> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Advice
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Admin 101: The Delicate Politics of Partner Hires

How to anticipate and manage any potential blowback to hiring an academic couple.

By  David D. Perlmutter
March 8, 2022
illustration of a faculty couple on campus where the pathways form a heart
Sjoerd van Leeuwen for The Chronicle

Up until the early 2000s, it was not uncommon to hear some version of “over my dead body!” when proposing the hiring of a faculty couple. It was symptomatic of a strong feeling among many academics and administrators that “partner” (or at the time “spousal”) accommodation was risky, unfair, and presented more downsides than opportunities. Job candidates, for their part, sweated over whether to mention their husband, wife, or partner in their application materials and interviews.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Up until the early 2000s, it was not uncommon to hear some version of “over my dead body!” when proposing the hiring of a faculty couple. It was symptomatic of a strong feeling among many academics and administrators that “partner” (or at the time “spousal”) accommodation was risky, unfair, and presented more downsides than opportunities. Job candidates, for their part, sweated over whether to mention their husband, wife, or partner in their application materials and interviews.

Careers-Career-Confidential
Admin 101
In this series David D. Perlmutter writes about pursuing a career in academic administration and about surviving and thriving as a leader – whether you are a chair a dean a provost and or any of the positions in between and beyond.
  • Admin 101: How to Lay the Groundwork for a Spousal/Partner Hire
  • Admin 101: Why You Should Meet the Parents

Since then, the hiring rules, academic mores, and institutional priorities have changed radically. Plenty of institutions now trumpet their commitment to partner hiring up front. And administrators spend a considerable amount of time trying to make these complex double hires happen.

But that doesn’t mean all of the prejudices, suspicions, and concerns have faded away. In some cases, smoldering resistance to partner hires still affects how a department votes and how willing candidates are to be frank about their true needs.
Here in the Admin 101 column, I often emphasize the cultural and interpersonal aspects of campus leadership. To paraphrase a character from the Yellowstone TV show, a leader has to manage the ranch, not just work it. So part of your role as an administrator supervising faculty hiring is not just to do the technical planning — the subject of my first essay in this series on partner hiring — but also to wrangle the human and cultural elements. Part 2 of this series focuses on executing the academic-couple hire and anticipating potential blowback.

Don’t be too quick to dismiss the opposition. When you encounter resistance to a partner hire, your first step in dealing with the opposition is to acknowledge that it is not groundless. The following true examples illustrate the kind of blow-ups and buyer’s remorse that may cause departments and individual faculty members to feel wary of hiring future “twofers.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • In order to recruit a promising colleague, a language department at a small liberal-arts college agreed to also hire her spouse, who was in the same field. The first turned out to be as terrific as anticipated, but her partner was a terrible teacher, drove away students, and showed little interest in improving.
  • In hiring a major grant-winning senior professor, a science department at a top research university also agreed to hire his younger, tenure-track partner in a different field. She turned out to be a very good scholar, but her new department never really wanted her and felt that she had been imposed upon them by the administration. She grew miserable and, as a result, both of them left a few years later, resulting in a loss of time and start-up cost for the university and wasted years for the couple — a lose-lose situation.
  • An arts department at a regional university hired a married couple who — while technically excellent at both teaching and research — were terrible colleagues. They ganged up to bully anyone who opposed them on any issue, major or minor. They also exited a few years later, to everyone’s rejoicing, but left in their wake lingering bitterness against partner hiring.

Such recruiting disasters still happen, and no amount of good intentions will make them go away. But in managing this process, you can take steps to soften some of the opposition and head off trouble at the pass.

Run a real hiring process for the partner, not an appointment by fiat. The more a hiring accommodation becomes a back-door deal — bypassing standard governance protocols, HR norms, and screening criteria — the less popular and justified it will be. Forcing a partner on a department does no long-term favor to the scholar or to the unit’s morale.

At my university, we treat an academic partner as an “opportunity hire.” For example, in the college where I am dean, the partner is an actual job candidate and goes through every step required of every other candidate for that rank or position. If, for example, the finalists for a tenure-track position must give a teaching demo, deliver a research presentation, and participate in an open faculty forum, then so will the opportunity hire. Everything about the hire is routine with one exception: There are no other candidates — the choice is either Yes or No, but it is a real choice and No could be the answer.

