Academic Recruitment Best Practices Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs

Defining the Position Description

Recruitingwith Impact

SelectionAction

Making theAppointment

GLW Brian Groeschel Elizabeth Lincoln Christine Wolle

Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs

Table of Contents Executive Summary as presented to Panelists ............................................................................................. 2

Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs ............................................................................................. 4

Introduction/Background ............................................................................................................................. 4

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Challenges ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Outcomes/Deliverables ................................................................................................................................ 5

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Project Presentation PowerPoint ................................................................................................................. 6

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

1

Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs Executive Summary as presented to Panelists General Information UC Davis is proud to count amongst its faculty recipients of a broad spectrum of top awards for exceptional scholarship, teaching, mentoring and service to the professions to fulfill its’ mission of teaching, research and public service. This summary presents research, analysis and provides recommendations to improve the academic recruitment process at UC Davis. Uniform standards and criteria are applied for all the recruitment of personnel at UC Davis. The paramount consideration in the appointment of personnel shall be the highest standards of competence and integrity, with due consideration given to geographical diversity and gender balance. Recruitment for each established post shall follow the Academic Personnel Manual (APM-500) and shall be based on appropriate job description and selection criteria. All recruitment activity shall be made on an open and competitive basis. UC Davis aspires to be recognized as one of the nation’s top-tier public research universities. As such, we choose to be regarded, both domestically and globally, as a pre-eminent leader of higher education. By engaging our “Vision of Excellence,” UC Davis will be known for its diverse educational opportunities, its’ innovative, interdisciplinary and collaborative research endeavors, and its distinction in leading enterprises that support social responsibility and a sustainable global environment. The costs associated to recruiting are a significant budget challenge. In a recent study by Oracle, they found: “By implementing recruiting best practices and supporting technology, you can potentially reduce your time to hire by up to 50 percent, reduce cost per hire by up to 70 percent, and improve recruiter efficiency while finding the talent you need for driving business results.” The Harvard Graduate School of Education estimated the cost of recruiting a professor at $96,000. The University of Wisconsin-Madison estimated that it was spending an astonishing $1.2 million across all disciplines to replace a faculty member. Through the implementation of uniform best practices in recruitment, UC Davis will reduce recruitment costs and continue to demonstrate accountability and sound judgement as stewards of University resources. Introduction Academic recruiting is critical for the continued success of the University of California at Davis (UC Davis). The overarching objective of this phase of the project was for a diverse group of academic leaders representing Academic Affairs and analysts from the Dean’s Offices to document “best practices” that could potentially be established centrally or within each department or schools/colleges. Specific objectives included:

Conducting a series of focus groups to identify commonalities or inconsistencies across the schools/colleges. Identifying potential best practices that the Dean’s Offices and Academic Affairs need to communicate across the

schools/colleges.

History and Current State Academic Affairs and the individual schools/colleges are responsible for designing the recruitment, recruiting with impact, selecting the ideal candidate, and for making the appointment. Historical recruitment for recent academic years represents a significant effort for the schools/colleges and Academic Affairs: Academic Year 2013 - 2014 Recruitments in Recruit = 88 Total applicants = 6,164

Academic Year 2014 – 2015 (AY ends 6/30/2015) Recruitments in Recruit = 106 Total applicants = 7,044

2

Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs Project Approach and Collaboration GLW worked with Academic Affairs and coordinated a series of focus group meetings to discuss the current academic recruiting process. The focus group included individuals from the School of Veterinary Medicine, Letters and Science, School of Education, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and Academic Affairs from UC Davis and the UC Davis Health System. The focus group discussions focused on Academic Affairs training, the Academic Personnel Manual (APM-500) and the UC Recruit USER MANUAL. These documents provided the framework for developing UC Davis best practices and GLW’s recommendations. Our group also reviewed Academic Affairs Help Desk tickets to further refine the framework of our recommendations. Overall project high level strategy:

