I spent much of last fall in my second tour of duty on my school’s dean search commmittee. We ended up hiring a long-time member of the faculty, but along the way looked very closely at a number of outside candidates. Hiring an outsider is often thought of as risky. You might end up hiring someone with skeletons in the closet (perhaps covered up by that person’s current colleagues anxious to be rid of him/her); you might end up hiring a dean who will place his/her own financial interests above the school’s intitutional concerns in discussions with central university admnistrators. And even if neither of these is true, there’s no certainty that, upon further reflection, an outsider with deep roots in their current school or community will want to relocate for what is these days a 2-4 year job. A faculty invests a lot of energy in screening outside candidates, and those folks may be less likely to accept a position if offered than an internal candidate.
Looking at outside candidates offers obvious advantages, like fresh insights and a broader pool.
As a practical matter, it may be a necessity to look outside in order to be able to satisfy a particular dean search charge (for instance, “give the provost/president three names”). The vast majority of deans, outside of the very top schools where fundraising is of a different character, will have served as associate deans at law schools (and most of those as “Associate Deans of Academic Affairs,” or whatever that position is called, as distinguished from research deans). But on a typical faculty, there may only be one or two individuals who are available and have served in that office. So one has to look outside the building to find people with what is viewed by many schools as an essential if not absolutely required prior experience.
So here’s my question — in order to develop a better pool of future dean candidates, should schools consider bringing in associate deans from outside? I’ve never heard of such a search. There is certainly a question of how long it would take a laterally hired associate dean to get up to speed on the various institutional rules and customs that the person would have to enforce. But my outsider’s perspective is that the learning curve for a professor-turned-associate dean is so steep anyhow that the differences in institutional approach won’t be the main new thing a person has to master.
The laterally hired associate dean would be a sort of “coach in waiting,” ala college football, or a “CEO in waiting,” ala industry. The school woudn’t be bound to the person, and of course, like coaches in waiting, some would end up bolting for other jobs before they get their turn (though that itself would be revealing; and I think most schools get more than their money’s worth in service from associate deans).
I haven’t seen associate deans recruited laterally, as noted, and in fact when we look at lateral faculty candidates we typically immediately dismiss someone who is currently an associate dean as “ungettable.” But here’s what I have seen happen in a couple of places — a faculty member, relatively junior (perhaps untenured, perhaps tenurable or recently tenured) laterals from one school to another, and within 2-3 years is appointed the associate dean at the new school. Is it possible that schools are, without advertising it, looking at potential laterals who bring certain administrative tendencies not prevalent among mid-career folks at a school? I know of three schools, including my own, where a lateral faculty member ended up in the associate dean’s chair within 2-3 years of coming aboard. I even know of a school that made a lateral offer, which was accepted, and then offered the lateral the associate dean’s job before they’d even come into the building.
It’s also possible that outsiders coming in as faculty laterals may end up as associate deans because they come in with fresh ideas which impress their colleagues and which demonstrate administrative and curricular reform aptitude.
Posted by Geoffrey Rapp on September 16, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Comments
Maybe my experience is quirky, I’m not sure this would work for a few reasons: (1) Associate Deans are usually picked based on their reputation as established bridge-builders and trusted advisors in the law school already, making it hard to know if the lateral pick would be a good Associate Dean (and making it unlikely in the short term, as they would be unknown quantities and not yet trusted by the faculty); (2) my sense is that there is more demand for Associate Deans than supply, making it hard to recruit someone laterally for the position; (3) Most Associate Deans only stay on the job for a short time, making it of questionable value to recruit laterally for the position; and (4) there are lots of full-Dean opportunities for candidates who agree to be Associate Dean somewhere, meaning that there isn’t much benefit to moving schools just to be an Associate Dean there. That’s my sense, at least.
Posted by: Orin Kerr | Sep 19, 2011 9:50:15 AM