Case 19. Hiring Practices

Situation

Allen Smithson was a doctoral candidate at a highly regarded research university. He had finished all the requirements for the degree except for his dissertation, which was proceeding well. His topic was significant, his data had all been collected, and the committee members had seen several chapters. They were confident that he would finish within a couple of months. He also had been a teaching assistant, had made several presentations at professional meetings, and a couple of publications. In short, he was an outstanding candidate.

Allen was on the job market, and on November the 15^th, he received an attractive offer (oral, followed up by email, containing the specific terms and a due date of November 28^th) for a tenure track, assistant professor position at another highly regarded research university. Following receipt of the offer from the department chair, on November 20^th, Allen (without informing his committee) responded with an email message to begin negotiating the terms of the offer, asking for a higher salary, more research support, additional summer support, more money for moving expenses, and a lower teaching load. In the process, he did clearly state his interest in the position, saying that he hoped they could reach agreement.

The chair responded (on November 20^th, again by email) with another offer (with the same deadline of November 28^th) which he said was the best they could do. It included several increases (e.g., salary and summer support), but was less than Allen had requested. On November 26^th, Allen responded (again by email) to the chair that the increased offer was appreciated, and that he was extremely close to accepting the position, but that there were a couple of major sticking points. He then provided justifications based on the nature of his research agenda for the changes in terms he desired. Later the same day (November 26^th), Allen received a message from the chair that he was sorry Allen did not accept their best offer, that he was no longer a candidate, and that the department would turn to the next candidate.

The next day (November 27^th), Allen sent a message to the chair apologizing for any miscommunication and saying that he was ready to accept the offer, and would have before, had he known that the department could not move further. At that point, the chair indicated that they had already moved to the next candidate.

Questions

1. What happened in this process that derailed Allen’s opportunity for this position?
   
2. Has the chairman of the hiring department behaved inappropriately? Has Allen behaved inappropriately?
   
3. What, if anything, could Allen do? Does Allen have any grounds for objecting to the retraction of the offer? If so, what actions could he take?
   
4. Should Allen's graduate department have taken any actions on his behalf? What could Allen’s department do in the future? What could the hiring department have done to avoid the way things turned out? What might that department do to prevent such a situation from happening again?
   
5. Is there any advice Allen's graduate department should give to other students in the future? Are there guidelines that might be created to enhance the integrity and transparency of the hiring process?

Discussion

Departments that hire new faculty or staff are obligated to act ethically throughout the process. This means they must not only respect the rights, dignity, and worth of all individuals, but also avoid any discriminatory actions toward them. With graduate students who are about to become new faculty, it is not clear what, if any, norms govern the hiring process across states or even institutions. There are also legal obligations implicit in the hiring process, but again, it is not clear to what extent these vary from state to state. It is also not clear how well informed students on the job market are about such procedures. In such circumstances, it is incumbent upon both the candidate’s department and the potential hiring department(s) to make the process as clear as possible to the candidate.

In the above case, Allen was dismayed by the fact that the hiring department turned to the next candidate before the decision deadline he had originally been given. However, it clearly did not occur to him that in some situations the deadline for an offer can be negated when the candidate, in the attempt to negotiate terms and conditions, makes what is effectively a counter offer. Similarly, the potential hiring department was apparently not aware that Allen thought he had accepted the position, but was only negotiating the specific terms and conditions. Such confusions can lead to unpleasant outcomes.