Recommendations GLW encourages the UC Davis Academic Affairs Department to work with the schools/colleges and explore the following recommendations: 1. Utilize documented “best practices” to conduct additional focus groups with the schools/colleges to capture a more

comprehensive list of best practices from all involved in the recruitment process. The feedback we received from the original focus group suggested that in-person discussions on the topics produced more value-added data. Increasing participation will also assist in identifying additional resources/reference materials to enhance the recruitment process.

a. If time and workload constraints continue to limit focus group participation, the documented “best practices” could be sent out in a survey format for areas to provide written responses. Though not the preferred method, the survey results would still allow for more participation as well as keep all areas apprised of any suggested changes for the recruitment process.

b. In addition, Academic Affairs may want to consider creating an Academic Recruitment Forum as a natural progression from the initial focus group (quarterly, bi-annually or annually). This forum would allow the schools/colleges a continued opportunity to submit feedback on existing processes and/or collaborate on suggested changes.

2. Organize FAQ’s and other resources into a web-based “tool kit”. The feedback we received from the original focus

group combined with the scope of the questions submitted to Academic Affairs Help Desk, highlighted a need for access to the information present in the training presentation from Academic Affairs and UC Recruit User Manual. As this information is available but not easily accessible, we recommend a reorganization of the resources on the web to increase customer access and awareness. One method would be to create a UC Recruit Tool Kit linked on the UC Recruit web page to include:

FAQ’s UC Recruit Tip Sheet Link to APM-500 Link to finalized Best Practices document Link to UC Recruit User Manual Links to Academic Advisories Sample Letters and Templates Link to the Help Desk Link to Academic Affairs training materials (complete and abbreviated versions)

Academic Affairs online training

Focus Groups - gather current best practices

Consultants validate best practices and current state environment

Consultants provide

Academic Affairs with an

Executive Summary - Academic

Recruitment Best Practices

Academic Affairs reviews

GLW's recommendati

ons and validates/com

municates future state

environment

Optimize

3

Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs

Introduction/Background GLW Consultants was retained by the UC Davis Academic Affairs department through the Administrative Officers for the Future Program to engage in a project to assist UC Davis in enhancing their academic recruiting process. This engagement began in March 2015 and ended in July 2015. The culmination of this project was three-fold:

1. To provide Academic Affairs with a Project Summary for the project – Academic Recruitment Best Practices. This document includes the presented Executive Summary, recommendations, meeting, notes, etc.

2. To provide an Executive Summary for the panel evaluating the Project Presentation and, 3. To provide a 15 minute presentation of our findings and to address panel questions during a ten minute question

and answer session. GLW Consultants represented non-represented staff from both the UC Davis Campus and the UC Davis Health System. The consultants were: Brian Groeschel, Analyst VI, Information Technology, Enterprise Applications, UCDHS Christine Wolle, Collective Bargaining Coordinator, Employee and Labor Relations, UC Davis Elizabeth Lincoln, Analyst IV-Supervisor, Center form Musculoskeletal Health, SOM UC Recruit is the “source of truth” for the UC Davis recruitment process. It has been in use by the University for a number of years. The instance of Recruit at UC Davis is supported by two members of Academic Affairs. GLW reviewed a significant number of Recruit Help Desk – Incident emails and noted that a majority of the questions be addressed either through a “best practices” tool kit or FAQ’s. The objectives of this project outlined below addressed this specific finding and provided guidance for the overall development of our recommendations.

Objectives The stated objective of this project was for GLW to work with a small group of analysts from the Dean’s Offices and Academic Affairs to develop a set of best practices or guidelines. GLW was tasked with:

Conducting a survey and gather responses. Looking for commonalities and inconsistencies across the schools /colleges. Meeting with the subcommittee to review findings and identify best practices that can be further developed by

Academic Affairs and, Reviewing the OFCCP regulations pertaining to recruitments.

