FACULTY RECRUITMENT WORKSHOP College of Arts & Sciences BU College of Arts & Sciences 2014

FACULTY RECRUITMENT WORKSHOP

College of Arts & Sciences

BU College of Arts & Sciences 2014

The Point Is To…

SearchScreenRecruit


The Point Is To…

Search Active, not passive: don’t just wait for the

files. Search thoroughly: expand the pool, think

broadly; push beyond the usual. Search fairly: think about this at every

move.ScreenRecruit


The Point Is To…

Search Active, not passive Search thoroughly Search fairly

Screen First establish explicit criteria, then apply them. Develop a method and timeline in advance. Apply the criteria and method fairly in a conscious

and self-reflective way. Check yourselves.Recruit


The Point Is To…

Search Active, not passive Search thoroughly Search fairly

Screen First establish explicit criteria, then apply them. Develop a method and timeline in advance. Apply the criteria and method fairly in a conscious and self-

reflective way. Check yourselves.Recruit

Remain aware that every interaction with every candidate determines how attractive this university will appear to the candidate as a place to live and work.

Be on the lookout for what the candidate needs and wants.


Who is Involved? Who Does What?Faculty

All faculty in the department are involved and responsible. Together, establish the academic plan and set the

priorities that govern the search request. All faculty should be in constant search mode. All (not just those in the subfield) are responsible for the

screening and evaluation of candidates. Attend the public events such as lectures. Interview the candidates. Participate seriously in the departmental deliberation and

vote. All (not just those in the subfield) are responsible for

recruiting candidates.


Who is Involved? Who Does What?Faculty (cont.)

All faculty in the department are involved and responsible.

Faculty from other relevant departments and programs should be included. If the position is clearly relevant to another discipline or

field, include representation on the search committee. Invite members of the cognate department/school to

events such as the talk. Solicit their views. If only selected candidates are especially relevant to

another discipline, involve the other department as described above.


Who is Involved? Who Does What?Search Committee

The search committee is responsible for leadership in searching, screening, and recruiting but it acts in an advisory capacity to the department/program.

The responsibility for searching, screening, and recruitment is not fully delegated to the search committee.


Who is Involved? Who Does What?Department Chair & Administrator

The department chair has the final responsibility to ensure that the process was accomplished as it should be: well-organized, legally and ethically, with appropriate communication and record-keeping, intelligently, with appropriate collaboration among faculty, with other departments/programs, with the Dean.

The department chair is responsible for recommending the terms to the Dean and closing the deal.

The department administrator supports the search and makes sure it is well organized and takes the right steps.


Who is Involved? Who Does What? The Dean(s)

The Dean has the final responsibility to insure that all the processes in the College were accomplished as they should be: well-organized, legally and ethically, with appropriate communication and record-keeping, intelligently, with appropriate collaboration among faculty, with other departments/programs, with the Dean.

The Dean is responsible for doing whatever she can to recruit and retain the best possible faculty across the College and in every department and program.


Who is Involved? Who Does What? The Dean(s) (cont.)

The Dean(s) Oversees the search, screen, and recruitment

processes at all stages. Checks the list of finalists (and almost finalists) for

quality assurance purposes and to be aware of opportunities and challenges.

Interviews all finalist candidates (Associate Deans for assistant professors; Dean for tenured appointments).

Works with the department chair to anticipate issues requiring attention before the final vote.

Works with the department chair to develop the offer and recruitment strategy.


Steps for Effective Recruitment

Develop and execute a good communication plan.Search committee steps for developing

recommendations to the department.Proposing candidates for on-campus interviews.The campus visit and interview.After the interview: Making a choice.Developing an offer.Closing the deal.Throughout: Avoiding Faulty Judgment.


Develop and Execute a Good Communication Plan

Plan necessary communications with candidates & follow through. Acknowledgement of receipt of materials. Responding to questions. Invitations to campus: clarity of expectations. Don’t forget “No thank you”.

Confidentiality is crucialMake sure everyone understands appropriate

communications/interaction. Legal dimensions: subjects to raise, comments to make. What messages to give to candidates through words &

behavior. What is good about working here?


Search Committee Steps for Developing Recommendations to Department

1. Before reviewing files at any level, search committee and department agree on the process for reviewing files and selecting semi-finalists and finalists that will be followed and the major criteria that will be used for selecting candidates.

2. Include consultation with faculty experts where useful; include faculty from other disciplines where appropriate.

3. Do not just use an automatic vote system. Have a discussion of the candidates in light of the criteria.


Proposing Candidates for On-Campus Interviews

1. Discuss the recommendations at a department meeting and decide. If multiple departments involved, find a way to validate the choices through the departments.

