Profiling Faculty Candidates:

The Reality of Unofficial Rankings in Recruiting

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to propose methodologies for the profiling of the faculty candidates in the recruiting process. This paper uses the term “construction programs” to include all programs of construction in higher education, including construction management, construction science, building construction, construction engineering, etc.  The authors realize this is a very controversial topic and anticipate that this paper will be a vehicle to initiate and conduct many academic debates.  The Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) may be the forum to have these debates on faculty profiling.  Faculty members typically do not like being profiled, ranked, evaluated, or reviewed, or profiled; there is a certain arrogance or independence, perhaps derived from the concepts of academic freedom, which seems to convince faculty that comparisons, profiling and rankings are inappropriate at best and may even be illegal.

The academic discipline of construction is a blend of technology, engineering, management, and construction. Construction programs of higher education evolved during the last century; however, academia has been slow in realigning supporting programs to meet the growth of construction programs which reflect the needs of the construction industry.  The transformation is underway, but the pipeline of construction faculty has not yet been established.  Faculty members are being recruited from the crossover disciplines—engineering, architecture, education, etc.  The ability of multi-disciplined faculty to deliver a construction curriculum creates both a richness of diversity and a forum for conflict.  This paper will look at hiring new faculty and suggest some metrics that may be useful for programs to consider in their hiring process.

Literature Search--Background

Introducing Competency

In A Project Manager Competency Model (Waller, 1997), competence refers to some observable evidence of performance by individuals.  Competency can be defined as having the minimum knowledge and skill to satisfactorily perform, and the automobile 'driving test' is a frequently used analogy. The Waller paper describes a competence model for project managers that attempts to include not only knowledge and skill, but further expand the model to include intellectual and moral behaviors in concert with the project manager's style.  The authors feel that construction education has to move to a competency model for faculty members.

According to (Dainty 2004), the role of competency-based performance management is growing in significance in many industries and sectors. Unlike functional competences, which measure performance against predetermined minimum occupational standards, competency-based systems are founded on the key behavioral competencies that underlie superior levels of performance.  In order to identify the key behaviors leading to performance excellence amongst construction project managers, in-depth behavioral event interviews were used in which managers were asked to recount critical management incidents, decisions, and actions from which their behavioral competencies could be identified.  The research identifies 12 core behavioral competencies that underpin effective project management performance, of which, two – 'composure' and 'team leadership' – were the most predictive.

As written by (Bigelow 2003), putting the right project manager on the right job is what competency assessment is all about! Competency is a buzzword in the new millennium, but what does it mean? Why would an organization want to evaluate project manager competency? Projects are only as successful as the people who manage them. Evaluating project manager competency enables organizations to identify individuals who are, or have the potential to become, superior project managers and determine what is needed in the way of coaching and development to raise performance.

Hiring the Right People

Good to Great (Collins, 2003) is a well read management book.  This book is based on solid research regarding how a good company can become a great company.  The authors of this paper feel that Collins has captured some of the concepts in his book for making academic programs great.  In chapter 4, Collins emphasizes that level-5 leadership first gets the right people on the bus in the right seats and once the right team is in place, then they figure out the best path to greatness. 

The first guiding principle in creating a world-class academic program is to have highly qualified, motivated faculty.  In some academic circles deans will decide what direction the department will go and will only authorize hiring faculty with targeted skill sets.  This seems to be especially true in deans who have a priority on research and a lower priority on teaching.  The customers, the construction industry, value teaching more than research, and in most hiring cases, administrators have to face the dilemma of finding candidates with a Ph.D. and an affinity for research or a candidate with good construction experience and a desire and capability to teach.

One Jim Collins quote that stands out is: “Those who build great companies understand that the ultimate throttle on growth for any great company is not market or technology or competition or product.  It is one thing above all others; the ability to get and keep enough of the right people.”

Skills and Traits Needed

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) compiled the following list of skills and traits that should be acquired in college in the order of importance (CII 1990).

