The focal article has given examples of children, other relatives, and friends as potential beneficiaries of preferential treatment and has discussed the counterbalancing likelihood of organizational gain from (properly) employing individuals who already share social connections. Surprisingly, there is minimal mention of spouses or domestic partners. From the 1970s through the 1990s, a number of articles were published on the legal and practical issues of applying antinepotism policies to spouses, but since 2000, the literature has been almost entirely silent. This is surprising given that, in 2013, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 47.4% of U.S. families involve husbands and wives who both work.
There is one major exception to the dearth of public discussion on nepotistic or other issues surrounding the employment of spouses or domestic partners in the same organization. That is the case of partnered academics, in which a very substantial interest has developed over the past decade. As women earn more PhDs, they increasingly meet and marry men with similar educational backgrounds and aspirations. In a survey of faculty members at research universities conducted in 2006, 40% of female respondents reported being married to academics, as did 34% of male respondents. Further, academics tend to demonstrate disciplinary endogamy, becoming partners with others in the same or a similar discipline. Among academic couples, 83% of female scientists are married to scientists, and 79% of female law academics are married to law professors. These social dynamics give rise to what has been called the “two-body problem,” a term adopted from physics, where it refers to predicting the orbits and interactions of two objects that each exerts a gravitational pull on the other. Dealing with the large number of partnered academics has been called “the next great challenge facing universities” (Schiebinger, Henderson, & Gilmartin, Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008, p. 1).
Partners generally prefer to work in the same geographic area. With the exception of medicine and clinical or counseling psychology, jobs for highly specialized, doctorally trained professionals are rare outside of universities, which greatly limits opportunities for partnered academics. Obtaining two tenured or tenure-tracked positions in the same geographic area or the same university has been referred to as “the Holy Grail” and “the gold standard” for partnered academics. This can be especially difficult to achieve when institutions are located in small towns and/or when partners specialize in the same field.
Responses to the Two-Body Problem
Historically, highly qualified wives of male academics were denied consideration at the institutions that employed their husbands. Some abandoned their careers or settled for minor supportive roles, whereas others embarked on commuter marriages at distant institutions. In 1971, the American Association of University Professors called for an end to antinepotism policies in academia, citing their disparate impact on doctorally qualified women. Although progress and attitude change were initially slow, most such policies have now been abolished in favor of conflict of interest policies prohibiting one partner from having decision influence over the employment outcomes of the other. Many universities go further to actively support the hiring of partnered academics. In some cases these are ad hoc arrangements, but more and more institutions have formal policies, administrators, and even budgets to support partner hiring. Books by Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, and Rice (Reference Wolf-Wendel, Twombly and Rice2003) and Schiebinger et al. (Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008) provide guidance on dual-career academic policies for universities, and the American Association of University Professors (2010) released Recommendations on Partner Accommodation and Dual-Career Appointments in 2010.
Whether they have a formal dual-career policy or not, universities have used a number of accommodation or assistance strategies for partnered academics. These include the following:
1. Assist partners in locating jobs at other employers within commuting distance. Some institutions make the services of their career centers available to partners of potential hires or otherwise broker introductions to local employers. The Higher Education Recruitment Consortium was formed in 2000 to assist partnered academics in finding jobs near each other. It now has 16 regional job boards on which university and research institute professional openings are posted.
2. Provide opportunities for shared appointments. When only one position is available, it may be advertised or subsequently negotiated as a shared appointment, half time (or a bit more) per person, for partners in the same field or department. This family-friendly approach allows both partners to pursue academic careers, albeit on a lower total salary than that of two full-time positions.
3. Find or create a nontenure track, fixed term, soft money, or part-time role somewhere in the institution for the partner of a top candidate. These may be bridge jobs of limited duration to allow time for the partner to find a more suitable position either inside or outside the institution.
4. Create another tenure-tracked position in the same or a different department for the partner, possibly without an open search including other candidates. Some universities provide partial funding from a central budget for this purpose.
Advantages of Hiring Partnered Academics
Consistent with the focal article, there are perceived advantages in hiring partnered academics. The top five reasons identified in a survey of provosts of research universities, in order of importance, were to (a) be competitive, (b) attract faculty of color, (c) attract female faculty, (d) attract “stars,” and (e) compensate for a less desirable location (Wolf-Wendel et al., Reference Wolf-Wendel, Twombly and Rice2003). Most agreed that a major advantage of seeking or accommodating couples is the ability to attract and retain highly desirable staff. This seems reasonable, as 88% of academics who were dual hires said that they would have rejected an offer to one if the other had not been accommodated (Schiebinger et al., Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008), and it is harder for two people to find satisfactory new roles elsewhere, so turnover of couples may be less likely.
