Making Excellence Inclusive: A UCR Diversity Certificate Program Capstone Project
Diversifying and Training Staff Search Committee Members
Executive Summary:
Hiring an excellent and diverse staff workforce is a top priority among higher education institutions, yet typically search (hiring) committees typically receive little to no education about the search process. Members of search committees – collectively and individually – bear responsibility for the integrity and fairness within the search process, and are accountable for its success. The goal of this white paper is to provide search committee members as well as UCR hiring authorities with information, advice, and techniques that will help them assemble efficient search committees which will ultimately have a positive impact on the search and candidates interviews process and candidate recommendations to the Department Head in the recruiting of staff positions.
Introduction:
UC Riverside is an organization that values diversity, as stated in the Principles of Community (POC). The POC states, briefly, that we as employees value diversity in faculty, staff, and students. We strive for equitable treatment for everyone on campus. This statement focuses mainly on the respect for everyone regardless of their beliefs, race, religion, political preference, etc. Valuing the diversity the University currently has on campus is good for everyone, but we need to make sure that this diversity doesn’t disappear.
In the hiring of staff members, we need to be sure to address this issue, not just because it is required by law, but because diversity increases creativity and innovation. It keeps the organization from stagnating. Diversity fosters new ideas and new approaches to problem solving. As intuitive as this may seem, it may not be as easy as it should be to implement.
Problem Definition:
Search Practices at UCR Must be More Proactive: Search Committee Members Must be Trained
The bottom line, however, is that training is necessary, even for the most conscientious of the Search Committee members. The risk of unconscious homogeneous hiring is one reason for this training. Rather than “opposites attract” being the norm, the EECO has identified what they call the “like me” bias, which influences hiring decisions. Briefly, “it is an axiom of human nature that people often like to associate with other people who are like themselves. This enhances a comfort level in working relationships. Such 'like me' bias may be conscious or unconscious. Nevertheless, the 'like me' syndrome can lead to a tendency to employ and work with people like oneself” (EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 15-IX, ftn. 161, 2006). When considering a group of applicants, most hiring managers or committees will unconsciously follow human nature and attempt to copy either what is already there, or themselves. The key is to make this habit conscious, and in turn, consciously keep from doing so.
a) Career Staff Workforce Composition by Race and Gender (insert table 1999-2004-2009)
---- 2 sentences write up on how effective current practices have been based on numbers ---
b) What are UCR Staff Search Committee Current Practices?
Unlike the recruitment of academic personnel, where guidelines for search committees are more explicit (3 to 7 members, male and female representation, representative from under-represented racial/ethnic group, member from another department, one Affirmative Action officer in each search committee, etc.) there are no guidelines for search committees recruiting staff personnel --- the composition, role and responsibilities varies greatly amount Organizations, Divisions and Departments and there is no formal training or explicit guidelines for composition and roles. Committees are usually formed in a hurry, to expedite the recruitment process. According to our informal survey, --- in practice --- extremes exist: from 3-layer interview (phone interview, in-person interview followed by a “test” and finally, lunch with the Unit Head) for ALL positions, including entry level Assistants and Clerks to an 1-layer interview (phone) by the direct supervisor (who needs someone yesterday and does not have time to form a search committee). These inconsistencies lead to a lack of uniform practices.
Affirmative Action is currently developing new reports to guide Unit Heads on placement goals and provide search committees with more information on their applicant pool, etc.
--- Insert Before and after reports ---
Best Practice Solution:
So how do we start? If we want to encourage and embrace a diverse workforce, what is the logical first step? We would argue that it is impossible to have a diverse workforce in an organization if the pool of applicants for positions in any given unit within the organization is not diverse. Therefore, in order to have a diverse pool of applicants, the positions must be advertised to as many diverse groups as possible and within appropriate diversity market areas. Once it is known that the pool is deficient in representation for a certain group or groups, there are many websites that can help a recruiter target these groups in order to increase their number in the pool. Human Resources partners with L&J Advertising, a company that will place ads in different publications or on different websites, depending on the department need. HR can also give recruiters ideas for where to place an ad to reach a certain demographic or to target a group that is underrepresented in the applicant pool (a complete list of advertising sources is attached). Personal contacts through telephone calls are also beneficial for high level positions.
Along with a diverse pool of applicants, a well trained and diverse search committee is also critical to successful recruitment. Most search committees at UCR are appointed by hiring authorities to include primarily the department managers and supervisors. Unfortunately, reliance on department management and/or subject matter experts often results in committees that lack expertise in basic employment processes and best practices. Using committee members without expertise in the development of effective recruitment plans and evaluation strategies can result in poor search outcomes. More importantly, search committees often rely on traditional processes that do not produce highly qualified, diverse applicant pools. Traditional search processes are fairly prescribed and often require little to no participation by the search committee until the final stages of the search. We believe that staff search committees at UCR receive little to no education about the search process and should be required to participate in training that includes sound employment practices, ideas for developing diversity outreach plans, compliance with federal affirmative action regulations and become a trained search committee member prior to serving on a search committee.
Solution Details:
We recommend these best practices can be implemented in the UCR work environment by first bringing together a group of experts from Human Resources, Office of Affirmative Action and the Office of Diversity, Excellence and Equity to design search committee member training for staff recruiting. The training should be broken out into a couple of modules. The first module that focuses on the importance of having a diverse search committee, and the second module that focuses on the role of search committee members, including the committee chair.