2. Forward the proposed list of candidates for

interview, with a copy of each dossier, to the appropriate associate dean of the faculty electronically, along with general target dates for interviews AND forward the names and cv’s of the next three candidates who might be interviewed if the department moved further down the list.


Proposing Candidates for On-Campus Interviews (cont.)

3. Work with the Office of Faculty Actions to schedule interviews with the appropriate associate dean. For candidates for assistant professor positions or professors of the practice, the appropriate associate dean should interview the candidate with the department chair present. For candidates for tenured positions the Dean should also be present.


The Campus Visit and Interview

Give the candidate very clear instructions and expectations.

Organize the schedule carefully, being careful to include those who should be included. Do not forget graduate students and undergraduates; colleagues from relevant departments & programs.

Candidates’ first impressions of the department count. Understand the role of the decanal interview.The exit interview (preferably with the chair) is

important.Social occasions are important, but not merely an excuse

to have free meals and expensive wine. For a restaurant dinner, limit the number of people to a number that can have a conversation simultaneously with the candidate.


The Campus Visit and Interview (cont.)

Make sure all colleagues are clear about what constitutes appropriate communication during an interview situation.

Be careful about personality judgments.The chair (or a specific designee) may ask the

candidate about requirements and expectations, but do not make promises or speculate about the expected offer package.

Collect systematic feedback, especially from those who won’t be present in the deliberation and decision meeting: students, faculty from outside the department.


After the Interviews: Making a Choice

1. The search committee should be active in soliciting assessments before deliberating .

2. The department chair meets with the appropriate associate dean after the final interview and before the search committee and department meetings at which the candidates will be discussed for possible recommendation for appointment. They discuss the candidates and any issues that the dean believes should be addressed in the department discussion.


After the Interviews: Making a Choice (cont.)

3. The search committee should return to the criteria and goals of the search as a framework for deliberation and explicitly consider the quality of the evidence and the basis of their individual and collective judgments.

4. The search committee and the full department should explicitly discuss whether this search represents an opportunity to expand the diversity of the department.

5. The department takes a formal vote on the decision to recommend any candidate for hiring to the Dean.


After the Interviews: Making a Choice (cont.)

6. Types of decision:a) recommend extending an offer to one

candidate and leave further decisions to later discussion;

b) agree on a prioritized list of candidates to recommend for hiring in order should the first candidate(s) not accept an offer;

c) agree on any short-listed candidates who should not remain in consideration any further.


Developing an Offer

The chair requires approval from the appropriate associate dean to make an offer.

The chair develops a proposal in coordination with the appropriate associate dean. o The estimate entered into the proposal documents

is a boundary; it does not represent the offer.o The offer should be based on evidence of market

and equity, and be within the boundaries specified in the proposal.

o We should do the best we can: Avoid extended negotiation.

o Think of everything.


Developing an Offer (cont.)

At the point of discussion with the associate dean, the chair forwards to the appropriate associate dean an updated c.v. (preferably a URL, but an electronic copy of the cv will do) and a brief, clear, and factual paragraph explaining the credentials and qualifications of the candidate. It should be a factual abstract of the candidate’s qualifications, not a florid wind-up to a toast and not a discussion of the search process.


Closing the Deal

Develop and pursue a good recruitment plan in advance – a strategy for getting a positive answer from the candidate you are trying to hire. Develop an appropriate communication plan. Include relevant faculty from other departments/

programs. Respond to questions and concerns promptly &

honestly. If you didn’t treat them well and seem appealing

during the search and screen process, you’re three steps behind.


It requires careful thought!

Avoiding Flawed Judgment


Evidence of Quality:Not as Easy to Judge as You Think

What evidence do you use? The role of candidate’s academic record, institution, mentors and associates, interactions, “the talk,” letters of recommendation. Guilt and glory by association: the former institutions and mentors: be wary of biases from old boy/girl networks. The candidate’s documentation: determine what pieces are important and how they should be evaluated. Letters of recommendation: understand their value and faults. Interview: understand its value and limitations as evidence. Don’t make any single piece count for too much. Be careful to evaluate the evidence systematically, mindfully, and take notes.BU College of Arts & Sciences 2014

Issues of Bias in Cognition and Judgment that Affect Recruitment Outcomes

Unconscious assumptions based on social categories of every sort shape consequential evaluations in the workplace, even among people who value equality.

People are more comfortable with and trusting of the familiar.

Hiring will tend to favor people like “us,” however “us” may be defined.

This tendency is strongest when the position matters most.


“Objective” Evidence is No Guarantee Against Bias

Some researcha using large samples of real letters of recommendation has found bias in the description of men and women such as :Length of letters (shorter for women).Different content such as Minimal assurance (lacks detail).

