Please review the case study illustrated below and answer the following questions:
Problem 1: What problems in team decision making likely caused the committee to select for the award the worst applicant on their list?
Problem 2: What would you recommend to future committees so they avoid the problems identified in this case?
Problem 3: Discuss what happened in this case using concepts and theories on individual decision making.
CASE STUDY: 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. Thisaward is our college’s highest honor for a faculty member, which is bestowed at a special receptionceremony. At the first meeting, our committee discussed the nomination process and decided to followour 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 fromdepartment chairs, two from faculty who recommended their colleagues, and one from a group of 16graduate students.
At the second meeting, we agreed that we didn’t know the six applicants well enough to make adecision that day, so we decided that we would read the applications on our own and rank them. Therewas no discussion about ranking criteria; I think we assumed that we shared a common definition of theword “outstanding.”
During the third meeting, it quickly became apparent that each committee member had adifferent 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-pointscale.
When we reconvened the next day, our discussion was much more focused as we tried toachieve a consensus regarding how we judged each candidate on each criterion. After a lengthydiscussion, we finally completed the task and averaged the ratings. The top three scores had an averagerating (out of a maximum of 25) of 21, 19.5, and 18.75. I assumed the person with the highest total wouldreceive the award. Instead, my colleagues began debating over the relevance of the five criteria that wehad agreed on the previous day. Some committee members felt, in hindsight, that the criteria wereincorrectly weighted or that other criteria should be considered. Although they did not actually say this, Isensed that at least two colleagues on the committee wanted the criteria or weights changed becausetheir 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 remainingthree candidates received lower ratings every time. Dr. H always received the lowest score, usuallyaround 12 on the 25-point range.
After almost two hours, the associate dean turned to one committee member and said, “Dolan, Isure would like to see Dr. H in your department receive this honor. He retires next year and this would bea 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 surehe would feel very honored by this award.”
I sat there stunned at the suggestion while Dolan retold how Dr. H had been active in publicservice, 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 isa good idea, all in favor say aye.” A few members said “Aye,” and he quickly proceeded to explain whatwe 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 learnedthat 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 fewweeks later, we were appropriately punished when Dr. H gave a 45-minute acceptance speech thatstarted poorly and got worse.