Introduction to Good Practices for Faculty Recruitment

1. Introduction toGood PracticesforFaculty Recruitment Janis Gissel Letourneau, MD LSUHSC School of Medicine – New Orleans

2. Faculty and Faculty Administrator Recruitment • Arguably most important thing we do • Wrong decisions costly • Suboptimal to wasted financial investment • Deleterious to morale Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007 Gilmore; Making a Leadership Change, 2003 Biebuyck and Mallon; The Successful Medical School Department Chair (Module 1), 2002

3. Goal of Workshop • Outline principles of faculty recruitment • Characterize pitfalls in recruiting • Stimulate process “study” or mapping • Illustrate opportunities for improvement

4. SOM Process Outline • Needs assessment • Business plan • Approval of position (PER 1) • Role of Position Description (PD) • Advertising • Review of candidates • Interviews • Candidate selection • Offer and on boarding

5. Role of HRMHigher Education Searches • Often not as involved as in business • Poorly tapped expertise • Constructing ad and posting • Screening • Interviewing • Understanding EEO and state regulations Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007

6. Faculty and LeadershipRecruitment • Seeking the “right” person • Fit with the institution’s core values • Sense of passion about their work • Candidate seeking more than a job • But a position with responsibilities • Complement existing faculty members Kennedy; Academic Duty, 1997

7. Faculty and Leadership RecruitmentFinding Top Talent • Continuity • Communication • The Charge • Culture • Candidates (and their competence) • The Chair (search committee) • Composition (search committee or principals) • Conduct • Confidentiality • Closure Mallon, et al; AAMC monograph, 2009

8. Guiding Principles • Preparation • Process • Communication • Professionalism • (Commitment to process improvement) Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007 NRC; To Recruit and Advance, 2006

9. The Reality of Recruiting • “Add – on” responsibility for everyone • For search committee chair • For search committee members • Recruitment requires time and patience • Recruitment = institutional investment Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007

10. Search Committee Chair • Normally senior level faculty member • Department Head aligned with the faculty opening (leadership position) • Fellow faculty member – senior faculty member in the area (or related area) being recruited • Possibility of developing institutional expertise Mallon et al; Finding Top Talent, 2009 Biebuyck and Mallon; The Successful Medical School Department Chair, 2002

11. Search Committee Composition • Optimal number of members = 5 - 7 • Different perspectives and expertise • Gender balance • Underrepresented minority member • For leadership • Senior faculty member from department/center - optional • Senior faculty member from outside department/center Mallon et al; Finding Top Talent, 2009

12. The Rules • Institutional requirements • Required representation on committees • Eminent scholar selection • Bylaws and Policies (PMs and CMs) • Faculty Handbook • State and federal regulations Vardaman; Recruitment and Diversification of Higher Education Faculty, 2010

13. Advertising • Use general “templates” for ads • But carefully define qualifications sought • Encourage diversity candidates explicitly • Post in quality destinations • Post in target specific destinations • Solicit additional candidates personally • Particularly for women and minorities Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007 NRC; To Recruit and Advance, 2006

14. Pre-selected Recruits • Pitfalls • EEO/(AA) goals might be compromised • Morale of other searches can be deflated • Recruit may develop sense of “entitlement” • But try not to “turn down” talent

15. Interviews • Phone or video preliminary interview? • Structured interviews • One-on-one vs group • Behavioral component • Well prepared questions based on quals • Required credentials • Performance criteria Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007 Mallon et al; Finding Top Talent, 2009

16. Interviewing Errors • Interviewer dominates interview • Interview approximates informal chat • Notes not taken • Questions not prepared in advance • Interviewer guides responses • Interviewer does not question in depth Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007

17. Evaluating Candidates Each interviewer formal and “informal” Standardized evaluation format Scoring system Measured against BFOQs Accomplishments and future potential Room for comments

18. Scenario #1New Department HeadFirst Faculty Recruiting Fails • Basic science department • Three candidates – all visit • No further applicants • “Finalist” = non-tenured associate professor (clinical science department) • Seeking basic science position • Wishes tenure at hire • Concerned about performance expectations • Dean recommends a fresh start

19. Can we help? • Clarify the departmental goal • Analyze and improve the ad • Specify senior, tenure track position • Add some sparkle or punch to posting • Examine the committee composition • Engage “positive” departmental faculty • Strengthen the visit strategy • Tailor interviews to specific interests

20. Preparations Undervalued • Clearly articulate what skills are sought • Advertise for the associated BFOQs • Screen candidates for BFOQs • Use tailored tracking documents • Set evaluation standards and use them • Learn who are key “recruiters” • Approach visit planning with care • Consider standardized questions • Focus some effort on behavioral assessment • Use interview forms Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007

21. The Outcome • Deeper and stronger applicant pool • Candidates understand BFOQs • Department faculty understands BFOQs • Nature of position clear to candidates • Tenure track, not tenured • Advanced rank • Expectations • Department head more confident • Rebooted search with K award recruit Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007

22. Scenario #2SOM Graduate Appliesfor Clinical Faculty Position • Several candidates • Strongest candidate • AOA graduate originally from metropolitan area • MD, MPH and committed to public health • Training at “prestigious” program elsewhere • Recruitment initiated late • Strongest candidate interviewed first • Other candidates already invited • Recruitment coordinated by section

23. What went wrong? • Interviews scattered over course of a week • During candidate’s “vacation” with family at home • Interviews exclusively with section members • No interviews in SPH or basic science • Dean’s interview scheduled on last afternoon • No dinners scheduled • No immediate follow up to candidate • “Other candidates still need to interview!”