Challenges As with any project of this size/scope, we did experience several challenges. The core group that represented the various school/colleges was outstanding. Their discussion proved invaluable to the project and the process of developing our recommendations. This type of discussion should continue with Academic Affairs holding additional focus group sessions with more groups from UC Davis. The sharing and further discussion of each individual group’s best practices can only improve the overall recruitment practice. Academic Affairs is structured at most universities as the central repository for recruiting activities across the university. At UC Davis this is not the case. This may hinder the effectiveness of the recruiting process as the recruitment process is decentralized and the opportunity to fully utilize the best practices is limited. As part of our recommendations, we encourage UC Davis to consider the overarching mission of the recruitment process and determine the best structure to support it.

4

Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs   

5

 Although the overarching mission of the recruitment process was clearly understood by the focus groups, each representative noted their areas “uniqueness” and stated that there were multiple instances where the opportunity for consistent best practices was not possible.  While there may be subtle nuances to the process within each school/college, there is truly a tremendous opportunity to expand on the Academic Affairs best practices and strengthening of the recruitment process.  This will provide for a more streamlined process and will enhance the recruitment experience and could potentially lead to efficiencies in the overall process and potentially lead to cost reductions.  Most projects of this size/scope are “time” challenged.  We were very pleased that the focus group and Academic Affairs placed a high priority on this project.  Schedules were opened to us and we were able to schedule focus group meetings with little difficulty. 

Outcomes/Deliverables  The following deliverables are attached in the Appendix of this report:  

1. Best Practices Chart based upon feedback from initial focus groups ending June 18, 2015 (Appendix A). 2. Tip Sheet for UC Recruit based upon feedback from initial focus groups ending June 18, 2015 (Appendix B). 3. Draft web page sample of a possible “UC Recruit Tool Kit” based upon feedback and customer questions (Appendix 

C). 

Recommendations  As previously stated, we have two primary recommendations:   

1. Utilize documented “best practices” to conduct additional focus groups with the schools/colleges to capture a more comprehensive list of best practices from all involved in the recruitment process. The feedback we received from the original focus group suggested that in‐person discussions on the topics produced more value‐added data.  Increasing participation will also assist in identifying additional resources/reference materials to enhance the recruitment process. 

a. If time and workload constraints continue to limit focus group participation, the documented “best practices” could be sent out in a survey format for areas to provide written responses.  Though not the preferred method, the survey results would still allow for more participation as well as keep all areas apprised of any suggested changes for the recruitment process. 

b. In addition, Academic Affairs may want to consider creating an Academic Recruitment Forum as a natural progression from the initial focus group (quarterly, bi‐annually or annually).  This forum would allow the schools/colleges a continued opportunity to submit feedback on existing processes and/or collaborate on suggested changes.  

2. Organize FAQ’s and other resources into a web‐based “tool kit”.  The feedback we received from the original focus group combined with the scope of the questions submitted to Academic Affairs Help Desk, highlighted a need for access to the information present in the training presentation from Academic Affairs and UC Recruit User Manual.  As this information is available but not easily accessible, we recommend a reorganization of the resources on the web to increase customer access and awareness.  One method would be to create a UC Recruit Tool Kit linked on the UC Recruit web page to include:  FAQ’s  UC Recruit Tip SheetLink to APM‐500  Link to finalized Best Practices documentLink to UC Recruit User Manual  Links to Academic Advisories Sample Letters and Templates  Link to the Help DeskLink to Academic Affairs training materials (complete and abbreviated versions) 

Academic Affairs online training 

Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs

Project Presentation PowerPoint Project results presented in-person on Tuesday, July 14, 2015. Please see Appendix D.

6

GLW Consulting AOFTF Academic Best Practices

Step in Recruitment Process

Best Practices from Focus Group Discussions

Position Upgrade Upgrade in rank should be based on programmatic reasons and should not impair diversity in pool. Please refer to the Upgrade Request Form.

Appointment of Search Committee

For Search Committee Membership – • Should be comprised of 3 to 7 members with at least 1 from outside department for

Senate Recruitment. • Committee membership should reflect a diverse cross section of the faculty. • Should include those who understand discipline/specialty. • Should include members who will monitor the Affirmative Action efforts of the Committee. • Should have enough members to have a diverse perspective but not interfere with getting

meetings scheduled. • Consider including Junior Faculty. • Dean’s Office appoints committee.