Some of the CII essential skills cannot be identified by reviewing a faculty candidate’s university transcripts, résumé and/or vita.  Some administrators put significant weight on how well the candidates write the cover letter.  The talent in leadership and management is more difficult to determine but may be one of the most important items in the profile.  Most of the remaining skills and traits listed above cannot necessarily be assessed from college transcripts alone. 

According to one study (Walsh 1996) formal interviews are the best opportunity for a candidate to demonstrate their oral skills.  Is the interviewee poised doing the interview?  Were they articulate and confident? The oral communication abilities of faculty candidates become evident during the interview visits and the typically required presentation of a construction topic to the faculty.

Values

The Walsh study stated; “most people are aware of their own value system; however, many people deceive themselves and try to convince themselves that their values lie elsewhere”.  A person’s value system is one of the most difficult things to change.  Therefore, knowing your own values and the values of others working with you can be advantageous in developing personal and team relationships.  For example, if you know that your supervisor’s values focus, you will succeed by producing regular progress reports stating accomplishments in that area.

Professional Testing

Individual Values

According to Bernstein & Kaye (1993), the researchers have created an instrument to evaluate an individual’s values.  This instrument asked the person being tested 35 questions.  Our values give meaning to our life and work and provide personal development.  Knowing the values that are most essential to you is an enabler in making the good choices.  The good news is there a wide variety of values to choose from; the bad news is that you can’t have them all.  The instrument asked the person being evaluated to select the seven values that are most meaningful to them out of 35.  It forces the individual to “value” profile themselves.

Each faculty member serving on a screening or selection committee will evaluate the candidate’s core value system differently.  If the candidates value system just included the seven descriptors of having job security (19), having high income (17), spending time with family and friends (13), having power (9), being independent (14), having status (22), advancing my career (2), and challenging myself athletically (10), there may be some concern.  It would appear that this candidate is mainly looking forward to a retirement home and playing golf.

If the candidate’s core values centered on pursuing excellence through being active in the community (15), being creative (16), helping society (18), influencing others (25), collaborating with colleagues (28), being part of the team (30),  and challenging him or herself intellectually (35)  the candidate may be a superb role model as a faculty member.  A great deal of judgment will be needed to properly evaluate a candidate’s core values.  A department should seek diversity in professors and style, but not in ethics, people skills, and leadership.

Value Heading

The authors realize that determining core values will probably be accomplished in discussions with the candidate’s references.  Additionally, more discussions with the candidate’s industry colleagues about core values and reputation are critical.

WorkStyle Profile

Everyone has a tendency to work according to a preferred work pattern or work style.  For example, one person may be task-oriented, while another is only concerned with the big picture.  One person may be result-oriented, while another may wish to investigate issues thoroughly.  These two examples are rather diverse pairs.  However, there is no reason they cannot work together on a project or faculty team.  By knowing how each member of a team prefers to work, compromises can be made to work effectively as a team without destructive conflict.  Furthermore, assessing a person's workstyle preference may be as important as assessing their qualification for the job.  Misalignment of a person's workstyle preference to the workstyle requirement of their position may result in personal and organizational stress.  It would be unwise for an employer to select a task-oriented person for a big picture job.

Several inventories are available in a self-graded format for individuals to determine their preferred workstyles.  Two such surveys, McFlechor’s WorkStyle preference inventory and Padgett Thompson’s personal profile systems are available.  The McFlecher instrument has been successfully administered to and correlated with construction professionals by Badger & Warner (1991).

Task-Oriented Profiles

It will be difficult to reach agreement on which profile will make the best professor.  However, the authors feel that faculty members with profiles one through six may be less effective than those with seven through sixteen.  Being in the academic discipline of construction management, one could argue that 16, the project manager profile, may be the best teacher and role model for a faculty member.  On further review it became obvious that great professors could have any of the 16 profiles.

Myers-Briggs

The use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ® instrument and the Strong Interest Inventory ® instrument or other similar tests can help both organizations and individuals make better decisions regarding suitable careers and job placement.

Hiring New Faculty

The Process

Most faculty searches are accomplished by casting a big net—the bigger the better—and hoping that something swims in.  Once positions are approved by the institution, an advertisement is broadcast widely, usually on the ASC web site, the obligatory EEO outlets, and frequently in ENR.  Applications are received and evaluated or ranked and visits are offered to the best candidates.  Visits are brief and perfunctory, references may or may not be checked, and a hiring decision is made.  Usually a faculty search committee administers this process, making hiring recommendations to program leaders or their deans. 

The Four Circle Model in Hiring Faculty

The authors realized that in the academic hiring process, faculty candidates are profiled and ranked by faculty and administrators.  By developing a Four Circle Model to display the three layers of an individual’s credentials that surrounds their core values, it is hoped that a better framework for the hiring process can be described.  The authors have designated the center, Circle One, as the candidate’s core values; Circle Two represents the candidate’s interpersonal skills; Circle Three identifies the hidden, invisible, and unmentionable topics that come into play; and the outer Circle Four includes the apparent credentials—degrees and experience—usually found in a resume.  Usually faculty hiring decisions only focus on Circle Four, the outer ring, to develop the selection and hiring criteria.  The authors feel that hiring should be done from the core outward and not just in Circle Four.

Inner Circle One--Core Values

Circle Two--Interpersonal Skills

Circle Three--Unmentionable and Intangible Factors

These are crucial factors in the hiring process that are used but never explicitly recognized.

1.        Age: The faculty lines are so difficult to obtain we may not use one to hire an older candidate who will only be available for a few years.

2.        Health: The candidate that is overweight, smokes, or has health problems is usually avoided as a poor return on investment.

3.        Reputation: The un-programmed phone calls to determine the ability of a candidate to work within the team, moral and ethical behavior, and legal profiles are critical but never talked about.

4.        Ability to be a role model component in the program: the stability, capability, and successful track record to work in close proximity with students without crossing the boundary is important but, again, never talked about.

5.         Failure on previous jobs: any faculty that was not tenured at one university will not be a serious candidate at the next university.

6.        Misconceptions: the idea and perception that an industry professional can retire, tell war stories, and play golf needs to be ferreted out, and the brutal fact of how difficult being a full-time university educator can be must be communicated.  The true reason for the transition into academia needs to be determined and discussed.

Circle Four—Apparent Credentials.

1.        Education background comes in the form of the standard résumé or vita.

2.        Industry experience may be the least understood hiring criteria, the hardest to verify, and most often is poorly evaluated.

3.        University degrees are required, and over the years the bar has continues to be raised by universities to a PhD level.

4.        Professional licenses are a clear demonstration of experience and ability but are seldom mandatory in the hiring process.

5.        Publications are sometimes used to measure scholarship.

6.        References seem to always be required, but it is unclear how extensively they are used.

7.        Awards would be a great indicator of performance, recognition, and achievement but, in some cases are seldom used.

Discussion

The realism of the hiring system is that administrators usually advertise the requirements from the outer Circle Four when what is needed are the skills identified in Circle Two and the core values of the candidates in the inner circle, all considered in the context of Circle Three.  It is unsettling to have the paradox of being politically correct but unable to state what is really wanted.  In public, the faculty members work on Circle Four, when what is really needed is the recognition that the really important things are in Circles One, Two, and Three.

History

As this paper was being written, there were 38 advertisements for faculty positions on the ASC web site; a total of 52 faculty positions were being recruited; of this number 36 positions required or preferred candidates to have an earned doctorate.

The profile of applicants for construction faculty positions provides a snapshot of who is in the faculty pool and their backgrounds over a four-year period (1998/99, 1999/00, 2000/01, and 2001/02).  As written by Badger (2002), the advertisements specified that the applicant must have a PhD.  Lessons learned from studying the applicant pool are:

1.        The average number of applicants has been decreasing. (24, 57, 8, & 7)

2.        10 percent of the applicants reapply and 1.5 percent of the applicants are women. 

