THE OUTSTANDING FACULTY AWARD Adapted from a case by David J. Cherrington, Brigh
ID: 374951 • Letter: T
Question
THE OUTSTANDING FACULTY AWARD Adapted from a case by David J. Cherrington, Brigham Young University I recently served on the Outstanding Faculty Award committee for the College of Business. This award is our college’s highest honor for a faculty member, which is bestowed at a special reception ceremony. At the first meeting, our committee discussed the nomination process and decided to follow our traditional practice of inviting nominations from both the faculty and students. During the next month, we received six completed files with supporting documentation. Three of the nominations came from department chairs, two from faculty who recommended their colleagues, and one from a group of 16 graduate students. At the second meeting, we agreed that we didn’t know the six applicants well enough to make a decision that day, so we decided that we would read the applications on our own and rank them. There was no discussion about ranking criteria; I think we assumed that we shared a common definition of the word “outstanding.” During the third meeting, it quickly became apparent that each committee member had a different interpretation of what constitutes an “outstanding” faculty member. The discussion was polite, but we debated the extent to which this was an award for teaching, or research, or service to the college, or scholarly textbook writing, or consulting, or service to society, or some other factor. After three hours, we agreed on five criteria that we would apply to independently rate each candidate using a five-point scale. When we reconvened the next day, our discussion was much more focused as we tried to achieve a consensus regarding how we judged each candidate on each criterion. After a lengthy discussion, we finally completed the task and averaged the ratings. The top three scores had an average rating (out of a maximum of 25) of 21, 19.5, and 18.75. I assumed the person with the highest total would receive the award. Instead, my colleagues began debating over the relevance of the five criteria that we had agreed on the previous day. Some committee members felt, in hindsight, that the criteria were incorrectly weighted or that other criteria should be considered. Although they did not actually say this, I sensed that at least two colleagues on the committee wanted the criteria or weights changed because their preferred candidate didn’t get the highest score using the existing formula. When we changed the weights in various ways, a different candidate among the top three received the top score. The remaining three candidates received lower ratings every time. Dr. H always received the lowest score, usually around 12 on the 25-point range. After almost two hours, the associate dean turned to one committee member and said, “Dolan, I sure would like to see Dr. H in your department receive this honor. He retires next year and this would be a great honor for him and no one has received this honor in your department recently.” Dolan agreed, “Yes, this is Dr. H’s last year with us and it would be a great way for him to go out. I’m sure he would feel very honored by this award.” I sat there stunned at the suggestion while Dolan retold how Dr. H had been active in public service, his only real strength on our criteria. I was even more stunned when another committee member, who I think was keen to finish the meeting, said, “Well, I so move” and Dolan seconded it. The associate dean, who was conducting the meeting, said, “Well, if the rest of you think this is a good idea, all in favor say aye.” A few members said “Aye,” and he quickly proceeded to explain what we needed to do to advertise the winner and arrange the ceremony without calling for nays. During my conversations with other committee members over the next two weeks, I learned that everyone—including the two who said “Aye”—were as shocked as I was at our committee’s decision. I thought we made a terrible decision, and I was embarrassed to be a member of the committee. A few weeks later, we were appropriately punished when Dr. H gave a 45-minute acceptance speech that started poorly and got worse. Question: 1. What problems in team decision making likely caused the committee to select for the award the worst applicant on their list? 2. What would you recommend to future committees so they avoid the problems identified in this case? 3. Discuss what happened in this case using concepts and theories of individual decision making (Chapter 7).
Explanation / Answer
1.Decision making by itself is a very important process in any kind of project or work done together.That too decision making in a team is very crucial because individuals with different level of thinking and understanding should find a common ground of acceptance.In this particular case analysis there are various issues in team decision making that caused them to choose the wrong person.A few are
A.The selection committee members at the initial stages were not sure of the criteria that were essential to finalise a candidate to honour.
B.In the process of allocating the marks the committee members assumed and interpreted the concept outstanding in their own discretion.
C.A common ground of agreement in weighing the candidates was missing among the team.
D.A thought of favour for individually preferred candidates was shown.Favouritism was encouraged.
E.Influence of one man and suppression of all the others are seen in the final decision making scenario.
D.Freedom of telling every individual decision is not encouraged and as a reason all others keep quiet and dumbly agree to the wrong selection.
2.Recommendation for future committees to avoid such problems identified in this case are
A.The importance of giving the award to the desired person should be first understood by the committee members.
B.Honesty should be proved in every steps the committee members take.
C.A common platform of criteria and understanding should be initiated in the beginning stages itself.Doubts and clarifications regarding them should be cleared immediately.
D.Conflicts among the team decision should be solved then and there without further delay.
E.Openness in communication and justification in choosing the right candidate should be the ultimate goal of the team.
F.Priorities or favouritism should not be encouraged at any cost.
G.The members should understand that such awards to the deserving and right candidate is going to be a source of inspiration and motivation not only for the individual but also to all other employees who wait to be motivated and prove their talents.
3.Individual decision within a team wil have a great influence on the final decision making which went completely wrong in this particular case study.
A.Rational decision making theory -Rational decision making was missing among the individuals in this case.One concept to be followed in rational decision making is the understanding of evaluation criteria and placing the weightages accordingly which was missing in this case.
Perception theory- individuals decide not on what is actually happening in the environment but they decide on what they believe to be true and correct.Such a situation is this case.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.