Search Committee Training –

• All search committee members/chairs are required to attend a Faculty Search Committee Workshop • STEAD: Strength Through Equity & Diversity-

http://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/training-and-development/stead/index.html

• Enhanced Training for Faculty Search Committee Members- offered through Faculty Development - https://somapp.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/academicaffairs/courses/secure/Courses.cfm?Status=10

• Training is valid for 3 years from date of workshop attended.

Search Committee Duties – • Search Committee and staff support may meet with Dean’s office to clarify and agree on

expectations of: Recruitment Goals, Search Process, & Search Plan Components. • Maintain communication throughout the process between the Department and the Dean’s

office. • Search Committee Members must disclose any potential conflict of interest with

applicant(s) See related Academic Advisory (Insert link or Academic Advisory Number). • Applicant Pool Report should be reviewed about a week before the “closing” date; if pool

looks small or lacks diversity, the Search Chair should consult with the Dean’s Office regarding options. Consider whether recruitment and outreach efforts were sufficiently broad and if not, consider adding a new review date.

Position Description/Job Announcement/Ad

For writing the position description or job announcement – • Always include Affirmative Action statement. • Consider including broader definitions to attract larger pools of candidates meeting the

criteria, but not to the detriment of the true needs of the department. • Enter PD in “Description” field under “Details” section of the Basic Recruitment so it can be

used as an advertising board.

Appendix A

GLW Consulting AOFTF Academic Best Practices

• Consult with Dean’s Office for discipline and specialty requirements. • Consider template language found at the following link (insert link).

Review dates • Strongly recommend use of Initial Review Date/Open until filled; additional review dates

must be approved by Dean’s Office (*required to upload to Letters & Memos in RECRUIT-Documentation).

• With Initial Review Date/Open Until Filled – final date should not be for more than 1 year. • Reminder – Employment cannot be offered after April 30th to members of AAU and other

Cal institutions without a waiver. Consult Dean’s Office (See APM 501). • Reminder – Intercampus Transfers – Employment cannot be offered after April 1st without

a waiver. Consult Dean’s Office (See APM 510-16c). • Consult Dean’s Office before using Open/Closed/Final. • Applicant requests to replace application materials after review date, will be considered

only in unusual circumstances. For example, updates to CV will be denied.

Search Plan – Selection Criteria

For the selection criteria - • Establish criteria before files are screened so that they are all screened consistently. • Criteria should be specific, directly related to the position description, can be assessed

and/or quantified based on the application materials, and reflect requirements of the title.

• Selection criteria and position announcement congruent Search Plan – Evaluation/Ranking Process, Search and Selection Process

For the Search and Selection Process • Define Selection Plan in Search Plan to help avoid misunderstandings and mis-steps. • Describe how Search Committee Members and faculty will be involved in screening files,

interviewing candidates, voting. • Include a provision for preliminary interview process. Refer to VP Advisory for process

(insert link) • Reminder - Applicant requests to replace application materials after review date, will be

considered only in unusual circumstances. For example, updates to CV will be denied. • Search Committee Members must disclose any conflicts of interest with applicants

during applicant screening and define process moving forward. See Academic Advisory (Insert link or Academic Advisory Number).

• Remind all reviewers (Search Committee & additional reviewers) how and when to utilize Personal Note versus Public Comments in RECRUIT. Public Comments are available to all reviewers and all notes are potentially discoverable. Limit comments to those that are job related.

For Advertising –

• APM 500 requires that you advertise the position to internal potential candidates, i.e., Unit 18 appointees, those finishing their Ph.D.s, Post Docs.

• Recommend advertising through faculty colleagues by e-mail, letters, phone calls, or at professional meetings.

• Recommend using national publications, personal contacts, listservs, mailing lists, professional and academic conferences, and websites as it enhances the quality of the applicant pools.