The importance of having a diverse search committee:
Given that individuals are more likely to choose those similar to them, there is more of a chance of homogeneous thinking with a homogeneous search committee than if the committee is diverse. The concept of “groupthink” is a very real phenomenon, where group members, in an effort to decrease conflict, increase group cohesiveness, and speed up the decision making process, suppress individuality and creativity. If there is a search committee comprised of a group with little diversity, groupthink is a risk which can lead to the group not considering all of the applicants fairly. They may engage in one of many cognitive errors that are prevalent in homogenous committees. According to JoAnn Moody (2007), there are 15 main cognitive errors that occur in search committees. They are as follows:
1. Negative Stereotypes – Assuming one is not a quality candidate due to their race, gender, etc. not their credentials.
2. Positive Stereotypes – Assuming one is a quality candidate due to their race, gender, etc., not their credentials.
3. Raising the Bar – Raising requirements for a job during the process for only certain candidates.
4. Elitism – Feeling, or wishing to feel, superior based on the candidates’ undergraduate or doctoral campuses, social class, etc.
5. First Impressions – Basing a decision on the immediate impression one has of the candidate, not on their credentials or their qualifications.
6. Longing to Clone – The longing to reproduce yourself, others in a department, or one who has left.
7. Good Fit/Bad Fit – Deciding on whether or not to offer a position based on if one personally feels that they can get along with or work comfortably with a candidate.
8. Provincialism – Undervaluing something outside your own experiences, circle, etc.
9. Extraneous Myths and Assumptions – Personal opinions and misinformation.
10. Wishful Thinking – Holding to a notion in spite of evidence to the contrary.
11. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy – setting up candidates to shine or fail based on your belief that they will do so.
12. Seizing a Pretext – Obscuring the real reason for either supporting or rejecting a candidate.
13. Character over Context – Not considering context and extenuating circumstances, but assuming that a behavior is the norm.
14. Premature Ranking/Digging In – Rushing to give numeric preference to candidates or applicants.
15. Momentum of the Group – The majority of the group favors a candidate, which may make the rest of the group feel pressured into doing the same, without giving due consideration to other candidates.
Moody (2007) offers 14 ways to overcome these errors:
1. Constant self-correction by Individuals and committees.
2. Coaching, Preparation, and reminders.
3. Ground rules and preparation for the evaluation process.
4. A diverse committee, including a non-voting member for quality control.
5. Use of a matrix to keep members on track.
6. Taking plenty of time in the evaluation process and not rushing.
7. Incorporating accountability into the evaluation process.
8. Gathering non-stereotypical information and evidence about the candidates.
9. Avoiding numerical rankings.
10. Avoiding solo situations and including several minorities in the pool of finalists.
11. Continuous practice.
12. Cultivating personal relationships with groups often the target of negative stereotypes in order to increase personal, non-stereotypical experiences of this particular group.
13. Resolve from leaders to “show me the evidence”.
14. Constant Attention to improvement and debriefing of the evaluation process.
Making oneself aware of different cognitive errors and in turn striving to not allow them to influence decisions is a step in the direction of making sure search committees are committed to finding the best possible talent to fill our positions, and not focusing on extraneous and often superfluous characteristics of the candidates.
The role of search committee members’ training should include the following:
· Defining a successful search – The appointing authority and search committee chair are essential to a successful search process. The appointing authority provides a vision for the position in the larger academic framework while the search committee chair provides leadership and advocacy for a diversity of candidates. The search committee should:
o Know what the appointing authority expects.
o Keep workings and selection process confidential
o Be dedicated, experienced and trained
o Operate from a well-developed recruitment plan that is based on the department diversity plan
o Avoid exclusionary thinking – expand beyond “sort” to “search”
o Develop a highly qualified, diverse applicant pool
· Conducting the search – here the training should focus on employment practices that ensure quality candidates
· Evaluation and Selection of Applicants to Interview – the general principle is that all applicants must be treated fairly and consistently. This point should be emphasized during the initial evaluation phase, the interview phases, and the final selection phase.
Search committees are encouraged to use a variety of traditional evaluation methods (e.g.,vitae resume, work samples, cover letter etc.) as well as to include nontraditional methods (e.g., videoconference interviewing. One important component for building a diverse applicant pool is to consider evaluation of potential. For example, not all applicants will have met the required as well as the preferred qualifications for experience, but several may show potential through other ways (e.g., awards, and/or experience during training, graduate school, or other work experiences).
· Interviewing, identifying top candidates, and recommending a candidate to the hiring authority – Panel interviews are recommended, because this type of interview tends to be more focused and job related. The panel members are accountable to each other and aware that they are being observed, therefore questions tend to be to the point and personal biases are reduced. Also, by participating simultaneously, all interviewers are able to evaluate the candidate’s responses and presentation in preparation for the referral to the hiring authority. An interview panel may be the search committee, may include search committee members plus non search committee members, or may be comprised of individuals who did not serve on the search committee.
Risks for implementation:
· It may be difficult to convince hiring departments to involve additional staff in the search committee processes as a normal part of staff job responsibility
· Identifying the best means to provide staff training for service on search committee
· Establishing a campus-wide infrastructure to support staff training and supervisor acceptance for staff involvement in search committees
· Establishing a monitoring and evaluation process to assess the affective change in search committee processes to sustain a long-term institutional investment (what would the measures/indicators of a successful program be)?
Benefits:
Search committees make decisions that affect and shape the staff, and therefore the entire university, for years to come. Search committees can no longer afford to simply advertise and hope for the best. Research and best practices have proven that a successful search to attract a strong diverse pool of applicants starts at the beginning with qualified well informed and trained search committee members.
Measures:
Committees are encouraged to evaluate their success as a committee by focusing on their success in generating a highly qualified, diverse applicant pool. If that was successful, they should then determine the success of the recruitment phase. Did diverse applicants stay in the pool or drop out? If applicants dropped out, do they know why? How satisfied was the hiring authority with the final candidates? Finally, committees are encouraged to stay involved with the new employee to provide a welcoming environment and to promote retention through mentoring and networking opportunities.