3.        40 to 50 percent of the applicants are employed at another university. 

4.        54 percent are international faculty (earned BS outside US).

5.        80 percent of the applicants have PhD’s in disciplines in other than CM.  60 percent are in Civil Engineering.

6.        Applicants have an average of 10 years of industry experience.

7.        Applicant’s average age is 40, based on when they graduated from high school.

8.        To increase the pool of qualified applicants, many must be personally invited to apply.

9.        Increasing the advertising budget does not improve the quality of the applicants.

10.     To hire women faculty requires special targeting outside of the normal faculty pool.

11.     There is a shortage of qualified faculty candidates, and the number of international candidates is rising.

12.     Many CM faculty positions are filled with academic professionals from other disciplines.

13.     It is difficult to hire industry professionals with credentials to satisfy universities.

14.     More CM programs need to offer CM PhD degrees.

Clearly, hiring construction faculty is very difficult and is becoming more so as universities raise the minimum credentials.  Additionally, fewer and fewer faculty hires are from U.S. graduate programs, which indicate that U.S. schools are not meeting the faculty needs of domestic construction programs.  The absence of a pool of young, PhD holding applicants indicates a severe problem filling construction positions in the future.  While international hires and hires from outside the discipline can fill some of the positions, the inability to hire PhD’s in the specific field debilitates construction programs drastically, which negatively affects future recruitment of both students and faculty. 

Leadership Conference Findings

During the April 2000 ASC Leadership Conference, (Badger 2002) 35 program leaders were surveyed about the faculty hiring process.  What follows are selections from the survey results.

1. Reasons faculty decided to become Professors:  Professors seem to like the opportunity to stay on the cutting edge of construction, to participate in continual learning, and to improve the state of construction, as well as being around young people who are excited about new knowledge.  Professors were strong in their desire to have high degrees of freedom, the opportunity to control their own time, and the lifestyle.

2. Biggest surprise after joining the faculty:  The continual battle with administration for resources, the amount of paperwork, and the bureaucracy.

3. The lack of leadership, the poor communication skills, and the political/personal conflicts within programs.

4. Faculty members’ greatest rewards:  The greatest rewards were of seeing students succeed and seeing the change in students during their educational development. 

5. Major challenges of program leaders:  These challenges were the hiring of quality faculty, fund raising, mentoring and developing young faculty, and obtaining university and industry support.  The next tier of challenges included recruiting great students, continuing faculty development, research, and publishing. 

6. Greatest challenges in hiring faculty:  The greatest challenges in hiring new faculty were identifying and locating interested candidates and competing with other universities for the talent. 

7. Elements of the hiring process that are the most difficult to accomplish: The respondents listed creating an adequate candidate pool, justifying university faculty lines, and understanding tenure as the most difficult elements of the hiring process to accomplish.

8. What program leaders look for in new faculty:  Some of the most often mentioned characteristics that program leaders look for in new faculty are interpersonal skills, construction experience, teaching aptitude, the ability to work as part of a team, listening skills, and empathy for students and learning.

9.        The increase or decrease of the value of construction experience for faculty over the last ten years:  The value of construction experience continues to be regarded less and less.

Verification

In most job announcements, administrators require a resume showing a list of the degrees, job experience, etc., and several references.   Letters of reference enable administrators to begin to get at core values and interpersonal skills.  It is rare in academia to require professional testing to determine the work style or personality of the candidates.

In any ranking system there has to be agreed-upon verification mechanisms.  Currently there are several with varying degrees of application:

Proposed Hiring Scorecard

Appendix A has a proposed “Hiring Scorecard” which might serve as the basis for making hiring decisions among competing candidates.  It is expected that there will not be agreement with the scored items or the scoring weights; however, the authors contend that the scorecard will assist programs in an analysis of candidates and reduce the likelihood that key discriminators will be overlooked.  Programs may want to develop their own scorecards and weights; candidate scorecard in the Appendix can be used as a point of departure.

