Category: Leadership-20.4

The Best for the Job | Campbell

Abstract

This case study examines the hiring processes, communication, and decision-making of academic administrators. It will address the importance of national searches, university culture, and transparency in selections. It is designed for readers to reflect on how selection processes can affect staff, trust in policies and process, and the ability to lead.

Keywords: academic leaders, executive searches, transparency, ethics, trust, qualifications

Primary Characters

Dr. Barbara Stead (she/her/hers) is Department Chair for the Department of Finance within the College of Business. She has held this position for seven years and was part of the hiring process for the previous dean. She is a white female in the midst of her professional career with aspirations for future advancement either at her current university or elsewhere.

Dr. Regina Nelms (she/her/hers) is Professor of Economics within the College of Business. She leads the college with significant research grants. Dr. Nelms has been at this university for ten years. She arrived at university under the previous dean who invested heavily in research. She has several NSF grants and closely with governmental agencies on high priority projects. This is the last place that she will work as she is close to retirement.

Angela Warren (she/her/hers) is the Director of Operations for the Dean of College of Business. Ms. Warren’s position focuses on logistics and ensuring that the college operates smoothly. Her role involves developing processes of communication between the dean’s office and the departments as well as the building operations. She is a young employee who has been in her position for four years. She is interested in advancement and wants to be recognized for her commitment to her job and her attention to detail.

Dr. Beatrice Thomas (she/her/hers) is the School of Business Senior Associate Dean of Undergraduate Programs and Professor of Economics at a research one university in the southwest. She has held this position for four years. She is a Black female and an external candidate for the Dean of College of Business.

 

Dr. Carol Meadows (she/her/hers) is an Assistant Dean of Academics and Research for College of Business and Associate Professor of Finance. Dr. Meadows works at a research one university in the south and has held this position for five years. She is a white female and an external candidate for the Dean of College of Business position.

 

Dr. Brad Smith (he/him/his) is Director of the Center on Marketing within the College of Business. He has been director for three years. The center was founded by donors who were cornerstone to the establishment of the College of Business. Dr. Smith is a white male in his early forties. He is the internal candidate, and he has a close relationship with the university president and the cornerstone donors.

 

Context

A large research one university in the Pacific Northwest conducted a national search to fill the position of Dean of the College of Business. This position serves on the provost’s leadership team and leads the College of Business. The College of Business is the most financially strong college at the university and often acts independently. It has a large physical footprint at the university and has a strong alumni presence.

This position is to steer the college of business through vision, strategy, and financial decisions. The dean’s role involves promotion and tenure of faculty, academic programming for the college, and resource allocation. Additionally, the dean must be able to engage in fundraising, work with university leadership and industry partners, and engage with faculty. The dean is responsible for the success of the academic programs as well as the experiential programs including global engagement, the career center, marketing, packaging, and community programs.

The university hired a nationally recognized executive search firm to lead the confidential search process. Additionally, a search committee was formed on campus led by the Director of Operations for Business School, Angela Warren. While staff across the university were aware of the posting for the Dean of the College of Business, few details were shared. Other than the chair, the members of the search committee were not made public.

Once the search and process were shared across the university, employees within the College of Business began to talk amongst themselves about the lack of transparency with this search. They complained that the search committee members were not known. As the process progressed, there was no transparency about applicants, the screening committee criteria, and a timeline for the process.

Approximately three weeks after the closing date, three candidates were invited to campus. Two of the candidates were external selections. Both currently held Associate or Assistant Dean positions. Both external candidates were female and one woman self-identified as Black. The remaining candidate was a white male currently employed at the institution serving as a director of a business school program. He has a relationship with the President, the business school donors, and the university’s leadership team.

Concerns from the College of Business staff (Dr. Barbara Stead and Dr. Regina Nelms) were:

  • the internal candidate was preselected
  • from the onset the search was ceremonial and just an exercise to fulfill hiring practices
  • the external candidates were more ably qualified and had positions that prepared them for the position.
  • the internal candidate is not professionally qualified or ready for the position
  • his selection is due to favoritism at the university.

They claim to represent voices of colleagues and others who are afraid to speak. Each spoke to individuals within the university with the promise of confidentiality. Both spoke with officers of the Women and Gender Commission. Dr. Stead spoke with the Title IX officer and Dr. Nelms reached out to the University Ombuds.

