With gratitude to "LLL" who commented on my post from yesterday, the suggestion was made that with the upcoming dean hiring season almost upon us, we might like to think about good questions for selection committees and faculties to ask dean candidates.
Another book I might recommend in this context is Alan Deutschman's Walk the Walk: The #1 Rule for Real Leaders. Here's some of my take-aways from that book and also some suggestions for good questions to ask during law dean interviews. But naturally I would welcome everyone else's thoughts.
One thing that Deutschman does fairly early in the book is to distinguish between "leaders" and "stewards". He defines a "leader" as a person who will "strive to change the ways that other people think, feel, and act" (p xi) and he describes a "steward" as a person who runs things perhaps more efficiently than their predecessors but who don't try to change the culture's entrenched values and priorities (p xi-xii). Thus, for those of us embarking on dean searches, it might be a good idea to work out whether we're looking for a "leader" or a "steward". Each will likely exhibit different qualities and each may be good for a given organization at a particular point in time. Probably the type of questions you ask in an interview will vary depending on whether you are looking for a "leader" or a "steward". If you're looking for a leader, you may be asking about the person's new priorities for the school and how the leader would go about implementing change.
Towards the end of the book, Deutschman pulls together a set of qualities that he feels are inherent in good leaders. I would assume that not all candidates for leadership positions would immediately or obviously exhibit all of these categories, but for what it's worth, he describes the qualities of a good leader as: (a) leaders must have exceptional FOCUS and be able to highlight the one or two things that are most important to the cause; (b) leadership depends on EMPATHY; (c) leaders need CONSTANCY/RELENTLESS in pursuit of their objectives; and, (d) leaders should have an extraordinary BELIEF in their own ability to overcome obstacles. (pp 164-165)
So what questions might selection committees ask to get at some of these qualities? Presumably many of these qualities will be desirable, but perhaps less important, if the school is seeking a steward, rather than a leader.
Might we ask things like:
1/ What would be your Top 2 priorities for the school?
2/ How would you handle conflicts between your stated priorities and other important issues? eg If one of the priorities is "great teaching", how might this impact on time for faculty to do scholarship? If one of the priorities is "getting jobs for students in a tough market", how might this impact on allocation of resources more generally?
3/ What would you do if one of your proposals for change met with significant resistance from faculty and/or staff?
4/ What is your definition of "consensus"? And how important is it in making change?
5/ How would you deliver bad news to staff or faculty?
Any other questions that might be useful?
I'm not persuaded that the questions are useful. I ran all five of them through the residual holograms of the nine deans that have served at my schools over the course of my career, and none of the answers I would have predicted for them would have given me much insight on the sorts of dean that they actually turned out to be. The problem is that each of these questions invite the sort of boilerplate answer that isn't particularly revealing.
Posted by: Jessica Litman | June 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Thanks for your thoughts, Jessica. Can you think of better questions? Because frankly I'm stumped and I also fully acknowledge that interview questions are no replacement for good reference checks (which also obviously have their own limitations) and practical experience with the person. This also touches a little on the "internal versus external" candidate issue too. Faculty (and perhaps staff) will obviously have more experience of an internal candidate, but sometimes experience in other roles in the school is not transferable to the dean role. Deutschman also talks about looking for "leaders" in people lower down in the organization than the top CEO, suggesting that a successful organization needs to have a series of leaders, whether or not they have formal titles. This may be a problem in organizations with tenure where it's less easy to move people in and out of the organization if the team structure doesn't work well - and of course a lot of people will likely object to my using the term "team" at all for a law school faculty. Want to fully acknowledge that upfront. Business versus law school is not a perfect analogy.
Posted by: Jacqueline Lipton | June 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM
I agree with Jessica that the questions aren't likely to produce useful information, but I would explain that response differently. The questions strike me as assuming a top-down organizational and decision-making structure that is an awkward fit with an academic (or other not-for-profit) organization -- as well as (increasingly) a poor fit for many for-profit organizations. I don't think that leaders (stewards?) or Deans should reflexively listen to faculty (staff, students, alumni) and do what they want done. Nor do I think that "consensus" (quotation marks indicate a lack of definitional clarity) is a prequisite for organizational success. But effective leaders listen effectively, both inside and outside the organization, identify and work with allies and partners who are team players, are willing to make hard decisions when they need to be made, stick with those decisions -- and accept blame when thing turn out unexpectedly. Vague interview questions don't get at those qualities. How about this? "Big name alum wants to give $2 million to the law school to support a program that in the Dean's judgment does not align with the school's existing strategic priorities. How do you proceed?" Or this? "Market data suggest that the law school cannot sustain a model that assumes $25k annual tuition, its existing GPA/LSAT standing, and its placement statistics. At least one of those things has to give; otherwise, talented applicants in your target pool are likely to attend cheaper law schools or not go to law school at all. What do you do?"
Posted by: Mike Madison | June 15, 2010 at 02:28 PM
I like those more specific questions, Mike. Might just have to try them out one year!
BTW, I wasn't meaning to suggest that "consensus" (however it's defined) is a prerequisite for organizational success. I have just seen a lot of emphasis put on "consensus building" in dean searches (with varying definitions of the term), and I think it's a misplaced question. That's why I was interested in asking dean candidates to elaborate on how important they think it is. I assume that most candidates will waffle some platitudes about how important consensus is, but at the same time how important it is to also be decisive as the leader. But a more specific question giving a hypo (such as the ones you have come up with) may be better in this respect.
I'm also not 100% sure that I agree that at least some aspects of law faculties are not top-down structures. Sure the faculty governance side of the equation is pretty "flat" in terms of hierarchy, but the dean has to be able to manage often a large staff and often there are several lines of reporting under the senior staff. So at least in that part of the house, there is a need to understand some principles of to-down management.
Posted by: Jacqueline Lipton | June 15, 2010 at 02:50 PM
I think that in the dean-search context, "consensus building" is usually code for "we have a poisonous schism among factions or individuals on the faculty, and we've been frustrated because it is preventing us from making the decisions we need to make. How would you try to fix it?"
Posted by: Jessica Litman | June 16, 2010 at 08:44 AM
I would have to agree with that. If you didn't have a faculty schism, I can't imagine that "consensus" would be on the top of people's minds. That's why there's really no right way to answer the question I suppose. If you advocate consensus in a fractured faculty, everyone will know that you won't really be able to achieve it. If you advocate faculty-consultation-followed-by-decanal-decisiveness, then each faculty member will be worried that his/her position will end up on the wrong side of the decanal decisiveness. So what should a dean/dean candidate do once the schism has already developed?
Posted by: Jacqueline Lipton | June 16, 2010 at 09:45 AM
What are the main questions asking in Law interview?
Posted by: Law interview questions | June 30, 2010 at 08:06 AM