The Impact of Interim Leadership

Today there are several construction programs that are operating under temporary, interim leadership. Finding new leaders for construction programs has become a challenge brought on by the dearth of candidates with the requisite credentials.  The inherent problems in not hiring and living with interim leadership may produce unanticipated consequences.  Ten potential problems may occur as follows:

1. The academic hiring process usually takes an academic year to complete.  Making the decision not to search adds an additional year to this process.

2. Organizations and/or academic units with interim leadership usually operate in a caretaker operational mode. 

3. University administrators will postpone budget investments and new faculty hire decisions until the new leadership is finally hired.

4. Interim leadership has difficulty in planning, delegation, and change management.

5. The existence of interim leadership creates organizational turbulence and may promote faculty and staff turnover. 

6. In some cases, interim leadership holds down two jobs: the old job they had and will return to and the position they now serve as an interim.  Consequently over- working the interim administrator reduces the likelihood of a quality performance.

7. When a program experiences the decision “not to hire,” it sends a clear signal (image) nationally to other university programs that there may be some type of problems within that academic unit.

8. There are a limited number of qualified candidates in any academic discipline, and during the first screening and selection process, the majority of those candidates will be reviewed.  Consequently, this will limit the quality of candidates in the second or third pool.

9. Program unity is challenged more during interim leadership.

10. Interim leadership causes stress in industry support alliances, academic partnerships, and the fund-raising effort.

Hiring the Wrong Person

Driven by the shortage of qualified faculty, coupled with the growing demand for faculty with stronger academic credentials, the hiring decisions may sometimes be flawed, and a poor hire will be made.  The best solution is to terminate the hire early in the probationary period—a solution which is difficult at best and often not possible.  This has enormous consequences for the program, including:

1. Academic units have limited capability in correcting a poor hiring event.

2. The consequences of a poor hire have a long-term impact on the academic unit.

3. Hiring the wrong person with poor interpersonal traits has the potential to drive out quality staff and faculty.

4. Once hiring the wrong person has been corrected, there is the challenge of completing the hiring process for the replacement person.

5. Academic units are known nationally and internationally by the quality of the faculty they hire. The image and reputation of an academic unit is fragile and may be significantly damaged by a poor hire.

6. New hires may have higher salaries than the long-term faculty, and if they perform poorly, this will create an extreme morale problem.

7. Hiring the wrong person has the potential to destroy the family environment within a unit.

8. Hiring the wrong person will create faculty turnover that is costly in time and resources to retrain.

9. Hiring the wrong person damages the credibility and reputation of the academic units within the college and the University

Conclusions

The importance of faculty hires mandates that universities use as many screens and filters as possible.  Investigative background checks, personality profile testing, extensive verification of work experiences, and complete profiling and ranking should be required.  With the shortage of qualified faculty candidates, some programs will feel that they need to ‘lower the bar’ to fill the position.  The dilemma that programs face is:  Hire someone with imperfect credentials and try and force-fit that individual into the program, or do not hire, struggle through an interim situation for a year, and begin the search again next year?  The demand for faculty is growing, the desired faculty credentials are becoming more demanding, and the faculty candidate pool is extremely limited.  Is there a solution?  The authors discuss some considerations if hiring is delayed or if the wrong person is hired.

The academic hiring process is fraught with difficulty.  Growing demand, continuously elevated desired credentials, and very limited candidate development all combine to make hiring a significant challenge.  This paper has sought to elevate the debate on these issues and to suggest several concepts to improve the hiring process.

References

Waller, R. (1997) A Project Manager Competency Model.  Project Management Institute Seminars & Symposium (Project Management Institute Seminars & Symposium (28th: 1997: Chicago, Ill))    (Proceedings: 452-458, Chicago, Ill

Dainty, A. (2004), Cheng, M. & Moore, D. Construction Management & Economics, vol. 22, issue 8, pages 877-886

Bigelow, D. & West, J. (2003), (Proceedings of the PMI Global Congress 2003 - North America, PMC01.PDF.)

