The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 9: horse-trading

I had a conversation recently with a friend who served on their first search committee. One of the things they said they found most surprising about the experience--and which they never would have really thought much about as a job-candidate--is the role that 'horse-trading' can play.

This person said that as a candidate, one sort of imagines that search committees sit down, agreeing who the best candidates are, developing a coherent rank-order of candidates, and then interviewing them. However, the reality is quite different. Typically, what happens is that each person on the committee develops their own ranking of candidates. Then the committee gets together to share and discuss their rankings, and what often occurs is something like this:

Candidates A and B are near the top of everyone's list.

Candidates C and D are at the top of some people's list, but far down other people's.

Candidate E is at the top of one person's list (who feels very strongly about them), but far down everyone else's list.

The same search committee member is ambivalent about C, but strongly opposed to D.

This actually simplifies a great deal. Things can be much more complicated than this. Indeed, in some cases there may be no candidates at the top of everyone's list. But let's stay with this simple example. What will tend to happen in this sort of case?

The short story is, candidates A and B will probably be selected for interviews as the Clear Frontrunners. Because everyone on the committee had them highly ranked, these Frontrunners will probably have a decided advantage throughout the interview process: they may basically have to not royally "screw up" their interview in order to get a fly-out - though, as I will note below, a truly spectacular interview by another candidate can make a difference.

What about candidates C and D? Given that a majority of (but not all) committee members have them at the top of their list, will C and D both be interviewed? It is likely, especially if the committee utilizes a majority vote. But it doesn't follow necessarily. There are many ways things may go here that could result in C or D not being interviewed, and E being interviewed instead (even though only one committee member likes E). First, the search committee member strongly opposed to D may be really adamant about not interviewing them--and they may have some power in the committee (viz. seniority, etc.). Second, they committee may not approach decisions in a majoritarian manner, but instead want to ensure that every member of the committee gets to interview someone they really like (and since a good number of people on the committee are ambivalent about C and D, they may interview E instead of one of them so that the member who really wants E is satisfied with the interview list). Alternatively, the person who really doesn't like D may try to drive a hard bargain, saying they would be fine interviewing D on the condition that the committee interviews E as well (even though they are the only one who wants to interview E). Fourth, further discussion may lead other members of the search committee to decide that C and D are too much alike as candidates (similar teaching styles, etc.), and it might be good to interview E to see a different kind of candidate. Etc. You see how it is: when there are candidates committees disagree over, things can go any which way.

Consequently, as awful as this might admittedly sound, we might call candidates like C and D the Tradeables -- as they are candidates who some search committee members favor, but who different committee members may be willing to "bargain over" for various reasons. Finally, we might call candidates like E the Dark Horse, as they may have minority support on the committee but the person(s) who supports them feels very strongly about them and may be willing to fight for them. There are probably more categories than this--and I would very much invite people who have served on search committees to share more examples of how bargaining occurs--but you get the gist. This can happen not only at the first-round interview stage, but also in decisions about who to fly out. If candidates C, D, and E all perform unexpectedly well during interviews (and Frontrunners A and B unexpectedly poorly), there can once again be a complicated process determining who to have to have to campus: the person who favored Dark Horse E the whole time may once again suggest that C and D are so similar that it would be better to have E to campus as a clearer contrast (viz. C and D have a similar teaching style, but E has a very different style, and they'd like to see how E's works with their students). 

Why is it important to know about all this as a candidate? It might seem unfair and as though there's nothing one can really do about it. But there are several reasons why I think it's important to be aware of it. 

First, I think it's important in terms of combating the (entirely natural) sense that if you don't get interviewed or get a fly-out, people on the committee didn't like you or want to interview you. That can be far from the truth. There might have well been some people on the committee who though you were great, but bargaining got in the way. This may be unfortunate, but on the whole I suspect things even out on the job-market as a whole (if you're "bargained away" for one job, you may well be "bargained for" at another).

Second, I think understanding horsetrading can help understand interview results. Sometimes, you may have what you think is a great interview but not get a fly-out. Why? The answer may be because there were Clear Frontrunners who had to basically not totally blow their first-round interview, and there's not much you could have done in the interview to beat them out (as the entire committee may feel very strongly that they are the best candidates). Conversely, sometimes you may even have a bad interview and still get a flyout. Why? It could be for a number of reasons. It could be because both of the Clear Frontrunners had disastrous interviews (this can happen!). Or it could be because you were the Clear Frontrunner, and the committee is willing to look past a subpar interview on the basis of your file (though I would note here: truly disastrous interviews will almost certainly disqualify you from getting flown out).

