1 / 39

Introduction to Good Practices for Faculty Recruitment

Introduction to Good Practices for Faculty Recruitment. Janis 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

saul
Download Presentation

Introduction to Good Practices for Faculty Recruitment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

More Related