Collins, J. (2003) Good to Great publishED by Harper Business, IBSN-06-662099-6

Construction Industry Institute (CII) website in 1991

Walsh. T. (1996) Evaluation of Leadership and Management Skills and Traits, unpublished paper for her master's degree in construction at Arizona State University

Badger, W. & Wanner, C. Workstyle Profile for the Constructor - The Educator's Role: “Aligning the Peg and the Hole,” Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction, 1991 pp. 121-134

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ® instrument and the Strong Interest Inventory ® instrument Retrieved 16 December 2005 from http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html

Job announcements, The Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) Retrieved 3 May 2001 from http://ascweb.org/

Badger, W. (2002) The CM Faculty Pipeline Needs Renovating.  Associated Schools of Construction ASC Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University - Blacksburg, Virginia, April 11 - 13, 2002, pp 115-126

Appendix

Candidate Scorecard

1.        Circle 1: Core Values [Maximum score 150 points]

a.        Role model

b.       Gentleman/Lady

c.        Ethical

d.       Great Reputation

e.        Sensitive to people

2.        Circle 2: Interpersonal Skills [Maximum score 150 points.]

a.        Leadership skills

b.       People skills

c.        Communicator

d.       Trust builder

e.        Team player

 

3.        Circle 3: Unmentionable and Intangible Factors [Maximum score 150 points]

a.        Age

b.       Health

c.        Failure on previous jobs

d.       Misconceptions

e.        Poor reputation

4.        Circle 4: Academic Record  [Maximum score 150 points]

a.        Terminal degree

1)       Has a Master’s degree in Construction Management, Construction Engineering,
 Architecture, or Related Fields

2)       Has a PhD in Construction Management, Construction Engineering,
 Architecture, or Related Fields

b.       Transcript analysis

1)       Evaluation of the University transcripts of the faculty candidate

5.        Circle 4: Industry Experience  [Maximum Score 150 points]

a.        Duration

b.       Level

c.        Variety

d.       Continuing education

 

Factors to be considered

·         Has three to five years experience in the Construction Industry.  (The four sectors factor into the scorecard as do the levels of experience: 1) entry-level, 2) mid-level, and 3) senior-level.) 

·         Mapping experience by sectors of Construction (heavy civil, commercial, residential, and industrial) and identifying where the experience was generated.

·         Evaluating at project level, office level, or executive level or in the areas of estimating, scheduling, contracting, and in leading or managing..

·         Individual worker versus supervisor and alignment in a career path should be included.

·         It may be on the design side or construction.

·         It may be local, national, or international.

·         Experience may be gained or weighted by working on the owner side versus contractor and/or civilian versus military.

·         Has 3 to 5 years of experience in the US Construction Industry.

·         Job history, the number of companies worked, and geographic location. 

6.        Circle 4: Academic Experience – post graduation [Maximum score 50 points]

a.        Teaching experience

b.       Publication record

c.        Research record

d.       Service record

e.        Continuing education

7.        Circle 4: Special Credentials   [Maximum score 50 points]

a.        Earned credential [P.E., CPC, AIA, etc.]

b.       Honorary credential [NAC, Fellow, etc.]

8.        Circle 4: Awards/Recognition  [Maximum score 50 points]

a.        Teaching

b.       Research/Service

c.        Other

9.        Circle 4: Professional Activities [Maximum score 50 points]

a.        Member

b.       Officer

c.        Continuing education credits and listing of seminars attended. 

10.     Circle 4: Personal Activities [Maximum score 50 points]

a.        Service activity

b.       Professional society’s membership and participation.

c.        Awards, recognition, and letter of commendation.

Experience Ranking Scorecard Ideas

The authors anticipate heated discussions on where the 1000 points are allocated or should be allocated, but if academia could agree on a reasonable methodology to rank experience, this in itself would be a major accomplishment.