Third, however--and candidates should take solace in this--I've seen Clear Frontrunners be overtaken and Tradeable/Dark Horse candidates get hired. How does this happen? Answer: by one or more Clear Frontrunners really tanking the interview, and/or some other candidate absolutely blowing the committee away. Although I've expressed skepticism about the value of interviews, in practice they matter a great deal. So, I'd say, really put a great deal of time into preparing for interviews. Although sometimes you may not be able to beat out a Clear Frontrunner, in other cases you may very well. I'll say more in a post soon-to-come about what sorts of things are good/bad in interviews.

Comments

[Amanda]

Some search committees are now going straight to flyouts, which I think is a good move. At the least, I think interviewing 16 candidates (as some places do) is a waste of everyone's time. Those at the bottom of the 16 person pool have little chance, but have to go through all the time and emotional toil of an interview.

[Just a Runner]

Marcus
It is also worth reminding people that clear front runners may also be clear front runners for other jobs, and accept another one, leaving this one for C, D, E, or even F or G.

[anon for obvious reasons]

I've sat in as a grad student on three different search committees in three different institutions and I want to emphasize how much horse trading is true. Often the least hated candidate is chosen rather than the best one.

Here's an actual scenario I once witnessed. We'll call the 4 candidates 1-4 as a rank of what I, as a student outsider, considered the candidates based on their CVs.
Everyone agreed on candidate 1, a faction hated candidate 2 because they didn't find their work at all rigorous, and too continental. A faction hated candidate 3 because their work was too boring. Candidate 4 impressed no one, but offended no one either. They were just a little continental and were doing only slightly interesting work. Candidate 1, who was obviously number 1, took a job at a better school. And in order for there not to be an all out civil war and resentment between the faculty (but also between the aggrieved faction and the person who eventually got the job, we all want these candidates to eventually get tenure!) but also so we wouldn't lose the tenure line, Candidate number 4 got the job.
I genuinely don't think that this is an outlier case either.

[Jonathan Ichikawa]

I won't challenge other people's reports of their own experiences but I can say that this kind of thing does not seem to me at all representative of my experiences on search committees.

In my experience, there's a lot more discussion and coming to consensus than is suggested here, and a lot less zero-sum reasoning.

[Marcus Arvan]

Jonathan: Thanks for weighing in. I can't help but wonder whether there might be differences between research jobs and teaching jobs here. Research departments are (it seems) looking primarily for one thing: the best researchers. Teaching departments may (it seems) have much more diverse concerns (teaching, service, etc) and competing interests at stake (courses they need taught, growing majors, etc.).

Perhaps that might explain (some) of the differences between our experiences?

[anonymous]

I teach in an R1 dept in which I have been on two search committees. I don't think there is horse trading like that being discussed here in my department. But it is a large and very philosophically diverse place, and people have very different ideas about what it is to be "the best" researchers (and also about whether we should take other things into consideration in hiring, like teaching and the potential for actually making a good service contribution to the department). There is extreme disagreement about a lot of things. And yet my experience is much more like Jonathan describes: we still work towards coming to a consensus, and there is very little bargaining or game-theoretic reasoning about one's favored candidate and much more simple open discussion that eventually usually allows us to settle on a particular ranking of candidates.

My sense is that the divide is not between research and teaching departments but simply between healthy and unhealthy ones; if you have a department with a faculty who generally know how to work together and at least professionally can get along, the kind of thing described in this post will likely be pretty foreign to you.

[Marcus Arvan]

Anonymous: thanks for chiming in. You write, “My sense is that the divide is not between research and teaching departments but simply between healthy and unhealthy ones.” For what it is worth, that is not my experience at all. I have hired three times at a teaching school and have friends who have hired at others, and my sense is that horsetrading happens in them despite them being very healthy places. The problem is that a small department may need very many things, and different members of the search committee very different priorities—and that deals are struck not out of any kind of unhealthiness, but in large part to negotiate different priorities in a healthy manner.

[cw]

Just to add a few data points:

I've been on two searches at an R1 and four at an R3/regional state university. My experience is like Jonathan's and anonymous'. I have not seen the sort of horse trading described here.

This said, I'm not surprised to learn that it happens elsewhere. I'm just not sure how common it is.

[Horse]

A quick remark about horse trading. I think it is more likely to happen in small departments of 4 or so people. The needs are so great in such departments - someone who can teach ancient, and philosophy of mind, oh, and an aesthetics course, and there is always need for another business ethics course - that people can have very different visions about what the priorities of the department should be. In research departments, they are looking to hire a person with narrow expertise - perhaps as narrow as philosophy of biology. The people in the department who work in areas closest to this area will tend to have the greater say in the hiring.