• Recommend advertising to diverse pool of applicants as well as utilizing diversity

GLW Consulting AOFTF Academic Best Practices

journals/web sources. • All advertisements must state that the University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative

Action employer. • See Academic Advisory for additional recommended language in RECRUIT posting (Insert

link or Academic Advisory Number). Shortlist Report(s) • Shortlist Report(s) must be approved prior to contacting applicants for both

Preliminary Interview and Campus Interview. • See Academic Advisory for Preliminary Interview instructions for report submission

(See Academic Advisory 2015-05). • Pool should reflect availability data and if not, next steps must be identified and

documented per School/College practice. • Disposition reasons and/or non-selection documents must be clear and defensible. • Recommended candidates for interview must have met qualifications regarding

specialty area. Search Plan – Interviews

• Interview process must follow what was described in approved Search Plan. • Search Committee Members and additional reviewers must disclose any conflicts of

interest with applicants and define process moving forward. See Academic Advisory (Insert link or Academic Advisory Number).

• Every candidate should be treated similarly. • No personal questions may be asked. For example, don’t ask about marital status,

family, etc. (Refer to Recruitment & Retention of Academic Personnel Training Presentation –Do’s and Don’ts (slide 51) or Tool Kit link when created).

• Recommend to send message to reviewers to be mindful about note taking because notes are discoverable.

• UCOP General Counsel recommends during the interviews, hand out a form for note-taking that says “This will be collected” at the top so that the reviewers understand their notes will be collected for the recruitment record.

• Reminder - Remind all reviewers (Search Committee & additional reviewers) how and when to utilize Personal Note versus Public Comments in RECRUIT. Public Comments are available to all reviewers and all notes are potentially discoverable. Limit comments to those that are job related.

Search Report • Recruit Analyst should preview Search Report to ensure all components are complete.

Any concerns should be highlighted and discussed with appropriate leadership. • Search Report should be routed for approval process per School/College practice.

Record-Keeping • Recruitment records should be consolidated. Record keeping is critical if a search has to be revisited.

GLW Consulting AOFTF Academic Best Practices

UC RECRUIT Tip Sheet

Step in Recruitment Process

Tips for using RECRUIT

Position Upgrade • Upgrade to position should be completed and approved prior to upload into RECRUIT.

Appointment of Search Committee

• Search committee should be listed in “Core Committee” in RECRUIT.

Search Committee Duties

• Designate Completed Applicants as Meets Basic Qualifications or Does Not Meet Basic Qualifications based upon minimum qualifications as Advertised.

• After Initial/Final Review Date, no additional Completed Applicants can be moved forward in the process without prior approval from Dean’s Office.

Position Description/Job Announcement/Ad

• Everything must be included in the description field or it will not be viewable by applicant.

• All versions of advertisement, need to be uploaded in RECRUIT under Advertisements-Ad Documents

• All academic recruitments, as a default, require the Statement of Contributions to Diversity to appear as an optional document upload for applicants.

Search Plan – Selection Criteria

• There are multiple disposition reasons that have been standardized across all 10 UCs and UCOP. For each category, five additional, customized disposition reasons must be established at the time of the search plan submission.

• If it is decided to extend the deadline date for submitting applications, do not request changes in RECRUIT until approval from Dean’s office is received.

Search Plan – Evaluation/Ranking Process, Search and Selection Process

• Recommend entering the names and department affiliations of reviewers in Selection Process-Selection Plan

• If you have a sample of ranking sheet or grid, recommend including it in the Search Plan for approval in Documentation – Search Plan Documents.

Advertising • Until your Search Plan is approved in RECRUIT, you cannot conduct a Search

and you will not be allowed to publish and advertise your recruitment. • Upload a proof of each ad, email or other advertising source in

Advertisements-Ad Evidences. Shortlist Report(s) • Actual Search and Recruitment Efforts field under Advertisements section

must be completed prior to generating Shortlist Report(s).

Appendix B

GLW Consulting AOFTF Academic Best Practices

Search Plan – Interviews

• All notes that are taken should be uploaded into Interview Notes in Recruit. • Search Committee evaluative notes should be uploaded in RECRUIT under

Interview Materials. Search Report • Ensure Disposition Reasons are assigned to all interviewed applicants.