24. What else went wrong? • Failure to respond promptly to applicant • With lame excuses - “so busy” • Itinerary not provided or reviewed in advance • Poorly designed itinerary for candidate • Large gaps in daily program schedule • Tailoring of itinerary not done • Missed appointments and interviews • Cancelled lunch by participants

25. Outcome • Strongest candidate sent offer by mail • With no other substantive communication • After several other candidates visited • Candidate disappointed in offer • “I hadn’t heard anything!” • Accepted offer at NYC private university • Interview purposes at least two fold • Evaluate candidates • Sell institution

26. Scenario #3Department Head Search • Existing department head to step down • No interim department head named • Endowed chair associated with position • Search committee chair identified • Search committee formed • Difficult internal committee member surfaces • External consultant (BOR) has an “agenda”

27. Search Issues • Existing department head • Unwittingly became a problem interviewer • External consultant defined own role • Committee a little too large (9) • Committee not clear on BFOQs • Committee members variably involved • Making time for interviews • Hosting candidates for dinners

28. Too late to salvage search? • Dean counseled existing head • External consultant thanked • Redirected search criteria to BFOQs • With problem committee member • Scholarship not only consideration • Alternatives to search dinners identified

29. Mid-Stream Search Lessons • Preparations extend beyond process • Committee can be too large (by a little) • External consultant can drive process • Recruitment goals must be clear • “After hours” duties should be shared • Adjustments can be successfully made

30. Basic Search Process Strong • Candidates evaluated fairly/consistently • Preliminary review methodical • First interviews were similarly structured • Visits professionally arranged • Confidentiality maintained throughout • All qualities (BFOQs) ultimately assessed • Scholarship • Verbal skills • Professionalism and management potential • Interest in position

31. Outcome • Three candidates interviewed • Two finalists with very different skills • Offer made and accepted • Terrific hire satisfying all BFOQs • Predecessor retired within one year

32. Scenario #4Department Head Search • Search required 18+ months • Host of internal interests • Historically prominent department • No longer in good financial health • First round of three candidates • Second round of two candidates • Two finalists • Very different skills and interests • Distinctly different backgrounds and experiences • Ultimately a determination of “fit”

33. Did it take too much time? • Most department head searches take a year • Search committee members “lobbied” hard • Attempt to guide selection for competing interests • Departmental faculty contacted candidates • Candidates contacted departmental faculty • Some candidates contacted each other • Candidates sought search information • From each other • Professional staff • Real estate consultants

34. Lessons LearnedConduct and Confidentiality • Establish a code of conduct • Consider signed commitment for committee • Demand ethical behavior • Committee members • Interviewers (including department faculty) • Candidate • Adhere to EEO/(AA) requirements • Develop and utilize a toolbox

35. Search Outcome • Department not subsumed • This was even “proposed” • Dean met with department faculty • Confidentiality of process reaffirmed • Candidate above the fray selected

36. Faculty Recruitment • Critical to core missions • Importance must be appreciated by all • Training and tools should be provided • Process needs clear definition • Consistency is key • Communication matters • Improvement is necessary • Other issues must also be addressed • Generational issues • Personal bias • Dual career needs • “Pre-selected candidates” • Search firms or consultants

37. What is next? • Interviewing tutorial (Carol Mason) • Q & A Forum on SOM mechanics • Discussion on process improvement

38. References(Monographs) • Biebuyck and Mallon; The Successful Medical School • Department Chair (Module 1), 2002 • Clark and Ma; Recruitment, Retention and Retirement in • Higher Education, 2005 • Gilmore; Making a Leadership Change, 2003 • Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007 • Kennedy; Academic Duty, 1997 • Mallon et al; Finding Top Talent, 2009 • NRC; To Recruit and Advance, 2006 • Vardaman; Recruitment and Diversification of Higher Education • Faculty, 2010 • Wolf-Wendel et al; The Two Body Problem, 2003

39. References(Academic Medicine Articles) Bickel and Brown, Generation X, Acad Med 2005; 80: 205-210 Creasman, Is This a Way to Choose a Chair, Acad Med 2001; 76: 1032-1034 Epstein and Bard, Selecting Physician Leaders for Clinical Service Lines, Acad Med 2008; 83: 226-234 Hoffmeir, Are Search Committees Really Searching?, Acad Med 78: 125-128 Howell et al, Generational Forecasting in Academic Medicine, Acad Med 2009; 84: 985-993