove, and Claire H. Clark

3. Part-time Faculty: Higher Education at a CrossroadsJudith M. Gappa

4. Sex Discrimination Law in Higher Education: The Lessons of thePast Decade

J. Ralph Lindgren, Patti T. Ota, Perry A. Zirkel, andNan Van Gieson

5. Faculty Freedoms and Institutional Accountability: Interactions andConflicts

Steven G. Oiswang and Barbara A. Lee

6. The High-Technology Connection: Academic/Industrial Cooperationfor Economic Growth

Lynn G. Johnson

7. Employee Educational Programs: Implications for Industry andHigher Education

Suzanne W. Morse

8. Academic Libraries: The Changing Knowledge Centers of Collegesand Universities

Barbara B. Moran

112

117

9. Futures Research and the Strategic Planning Process: Implications forHigher Educatioa

James L. Morrison, William L. Renfro, and Wayne I. Boucher

10. Faculty Workload: Research, Theory, and InterpretationHarold E. Yuker

1983 Higher Edocadon Reports

1. The Path to Excellence: Quality Assurance in Higher EducationLaurence R. Marcus. Anita 0. Leone, and Edward D. Goldberg

2. Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Fair Employment: Obligationsand Opportunities

John S. Waggaman

3. Meeting the Challenges: Developing Faculty CareersMichael C. T. Brookes and Katherine L. German

4. Raising Academic Standards: A Guide to Learning ImprovementRuth Talbott Keimig

5. Serving Learners at a Distance: A Guide to Program PracticesCharles E. Feasley

6. Competence, Admissions, and Articulation: Returning to the nasicsin Higher Education

Jean L. Preer7. Public Service in Higher Education: Practices and Priorities

Patricia H. Crosson

8. Academic Employment and Retrenchment: Indicial Review andAdministrative Action

Robert M. Hendrickson and Barbara A. Lee

9. Burnout: The New Academic DiseaseWinifred Albizu Melindez and Rafael M. de Guzmdn

10. Academic Workplace: New Demands, Heightened TensionsAnn E. Austin and Zelda F. Gamson

Selecting College and University Personnel

118

Quantity

Please enter my subscfiption to the 1 ASHE-

ERIC Higher Education Reports at $60,00, 25% off

the cover price.

_____ Please enter my subscription to the 1987 Higher

Education Reports at $60.00

I certify that I am a member of AAHE, AERA, or

AIR (circle one) and qualify for the special rate of

$50.00,

__ 1986 series subscription

........ 198 seri:1 subscription

I certify that I am a member of ASHE and qualify

for the special ratP, of $40.00.

...._ 1986 serks :bscription

..... 1987 series subsciption

Individual reports are available at the following prices:

1985 and forward, $10.00 each ($7.50 for members).

1983 and 1984, $7.50 each ($6,00 for members).

1982 and back, $6.50 each ($5.00 for members).

Please send me the following reports:

(Title)

....._ Report No, (1 _____

....._ Report No. (1 ......____

....... Report No, (1

SUBTOTAL: ________

Optional 1st Class Shipping ($.75 per book) _______

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: ........_

1 :

Amount Name

Title

Inst.

Addr.

=111.11111=.1.

1111

1111

MmIN111MIMM,

NOTE: iti prices subject to change.

City _____ ST Zip ....Phone

Signature

O Check enclosed, payable to ASHE.

0 Please charge my credit card:

0 Visa 0 MasterCard (check one)

119

Expiration date

ASti1I.M.,...

ERICe

Association for the Study of Higher Education

The George Washington University

One Dupont Circle, Suite 0301 Dept E

Washington, D.C. 20036

Phone: (202) 296.2597

Did you remember:1. To enclose your method of payment?2. To indicate clearly which reports you wanted?3. To sign and date your check?4. To put postage on this card?

Thank you for your order. Please allow 3-4 weeks for delivery.

Please fold along dotted line and staple close

FROM Place

StampHere

Msociation for the Sticly of Higher EducationOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Dept. EWashington, DC 20036

120

RICHARD A. KAPLOIVITZ is dean of the college at the NewEngland Institute of Applied Arts and Sciences in Boston.A graduate of Brooklyn College, Columbia University, andHarvard University, Dr. Kaplowitz has servedin academic administrative capacities at Catholic University;C.W. Post, where he founded the Weekend College;Rutgers University; Merrimack College; and the Universityof New England. He also has served as director of humanresource development and employee relations at RaytheonCompany, and he is the president of TEEM, Inc., a smallconsulting group in Andover, Massachusetts.

ISBNO-913317-35-7»*10.00

12i