Although empirical research is sparse, it seems that the advantages of hiring partnered academics, or being open to some form of accommodation, considerably outweigh the disadvantages. One study of clinical academics in medicine found that those who were married to other medical academics published significantly more research than did those who were not (Girod, Gilmartin, Valantine, & Schiebinger, Reference Girod, Gilmartin, Valantine and Schiebinger2011). Most academic couples believe that they are more successful in their careers because of the intellectual, professional, and networking benefits of an academic spouse (Schiebinger et al., Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008). Universities have found it easier to manage work–family conflicts, and universities have more fully engaged staff members when both partnered employees are at the same institution or at least in the same geographic area, compared with having a faculty member who is often absent to visit a partner living elsewhere. Clearly, there are important benefits to the partnered employees themselves, in the form of greater social integration into a community and less stress and expense compared with a commuter relationship. A large European study has found that couples who work in the same workplace have only half the risk of divorce that couples who do not work together have (Åberg, Reference Åberg2001).Footnote 1
Disadvantages of Hiring Partnered Academics
Some of the potential risks of social connection preference identified in the focal article have also been raised in the case of hiring partnered academics, though there are some unique twists specific to academic settings.
Fairness to Other Applicants
When jobs are created for partners without an open search, deeply held academic values involving merit, objectivity, and transparency versus cronyism are violated. Single job seekers or those not married to academics feel unfairly treated when a coveted role goes to a partner academic “through the back door.”
Performance and Quality
Clearly, unqualified candidates should not be appointed, and a partner being considered for a specially created role should be subjected to the normal evaluation processes. However, in the absence of an open search, colleagues may wonder whether the best candidate has been found. Some institutions feel that as long as the partner would have been a finalist had there been a search, the appointment is acceptable.
Faculty Governance
Departmental and professional autonomy are enshrined at many universities and in the American Association of University Professors’ policies. Pressure from above to hire a partner, or to create a role to suit a partner's particular expertise, is likely to be met with resistance and concern that the appointment will delay or replace a more needed new position in the future or distort departmental priorities. This is especially true if the partner is in a different department from the primary hire. Resentment from colleagues may create a hostile work environment, making it difficult for the accommodated partner to prove his or her ability.
Coercion
Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have mentioned that an individual offered a job because of social connections might feel coerced to accept it. It is certainly possible that one or both partners might feel pressure to accept suboptimal positions to remain together, especially if the institution has gone out of its way to create a second position. However, it is the couple's decision, and advice to dual-career academics always includes “be prepared to compromise.”
Political Consequences
Among partnered academics, 38% work in the same department (Schiebinger et al., Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008). This raises the specter of distorted departmental politics. For instance, what if one gets tenure and the other does not? If one does, will there be undue pressure to tenure the other? Will the couple form a voting block on departmental issues? What will happen if the relationship goes sour? One department head opined that a department of 40 could tolerate no more than one or two couples; however, other departments quite happily employ six or more couples. A series of articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education over the past decade has been largely positive about hiring academic partners (Bell, 2010; Farley, 2007; Wilson, 2013). Despite occasional horror stories, there is no systematic evidence that partnered academics cause any more problems than do unpartnered ones.
Managing Partnered Academic Appointments
The current labor market virtually requires that partner hiring be actively considered by most universities. The question is how to do it as effectively as possible. Recommendations in the literature include the following:
• Adopt a formal and transparent policy that applies to all varieties of partnerships, not just heterosexual marriages.
• Do not ask job candidates about partner issues, but do make all candidates aware of the policy so that they may self-identify if desired.
• Ensure that creating roles for partners does not force out long-serving and effective contingent staff members or result in excessive casualization of the academic workforce.
• Apply merit as a key criterion, though an open search may not be conducted if a partner position is created.
• Respect the rights, preferences, and needs of departments being asked to hire a partner insofar as possible.
• Treat those hired under a partner policy strictly as individuals after they are hired.
• Adopt a conflict of interest policy so that one partner neither has nor is perceived to have influence over the employment outcomes of the other.
• Provide floating budget lines reserved for partner hiring.
• Make a senior administrator responsible for both negotiating partner hiring and following up to ensure consistent use of the partner policy and to minimize problems after partners are hired.
Conclusions
Academia seems to be leading other industries in accepting, accommodating, and learning to manage partnered employees. Although there are many opinions and some policy guidance available, there is relatively little empirical research on the risks and returns of hiring partners. Industrial psychologists are ideally positioned to provide a more solid foundation of advice on how best to do it and what the outcomes might be for the partnered and nonpartnered job candidates, the employing departments, and the larger organizations of which the departments are a part. Given the increasing variety of domestic partnerships being recognized by law and/or social norms and the prevalence of dual-career households, employers in other sectors should consider following the example of partner-friendly universities and the advice that might be generated by research into this issue.
