To Rank-Order or Not Rank-Order... That is the question

Should a hiring manager ask the search committee to rank order the applicants that are being considered for a position or is it better to have the search committee submit the names of the top candidates (alphabetically) with a brief summary of their strengths and weaknesses? There are clearly pros and cons to each option. Let's examine them for a moment.

If the committee rank-orders the candidates, it makes it very clear who the top candidate is. In the world of higher education, the search committee has typically seen more of the candidates skill set (e.g., teaching demonstration, answers to a structured interview, etc...) than the hiring manager (who usually spends an hour or less with the candidate). Allowing the committee to rank order the candidates empowers the committee. It gets the committee to be more highly invested in the process. If the new hire works out well, everybody feels good about being involved in the decision. A greater sense of community arises. In addition, if the new hire turns out to be horrible, they can share equal blame for the decision. It's not completely management's fault a bad hire was made.

On the other hand, having the committee provide a list of candidates with descriptions of their strengths and weaknesses allows the hiring manager a greater degree of flexibility in making the decision. In the words of Uncle Ben Parker (Spiderman's Uncle) "with great power comes great responsibility." Thus, the pressure on the hiring manager is greater when there are several candidates to select from. If a bad hire is made, the hiring manager takes more of the blame. Another pro of not rank-ordering the candidates is that the hiring manager may be able to maintain more neutrality through the interviewing and hiring process if a clear favorite has not been identified to them in advance. Unfortunately, we also have to consider the possible legal ramifications of rank-ordering candidates on paper and then deviating from that rank-ordering in the decision process.
Attorney: "And why did you select the # 3 candidate over Ms. Top Candidate? Do you have a personal bias against her? In our litigious society, I would much rather have an alphabetical list of candidates with descriptions of their strengths and weaknesses brought into court as evidence against me or my institution than a rank-ordered list.

I guess, at the end of the day, it depends on how much you trust your search committee and how much power you want to give away. If you allow them to rank order the candidates, and then you go against their suggestions, they will likely be a little upset and may develop some sense of apathy. And if that new hire turns out to be a disaster, the hiring manager will receive full blame for the decision. In addition, if the # 1 candidate is currently employed by the organization and finds out later that the hiring manger selected the # 3 candidate over them, because people do talk a lot at work, it could lead to lawsuits and/or future tension at work. A scorned lover has a long memory. The # 1 candidate may become less productive, may become more passive-aggressive, or may even become more openly oppositional. There are numerous other pros and cons to each method. For now, I have elected to utilize the common practice at my institution, which involves the "strengths and weaknesses" approach. It is probably the safest approach, and if the committee writes up the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates well, I will likely be able to tell who their # 1 applicant is without them directly putting it in writing.