These employees are afraid to speak publicly because the new hire will be their boss, but they are very frustrated by the search process. Barbara and Regina believe that the university works in a bubble, is resistant to change, and chooses its own people. They don’t believe they can do anything but want to know how and why a man with seemingly lesser qualifications would be chosen over well-qualified women.

Discussion Questions

  1. In what ways are Barbara and Regina’s concerns legitimate? Of all the things they would like to know, what can university realistically and ethically provide?
  2. How can their concerns be addressed?
  3. What role can the university commissions play?
  4. What are ethical and legal/policy considerations related to the selection process?
  5. What are the implications of hiring the internal candidate when the staff is already disgruntled and resistant?
  6. What options does the university have for coping with the tensions? What
    are some strategies for moving forward?
  7. How can the university avoid this lack of trust and dissension in the future?

Biography

Marjorie Campbell (she/her/hers) is the Director of Inclusive Excellence and Technology Initiatives for Clemson’s Computing and Information Technology (CCIT). The Technology Support Program that she founded in 1998 with colleagues has evolved into a CCIT staple with dedicated employees assigned to support technology. Marjorie holds a B.A. degree from Converse College and a M.S. degree from the University of South Carolina.  She is currently enrolled in Clemson’s Educational Leadership Ph.D. program. Her research interests focus on women’s leadership, neurodiversity, and how to rethink assumptions and address inequities.

Pressure from Above: Implementing Change Amid Resistance | Bundrick

Abstract: This case uses the Institutional Intelligence Model (Boettcher & Salinas, 2024) to examine the challenges and pitfalls staff may encounter when change is deemed appropriate by upper administration and resisted by a campus department. Specifically, this scenario addresses a Vice President and Associate Vice Presidents who believe the campus career fair needs to change venues to allow for growth, with little input or buy-in from the Director of the Career Center or the Career Center staff.

Keywords/Phrases: Conflict Resolution, Top-Down Directive, Empowerment, Transparency, Student Affairs

Primary Characters:

Julie Kizer – Associate Vice President (she, her, hers). – Julie is one of five Associate Vice Presidents (AVP) of Student Affairs. Julie oversees the College Career Center, the Academic Success Center, and Student Life. Julie is two years into her role at Elkhorn College and has a background in student life and academic success. Career services is a new department for her.

Jim Mathews – Director Career Engagement (he, him, his). Jim has spent his career of 20+ years in higher education and career services. He, like Julie, is new to Elkhorn College and began as Director of the Career Center a few months after Julie started in her new position as AVP. Jim comes into the Career Center at a time of turn over and uncertainty. Many of the Center staff have moved on to other positions at the College or have retired. Jim has worked hard to build trust among the Career Center staff during the transition.

Bart Macken – Vice President of Student Affairs (he, him, his). Bart has been the Vice President of Student Affairs at Elkhorn College for 4 years and previously worked closely with Julie at a University in Iowa. They have a close working relationship and Bart was thrilled when Julie joined the team. Bart has worked hard to make improvements and grow programs within Student Affairs and Julie has been an integral part of this growth.

Overview

Elkhorn College is a medium size midwestern liberal arts college that is experiencing a growth in student body and reputation. Staffing has not kept pace with the growth and turnover across campus has been high. This case examines communication and transparency between an Associate Vice President and her direct report concerning a proposed directive regarding growth and change.

Context and Case:

Jim, a director for a College Career Center for Elkhorn College, a small midwestern liberal arts college, is just two years into his job and one year past the COVID lockdown. He has worked hard to gain the trust of his department, which he took over amid a great deal of change and turnover within his department. During his tenure, there was also a great deal of change in the Student Affairs division, which he reports.

In the two years since Jim started at Elkhorn College, he and his Career Center team increased employer and student engagement and had a consistently over-funded budget. His department executes a campuswide career fair each semester. The Career Center is proud of the career fair and the customer service they offer their employers. Jim is pleased with an increase in student attendance at the fairs of approximately 40% for the two-day fall fair and 50% for the two-day spring event for the academic years 2021/2022 to 2022/2023. Employer numbers remained the same at approximately 50, the maximum capacity for employer tables at the venue. There is typically a waitlist of roughly ten employers hoping to attend the fair for each day each semester. In addition, students have complained that the current venue needs to be ADA-friendly, and the overcrowding worsens the situation.

