Introduction to

Good Practicesfor

Faculty RecruitmentJanis Gissel Letourneau, MD

LSUHSC School of Medicine – New Orleans

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, 2007Gilmore; Making a Leadership Change, 2003Biebuyck and Mallon; The Successful Medical School Department Chair (Module 1), 2002

Goal of Workshop

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

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

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

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

Faculty and Leadership Recruitment

Finding 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

Guiding Principles

• Preparation• Process• Communication• Professionalism• (Commitment to process improvement)

Hochel and Wilson; Hiring Right, 2007NRC; To Recruit and Advance, 2006

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

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, 2009Biebuyck and Mallon; The Successful Medical School Department Chair, 2002

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

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

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, 2007NRC; To Recruit and Advance, 2006

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

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, 2007Mallon et al; Finding Top Talent, 2009

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

Evaluating Candidates

• Each interviewer formal and “informal”• Standardized evaluation format

– Scoring system– Measured against BFOQs– Accomplishments and future potential– Room for comments

Scenario #1New Department Head

First 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

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

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

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

Scenario #2SOM Graduate Applies

for 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

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!”

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

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

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”

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

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

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

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

Outcome

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

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”

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

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

Search Outcome

• Department not subsumed – This was even “proposed”

• Dean met with department faculty• Confidentiality of process reaffirmed• Candidate above the fray selected

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

What is next?

• Interviewing tutorial (Carol Mason)• Q & A Forum on SOM mechanics• Discussion on process improvement

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

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