• Ensure applicants’ status has been updated throughout the process. • Search Outcome section must be completed prior to generation of Search

Report. Record-Keeping • Recommend uploading all documentation in Recruit in Documentation

– Letters and Memos and Documentation – Interview Materials.

GLW Consulting AOFTF Academic Best Practices

UC RECRUIT Toolkit - DRAFT Faculty recruitment has long been a paper-intensive process, creating an unnecessary administrative burden both to the increasingly over-assigned staff and faculty committees juggling multiple priorities. In 2011, the University of California selected UCI’s AP Recruit system – used on that campus since 2006 – for system-wide deployment at all ten UC Campuses.

Recruit provides for secure online academic employment recruitment management, supporting the entire recruitment workflow form early approvals, opening recruitments, applications, reference gathering, reviewing by the search committee, and, finally, selecting a hired candidate. Reports are built-in to the system, providing for an easy way to create the reports tha6t the University of California’s Office of the President uses to ensure all campuses meet their requirements as equal opportunity employers. Recruit also ensures the security and integrity of all applicant, reference, and related recruitment data.

Tips and FAQs

• Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

• Best Practices

• UC Recruit Tip Sheet

• Interviews – Do’s and Don’ts

• Help Desk

• UC RECRUIT Manual

Academic Advisories

• Fiscal Year 2014-15

• Fiscal Year 2013-14

Letters / Templates

• Sample Job Descriptions

• Sample Letters to Applicants

Note: All letters should be copied to ____

Training

• Online RECRUIT Training Presentation

Miscellaneous

• RECRUIT

• APM-500

Appendix C

GLW Consulting:• Brian Groeschel• Elizabeth Lincoln• Christine Wolle

Project Sponsor• Kelly Anders

Academic Recruitment Best Practices Project

UC Davis Administrative Officers for the Future Program

Project Background• UC Davis Academic Affairs project to enhance

academic recruiting process

• UC Recruit - System-wide academic applicant management and search committee tool

• Academic Affairs Help Desk Data supports need for:• Documented best practices

• Thorough set of FAQ’s

Project Objectives

• Conduct a series of focus groups to identify commonalities or inconsistencies across the schools/colleges.

• Identify potential best practices that the Dean’s Offices and Academic Affairs need to communicate across the schools/colleges.

Project Challenges

• Need consistency

• Need flexibility

• Recruit is used for all academic titles

• Time constraint

• Guiding focus group

Project Approach• Training

• Academic Affairs Training - Recruit

• Academic Personnel Manual (APM -500)

• UC Recruit User Manual

• Help desk tickets

• Volunteer Participants

• College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

• College of Letters and Science

• School of Education

• School of Veterinary Medicine

• UC Davis Health System

• Focus Meetings

• April 20

• May 27

• June 8

• June 18

Deliverables

• Chart of Best Practices

• UC Recruit Tip Sheet

• Toolkit (Web based) – reorganize existing resources to include:• FAQs

• UC Recruit Tip Sheet

• APM-500

• UC Recruit User Manual

• Academic Affairs on line training

• Training Materials

• Templates

Project DeliverablesBest Practices

Project DeliverablesTip sheet

Project DeliverablesToolKit

Recommendations

• Utilize documented “best practices” in additional focus group(s).• As an alternative, consider written survey

• Consider transitioning focus group into academic forum

• Organize FAQ’s and relevant resources into a web-based “tool kit”. • Connects those using UC Recruit with resources and answers

• Links to relevant policies/procedures

• Showcases available training materials

• Provides useful sample letters and templates

THANK YOU!

Sponsors AOFTF

Kelly Anders Carina Celesia Moore

Kim Poole Kelly Crabtree

Marla Dolcini

Focus Group Participants

Annie Caruso

Cherie Felsch

Julie Fritz-Rubert

Jenni Mattheis

Mari Royer

Questions?