Footnotes
[1]
By fortuitous coincidence, we were able to interview
the third candidate seriously considered"> for the Dayton pastorate.
Interestingly, his perception of the interview with the New Church
Development Committee was that they had envisioned a congregation more
nearly resembling the group Holm developed in Cincinnati. Recollections
of what one's perceptions were nearly five years earlier may be clouded
by developments over those years which serve to alter one's
reconstruction of reality. Granting this possibility, our judgment from
interviewing this third candidate is that he did correctly recall his
perceptions at the time of the interview.
The interesting and, we believe, important observation here involves the
respective interviewees' perceptions of the expectations of the
committee. As we saw earlier, the committee itself was not of one mind.
When we asked the three candidates for the position to name who they
felt were the most influential members of the hiring committee, each
pointed to individuals whose views about the desired nature of the new
congregation paralleled their own interpretation of committee wishes.
Righter and Holm had nearly identical lists of influential members. The
third candidate, who perceived the committee's expectations in very
different terms, had an entirely different list.
The issue is more complex than each interviewee hearing what he wanted
to hear. Righter, the activist, heard what he wanted to hear and failed
to be very cognizant of other expectations being communicated. Holm, on
the other hand, picked up a viewpoint dissident to his expectations and
failed to sense much reinforcement in the committee for his own views.
Were it not for the availability of the third candidate, we might have
concluded that the action-oriented persons on the committee were more
forceful in communicating their expectations.
Our interviews with members of the committee lead us to believe both
groups clearly stated their expectations. Moreover, when Righter was
hired, both groups felt they had gotten "their man." While this is
fairly basic social psychology, it is an important dynamic deserving
emphasis.
The practical implication is this: When a recruiting committee is
divided in what it expects of a candidate, they are unlikely to hire a
compromise candidate. While they may consciously label a particular
candidate so, in reality both sides will probably feel they got what
they wanted. Not until the candidate has assumed the responsibilities of
the position will it become clear which side misperceived.
Two further implications follow, one for recruiting committees and one
for prospective employees. First, recruitment committees should be more
explicit in spelling out their expectations and should attempt to work
out any necessary compromises before candidates are interviewed. The
practical implication for
the interviewee would be to clearly state before all the members of the
committee his perception of their expectations, as well as his own. Too
often this kind of candor is withheld for fear of losing a desired
position. In purely pragmatic terms, something less than complete
openness may suffice when the recruiting committee will have little
control over the position. But when members of the committee retain some
control, whether directly or indirectly, as is usually the case in
religious organizations, the deception of silence may come back to haunt
the occupant of the position. This is especially true when expectations
different from the prospective candidate's are held with some degree of
salience. In the absence of candor on the part of the interviewee, that
salience may become vocal only after he has violated an influential
person's expectations. Such a situation constitutes a formula for a
short and unhappy incumbency.
[2]
Duane Holm, "Presbytery of Cincinnati's Congregation
for Reconciliation: a Personal Summary" (Oct. 7, 1972), pp. 2-3. Used
by permission.