%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
The focal article has given examples of children, other relatives, and friends as potential beneficiaries of preferential treatment and has discussed the counterbalancing likelihood of organizational gain from (properly) employing individuals who already share social connections. Surprisingly, there is minimal mention of spouses or domestic partners. From the 1970s through the 1990s, a number of articles were published on the legal and practical issues of applying antinepotism policies to spouses, but since 2000, the literature has been almost entirely silent. This is surprising given that, in 2013, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 47.4% of U.S. families involve husbands and wives who both work.
There is one major exception to the dearth of public discussion on nepotistic or other issues surrounding the employment of spouses or domestic partners in the same organization. That is the case of partnered academics, in which a very substantial interest has developed over the past decade. As women earn more PhDs, they increasingly meet and marry men with similar educational backgrounds and aspirations. In a survey of faculty members at research universities conducted in 2006, 40% of female respondents reported being married to academics, as did 34% of male respondents. Further, academics tend to demonstrate disciplinary endogamy, becoming partners with others in the same or a similar discipline. Among academic couples, 83% of female scientists are married to scientists, and 79% of female law academics are married to law professors. These social dynamics give rise to what has been called the “two-body problem,” a term adopted from physics, where it refers to predicting the orbits and interactions of two objects that each exerts a gravitational pull on the other. Dealing with the large number of partnered academics has been called “the next great challenge facing universities” (Schiebinger, Henderson, & Gilmartin, Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008, p. 1).
Partners generally prefer to work in the same geographic area. With the exception of medicine and clinical or counseling psychology, jobs for highly specialized, doctorally trained professionals are rare outside of universities, which greatly limits opportunities for partnered academics. Obtaining two tenured or tenure-tracked positions in the same geographic area or the same university has been referred to as “the Holy Grail” and “the gold standard” for partnered academics. This can be especially difficult to achieve when institutions are located in small towns and/or when partners specialize in the same field.
Responses to the Two-Body Problem
Historically, highly qualified wives of male academics were denied consideration at the institutions that employed their husbands. Some abandoned their careers or settled for minor supportive roles, whereas others embarked on commuter marriages at distant institutions. In 1971, the American Association of University Professors called for an end to antinepotism policies in academia, citing their disparate impact on doctorally qualified women. Although progress and attitude change were initially slow, most such policies have now been abolished in favor of conflict of interest policies prohibiting one partner from having decision influence over the employment outcomes of the other. Many universities go further to actively support the hiring of partnered academics. In some cases these are ad hoc arrangements, but more and more institutions have formal policies, administrators, and even budgets to support partner hiring. Books by Wolf-Wendel, Twombly, and Rice (Reference Wolf-Wendel, Twombly and Rice2003) and Schiebinger et al. (Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008) provide guidance on dual-career academic policies for universities, and the American Association of University Professors (2010) released Recommendations on Partner Accommodation and Dual-Career Appointments in 2010.
Whether they have a formal dual-career policy or not, universities have used a number of accommodation or assistance strategies for partnered academics. These include the following:
1. Assist partners in locating jobs at other employers within commuting distance. Some institutions make the services of their career centers available to partners of potential hires or otherwise broker introductions to local employers. The Higher Education Recruitment Consortium was formed in 2000 to assist partnered academics in finding jobs near each other. It now has 16 regional job boards on which university and research institute professional openings are posted.
2. Provide opportunities for shared appointments. When only one position is available, it may be advertised or subsequently negotiated as a shared appointment, half time (or a bit more) per person, for partners in the same field or department. This family-friendly approach allows both partners to pursue academic careers, albeit on a lower total salary than that of two full-time positions.
3. Find or create a nontenure track, fixed term, soft money, or part-time role somewhere in the institution for the partner of a top candidate. These may be bridge jobs of limited duration to allow time for the partner to find a more suitable position either inside or outside the institution.
4. Create another tenure-tracked position in the same or a different department for the partner, possibly without an open search including other candidates. Some universities provide partial funding from a central budget for this purpose.
Advantages of Hiring Partnered Academics
Consistent with the focal article, there are perceived advantages in hiring partnered academics. The top five reasons identified in a survey of provosts of research universities, in order of importance, were to (a) be competitive, (b) attract faculty of color, (c) attract female faculty, (d) attract “stars,” and (e) compensate for a less desirable location (Wolf-Wendel et al., Reference Wolf-Wendel, Twombly and Rice2003). Most agreed that a major advantage of seeking or accommodating couples is the ability to attract and retain highly desirable staff. This seems reasonable, as 88% of academics who were dual hires said that they would have rejected an offer to one if the other had not been accommodated (Schiebinger et al., Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008), and it is harder for two people to find satisfactory new roles elsewhere, so turnover of couples may be less likely.