The key point here is that it’s possible for the appointment to fail. As we like to say in our college, “You have to ace the interview, no matter who you are.” Our faculty members and administrators are aware that a candidate’s partner can be rejected if that person makes a poor showing during the interview process or doesn’t seem likely to succeed on the job. The risk is real, but the process is fairer.

Make sure the potential match between partner and department makes sense. The fit may be off for any number of reasons. Perhaps the internal opposition to the partner hire is already too strong, and nobody is going to give the candidate a reasonable hearing. Or maybe even a friendly scan of the partner’s CV shows little promise of a match to the job description.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some administrators, eager to hire one member of an academic couple, try to force a square peg into a round hole. A good example: The chair of a mathematics department at a community college described interviewing a candidate, as part of dual hire, who had a degree in a science field but not one in math. That was quasi-acceptable to the math department’s faculty but, during the interview process, it became clear that the candidate had feeble mastery of the kind of math skills any hire would have to teach. The chair questioned why administrators had thought it would be a sound pairing in the first place.

An essential part of your management of a partner hire, then, is to be a careful matchmaker. Really spend time with the partner, review the person’s work, and consult colleagues in the potential hiring department and in the adjacent ones. You are not just looking for disciplinary key words. In many universities, for example, there are half a dozen departments that hire biologists. A partner candidate who studies cellular respiration and photosynthesis might end up happier and a better fit for the forestry department than with the biological-sciences department.

Don’t try to run the interview process yourself. Academe is full of independent-minded, self-directed people who are naturally suspicious — often with reason when an administrator tries to impose (or is even perceived as imposing) a mandate or a faculty hire upon them. That’s why you as the chair or dean overseeing the hiring of an academic couple should find someone else to handle the candidate’s interview.

Work with the head of the hiring department to pick a senior faculty member to lead the interview process. It should be someone of stature who is trusted by multiple constituencies and has a reputation for both efficiency and responsibility.

To be clear, you are not dumping your work on this senior professor. As a department chair or dean working with staff members and other administrators, you will sweat the logistics, filings, negotiations, and approvals of the process. But since your goal is a normal hiring sequence (even if the partner is the only candidate being considered for the position), then it makes sense that the head of the “evaluation committee” should not be you.

ADVERTISEMENT

Of course that carries a risk of no hire at all. But real governance has no guarantees. Follow its path, wherever it leads, since that will result in the best outcome for the institution, the departments, and the couple.

Downplay the “partner” label; play up the “opportunity.” As the hiring process proceeds, don’t let the “partner” label impede real fairness and equity. When I announce an opportunity hire, I don’t reference the circumstances in any official correspondence. In my mind, it’s irrelevant to the decision we have to make. In the end, should it matter whose partner this is or even that the partner is a partner? Sure that circumstance set off the chain of events, but once the interviews and evaluations begin, our choice should be focused solely on the candidate’s suitability for the position.

Yet don’t cover it up, either. If I’m asked how an opportunity hire arose or how it’s being paid for, I respond frankly. If skeptics want to make an issue out of it, that is their right. Likewise, if they guess that a new hire is part of an academic couple, that’s fine. It is not a state secret, but neither should it be a Tweet. Each partner should be judged independently.

You will need both members of the couple to cooperate on this front. Neither of them should be marshaling their allies or pressuring their opponents. A language professor at an Ivy League university told me that a colleague of his successfully sabotaged his own partner’s hiring by loudly and repeatedly lobbying for it with other faculty members. The latter responded with irritation and, finally, pushback. They eventually voted against hiring that professor’s partner. Both members of an academic couple need to be briefed on the importance of playing it straight and cool. The double hire will happen on its own merits — or not.

In the end, the best argument for partner accommodation is practical: We can’t expect to hire the best people while ignoring their life circumstances. You can assuage fears and anticipate concerns about these hires by replicating the normal search process as much as possible. The rewards — thriving faculty members and departments — are worth the gamble.

ADVERTISEMENT

Next in this series: a look at the details and peculiarities of the hiring contracts and onboarding process of partner hires.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Leadership & GovernanceDiversity, Equity, & InclusionThe Workplace
David D. Perlmutter
David D. Perlmutter is a professor and dean of the College of Media & Communication at Texas Tech University. He writes the Admin 101 column for The Chronicle. His book on promotion and tenure was published by Harvard University Press in 2010.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin