by Robert A. Scott
Fizkes/Shutterstock
One of the most unpleasant tasks of a leader is to tell an employee that their contract is being terminated or not renewed. Drawing upon my experience as president at two institutions for 30 years, I offer some examples and lessons learned along the way.
Firing someone is never easy and can be especially difficult if the person has been a close colleague. But even close colleagues must measure up. And tenured faculty members must fulfill their responsibilities to students and the institution and be held to account.
In one example, we learned that an employee did not have the doctoral degree he claimed. We contacted the institution he said he had attended and learned that he had never been a student there. When I asked him about it, he claimed that he was part of a “CIA Witness Protection Program.” I told him that if the CIA did not call me, I would fire him. They didn’t, and I did.
This experience prompted an institution-wide review of employee credentials. Much to our chagrin, we discovered two other cases of fabricated degrees. Lesson: The human resources staff review of candidate and employee credentials needs to be rigorous.
In another case, a neighbor told a dean that a faculty member in his department was teaching at another university. While it is not unusual for faculty to be full-time at one campus and part-time at another, this individual was a full-time tenured faculty member at both institutions. He had lied on his records and on his annual reports of scholarly activities. We fired him.
While it is generally difficult to remove a tenured faculty member, it is not impossible. It does require documented malfeasance on the part of the employee. This would include fabrication of credentials, failing to report a conflict of interest such as holding tenured positions at two institutions, and failing to fulfill the responsibilities of office, such as consistently failing to meet scheduled classes without prior notice or substitute arrangements. I was involved in three such cases. It took time and money for lawyers, but the principles were more important.
One of the most difficult decisions involved a senior officer of the college who demonstrated a pattern of disrespect for union officials. After an especially egregious incident, I talked with the person about it again. In another incident, this officer accused two other vice presidents of lying. I talked with the parties involved and concluded that lying had not taken place. I suggested to the principle party involved that a mentor-coach could help with attitude and communication issues.
When I advised the board of my solution, one member asked why I thought the attitude and behavior would change. I said that I had to try it. After their first meeting, the mentor called to say that I should not expect any change and should fire the person, which I did.
As a thought experiment, I asked the five vice presidents to write on a piece of paper what three actions they would advise a new president to take within his or her first six months. When each noted as their first action the firing of the same individual for undermining campus policies and encouraging disruptive behavior by students, I said, “Why wait?” Since the person in question had been warned and advised about his responsibilities, and since his contract was up for renewal, I decided not to recommend him for reappointment. He hired a lawyer and claimed four kinds of discrimination and one count of defamation. The suit continued for eight years and resulted in a jury trial verdict of “not guilty” for discrimination. The trial judge fined the College $100.00 for the defamation charge. Fortunately, we had the State’s Attorney General on our side. He had four lawyers for eight years.
The period before a president leaves office is a good time for an even more thorough performance review of direct reports to be shared with the board of trustees. It is better for the out-going president to act on a difficult personnel action than to leave it for the interim or new president. Again, this happened, and I decided to take action. The person in question had increasingly accused others of bad behavior but had not recognized he was reckless in his communications and disrespectful of faculty colleagues. He could not continue as an effective chief academic officer.
Every personnel action should be backed up with performance appraisals, annual goal-setting and documented reviews, and face-to-face discussions. At times, this will lead to a three to six-month period of monitoring specific goals or tasks. A president should share performance reviews of direct reports with the board of trustees each year so they are not surprised by what might seem to be a sudden decision to fire or promote someone.
For faculty, it is important to have post-tenure reviews of teaching, scholarship, and service in place and to have systematic external review of academic programs and administrative units every five to seven years. These reviews should include a critique of mission, purpose, staffing, effectiveness, use of resources, etc. They can be useful for adjunct to personnel reviews.
When corrective actions are not forthcoming during a three to six-month monitoring period, and it is time to take a final action, it is imperative to talk with the institution’s attorney who specializes in personnel matters. If the employee in question is covered by a union collective bargaining agreement or is a state employee, other expert advice is needed.
Removing an employee can be a lengthy and expensive process, but it is essential to be true to one’s values and consider the effect of the suspected employee’s behavior on others. If people can “get away with it,” employee morale can suffer. If excellence is the goal, all should be held accountable, even when it is difficult.