Julie, the Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, wants to take the fair from an “ok event to a great event.” She wants everyone on campus to know about the fair and to feel they can’t miss it. The idea of companies wishing to recruit Elkhorn College students for jobs but not having access because the career fair venue is too small is frustrating to her. She has taken her frustration to Bart, her Vice President, who agrees something must change. In turn, all the AVPs are in agreement, unbeknownst to Jim, the Director of the Career Center.

In regular weekly meetings with Jim, Julie brings up the career fairs and her wish to grow the event. Jim hears this but doesn’t understand the extent of what Julie wants when she says she wants to grow the fair. She never mentions a change in venue or her frustration with the waitlist. Jim is also unaware this issue has been discussed with the other associate vice presidents and vice president. Due to staff turnover and perhaps some unwillingness on Jim’s part, Julie’s requests for analysis of the current fair and opportunities for growth go unanswered. Growing frustration and a lack of communication between Julie and Jim create an environment of resistance and skepticism on both sides.

A further breakdown of communication and trust follows when Julie does not include Jim in the decision to hire a consultant and does not communicate the identified goals of bringing in an outsider. Jim and his staff felt Julie’s decision to hire a consultant was a power play which made them dig in further and openly oppose any change to the fair.

As the Director in charge of the Career Center and the fairs, Jim thought he wasn’t being given a chance to do the job he was hired to do and had the expertise to handle. He believed he wasn’t being given the time to let the initiatives he had implemented take hold. He also felt confused and undervalued because he was not included in discussions with the Vice President and the Associate Vice Presidents regarding the career fairs and their concerns. Other than one or two staff members acknowledging the ADA issues, the Career Center staff were against a change in venue for the fair.

Options to alleviate the overcrowding and ADA issues were adding a day to the fair or changing to another acceptable campus venue. Jim and his staff push back on these ideas. Adding a new day to the already two-day fair would keep them out of the office for an additional day requiring the Career Center to be closed and be another day students could not get help from the Career Center. They also expressed concern that three days of the fair would burden students’ time.

During an onsite campus visit, Julie arranged for the consultant and Jim to tour several venues on campus. Jim expressed concern over the cost of the various venues as the current venue is free, but the administration told the consultant that the cost of holding the fair is not a concern. Jim also voiced concern over noise issues because the current venue is carpeted, and the new venue is a concrete concourse that would not absorb sound well. Another fear that Jim and his staff conveyed was the energy in the new location would be flat compared to the energy in the old location due to the increase in space and employers being more spread out. Employer satisfaction is very important to Jim and his staff. They are worried that customer service to their employers would be sacrificed with a venue change. Examples of their stellar customer service include consistent correspondence before the fair, individualized attention once at the fair, and the quality of students attending the fair.

Jim also expressed concern that students would be confused with a new location. Students are accustomed to the old location, which happens to be just across the street from the new venue. Funding for non-paid internship scholarships comes from career fair revenue, and the staff fears that money will dry up, impacting students. In the past, any student who completed the application has been awarded the funding. The fund came about because the department had an excess of revenue.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How did the lack of communication and transparency impact the willingness to transition the fair to a new location?
  2. What steps need to be taken by the administration to ensure the career center staff will not be resistant to change?
  3. What factors need to be considered in a venue change? What stakeholders are affected by the change and how?
  4. How could the Director of the Career Center advocate for his programs, staff, students, and employers while showing the Administration he understands their concerns?
  5. When does hiring an outside consultant cross an ethical line?

Author Bio

Lisa Bundrick (she, her, hers) is the Director of Career Engagement at the Wilbur O. and Ann Powers College of Business at Clemson University. Prior to her role with the Powers Business College, Lisa planned and executed the University-wide career fairs. Lisa holds a master’s degree from Georgetown University and an undergraduate degree from the University of Kansas. She is currently pursuing a Ph.D. from Clemson University.

 

Reference

Boettcher, M. L. & Salinas, C. (2024). Law and Ethics in Academic and Student Affairs: Developing an Institutional Intelligence Approach. Routledge.