Minimal assurance (lacks detail). Gender terms (e.g. “intelligent young lady”; “insightful

woman”). Doubt raisers. Stereotypic adjectives: accomplishment/achievement

vs. compassionate/relates well. Fewer standout adjectives (“outstanding” “excellent”).


Different Credentials Matter for Different Categories of People

Bias leads to using different credentials to evaluate different candidatesb.

Example: Study of evaluation of candidates for police officer positions. Two different kinds of credentials: “Streetwise” credentials (experience): Mattered

similarly for men and women. Education: No effect on ratings of women; Had an

effect on ratings of men. Education could help men, not women.

Implication: Importance of taking care in determining criteria and applying them fairly to all candidates.


Degree of Bias in Judgment Depends on Clarity or Ambiguity of Evidence

Studyc of evaluations for a traditionally male job if (a) candidates’ performance is clearly excellent or (b) candidates’ performance quality is ambiguous.

Judgment of competence: If evidence of excellence clear, no gender difference in evaluation. If evidence ambiguous, women seen as less competent.

Judgment of collegiality: If evidence of excellence clear, women regarded as less collegial (selfish, untrustworthy, etc.) If evidence ambiguous, men regarded as less collegial.


Clarifying Criteria in Advance Makes a Difference:

Researchd published in 2005/2007:

Participants high, not low in self-perceived objectivity constructed criteria more favorable to the male applicant.

When participants didn’t have to clarify importance of credentials in advance, men but not women favored males.

When participants did have to clarify importance of credentials in advance, no favoritism appeared.


Plain Old Bias:

In a 2012 PNAS articlee:Randomized double-blind study (n = 127) of science faculty from research-intensive universities, rating application materials of a student randomly assigned a male or female name for a laboratory manager position. Male applicant rated more competent and hireable than (identical) female applicant. Male applicant given higher starting salary ($30,238.10 vs. $26,507.94). Gender of raters didn’t matter.


Beliefs about Prejudice Matter

In a 2012 Journal of Personality & Social Psych article on beliefs about race prejudicef: White research participants who believed or who were taught to believe that race prejudice is a fixed orientation rather than contextual and malleable were more likely to avoid interactions with African Americans and show signs of stress in interactions with African Americans regardless of their basic level of prejudice. Research subjects could learn that prejudice is contextual and malleable (which is what research shows); that reduced stress and isolation.


Being Smart Doesn’t Necessarily Help!

In a 2012 Journal of Personality and Social Psych articleg.

Common finding: People tend to think most other people are more subject to a wide range of cognitive biases than they are.

Relevant to us: Not only are more intelligent people as likely as others to display the common cognitive biases in their ordinary thinking; they may be more likely to display some of them.

Implication: Good judgment takes self-reflective, careful thinking.


Factors that increase discriminatory cognition and judgment

Complex tasks.Cognitive overload.Time pressure.Need for quick judgments.Tired.Lack of clarity about standards.Lack of accountability.Unwarranted faith in your own fairness and

objectivity.


DON’T WORRY ABOUT “LOSING THE SLOT”

We’re partners in this:


References

a Frances Trix and Carolyn Psenka, “Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty, Discourse and Society 14;2 (2003): 191-220; Toni Schmader, Jessica Whitehead, and Vicki H. Wysocki. “A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants,” Sex Roles 57;7/8 (2007), 509-14.

b Uhlmann, E.L., & Cohen, G.L. (2005). “Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination.” Psychological Science, 16, 474-480.

c Heilman, M.E., Wallen, A.S., Fuchs, D. & Tamkins, M.M. 2004. ”Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male tasks.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.

d Uhlmann, E.L., & Cohen, G.L. 2005. “Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination.” Psychological Science, 16, 474-480; Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L., 2007. ‘‘’I think it, therefore it’s true’’: Effects of self-perceived objectivity in hiring discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.07.001.

e Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Grahama, and Jo Handelsman. 2012. “Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students.” PNAS. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf+html

f Carr, Priyanka B., Carol S. Dweck, and Kristin Pauker. 2012. “’Prejudiced’ behavior without prejudice? Beliefs about the malleability of prejudice affect interracial interactions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 103(3), Sep, 2012. pp. 452-471.

g Richard F. West, Russell J. Meserve, Keith E. Stanovich. Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 103(3), Sep, 2012. pp. 506-519.


More Information

Fine & Handelsman, Searching for Excellence and Diversity: A Guide for Search Committees, National

Edition.https://charge.wisc.edu/wiseli/items.asp

The Boston University Faculty Search Manual:http://www.bu.edu/apfd/recruitment/fsm/

The CAS Faculty & Staff Handbook:http://www.bu.edu/cas/faculty-staff/faculty-staff-handbook/

Your friendly Dean’s Office


Documents

FACULTY RECRUITMENT WORKSHOP College of Arts & Sciences BU College of Arts & Sciences 2014