Although empirical research is sparse, it seems that the advantages of hiring partnered academics, or being open to some form of accommodation, considerably outweigh the disadvantages. One study of clinical academics in medicine found that those who were married to other medical academics published significantly more research than did those who were not (Girod, Gilmartin, Valantine, & Schiebinger, Reference Girod, Gilmartin, Valantine and Schiebinger2011). Most academic couples believe that they are more successful in their careers because of the intellectual, professional, and networking benefits of an academic spouse (Schiebinger et al., Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008). Universities have found it easier to manage work–family conflicts, and universities have more fully engaged staff members when both partnered employees are at the same institution or at least in the same geographic area, compared with having a faculty member who is often absent to visit a partner living elsewhere. Clearly, there are important benefits to the partnered employees themselves, in the form of greater social integration into a community and less stress and expense compared with a commuter relationship. A large European study has found that couples who work in the same workplace have only half the risk of divorce that couples who do not work together have (Åberg, Reference Åberg2001).Footnote 1
Disadvantages of Hiring Partnered Academics
Some of the potential risks of social connection preference identified in the focal article have also been raised in the case of hiring partnered academics, though there are some unique twists specific to academic settings.
Fairness to Other Applicants
When jobs are created for partners without an open search, deeply held academic values involving merit, objectivity, and transparency versus cronyism are violated. Single job seekers or those not married to academics feel unfairly treated when a coveted role goes to a partner academic “through the back door.”
Performance and Quality
Clearly, unqualified candidates should not be appointed, and a partner being considered for a specially created role should be subjected to the normal evaluation processes. However, in the absence of an open search, colleagues may wonder whether the best candidate has been found. Some institutions feel that as long as the partner would have been a finalist had there been a search, the appointment is acceptable.
Faculty Governance
Departmental and professional autonomy are enshrined at many universities and in the American Association of University Professors’ policies. Pressure from above to hire a partner, or to create a role to suit a partner's particular expertise, is likely to be met with resistance and concern that the appointment will delay or replace a more needed new position in the future or distort departmental priorities. This is especially true if the partner is in a different department from the primary hire. Resentment from colleagues may create a hostile work environment, making it difficult for the accommodated partner to prove his or her ability.
Coercion
Jones and Stout (Reference Jones and Stout2015) have mentioned that an individual offered a job because of social connections might feel coerced to accept it. It is certainly possible that one or both partners might feel pressure to accept suboptimal positions to remain together, especially if the institution has gone out of its way to create a second position. However, it is the couple's decision, and advice to dual-career academics always includes “be prepared to compromise.”
Political Consequences
Among partnered academics, 38% work in the same department (Schiebinger et al., Reference Schiebinger, Henderson and Gilmartin2008). This raises the specter of distorted departmental politics. For instance, what if one gets tenure and the other does not? If one does, will there be undue pressure to tenure the other? Will the couple form a voting block on departmental issues? What will happen if the relationship goes sour? One department head opined that a department of 40 could tolerate no more than one or two couples; however, other departments quite happily employ six or more couples. A series of articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education over the past decade has been largely positive about hiring academic partners (Bell, 2010; Farley, 2007; Wilson, 2013). Despite occasional horror stories, there is no systematic evidence that partnered academics cause any more problems than do unpartnered ones.
Managing Partnered Academic Appointments
The current labor market virtually requires that partner hiring be actively considered by most universities. The question is how to do it as effectively as possible. Recommendations in the literature include the following:
• Adopt a formal and transparent policy that applies to all varieties of partnerships, not just heterosexual marriages.
• Do not ask job candidates about partner issues, but do make all candidates aware of the policy so that they may self-identify if desired.
• Ensure that creating roles for partners does not force out long-serving and effective contingent staff members or result in excessive casualization of the academic workforce.
• Apply merit as a key criterion, though an open search may not be conducted if a partner position is created.
• Respect the rights, preferences, and needs of departments being asked to hire a partner insofar as possible.
• Treat those hired under a partner policy strictly as individuals after they are hired.
• Adopt a conflict of interest policy so that one partner neither has nor is perceived to have influence over the employment outcomes of the other.
• Provide floating budget lines reserved for partner hiring.
• Make a senior administrator responsible for both negotiating partner hiring and following up to ensure consistent use of the partner policy and to minimize problems after partners are hired.
Conclusions
Academia seems to be leading other industries in accepting, accommodating, and learning to manage partnered employees. Although there are many opinions and some policy guidance available, there is relatively little empirical research on the risks and returns of hiring partners. Industrial psychologists are ideally positioned to provide a more solid foundation of advice on how best to do it and what the outcomes might be for the partnered and nonpartnered job candidates, the employing departments, and the larger organizations of which the departments are a part. Given the increasing variety of domestic partnerships being recognized by law and/or social norms and the prevalence of dual-career households, employers in other sectors should consider following the example of partner-friendly universities and the advice that might be generated by research into this issue.