[libraries, jobs] Endlesse Searche
[No Kidding.]
Endlesse Searche
Todd Gilman
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/07/2006072701c/careers.html
Thursday, July 27, 2006
An opening is posted for an academic librarian. Applicants promptly and eagerly forward their materials. Then they hear nothing. For months and months, they are trapped in -- to paraphrase the Elizabethan poet Edmund Spenser -- an "endlesse searche."
One of two things can happen at that point: (A) The search is cancelled, reposted, or left unfilled. Those who applied may or may not be told. If they're lucky they may spot the ad when the position is posted anew -- an indirect and hurtful form of closure. (B) Or, more typically, the search process takes seven months to a year from start to finish, leaving many applicants embittered. Even the candidate who is offered the job may view the supposed triumph as a Pyrrhic victory, wondering what took so long, and may even balk at the insult and turn down the job.
In my previous First Person columns, I have described my transition from gypsy scholar to academic librarian and offered advice to fellow Ph.D.'s who might wish to make a similar career move. Now, in this and future columns, I would like to talk about working conditions in academic libraries.
It may seem odd to start such a discussion by focusing on the job search, but problems with working conditions for an academic librarian can begin in utero, so to speak. The manner in which an institution recruits an academic librarian sets the tone for the relationship between the two, and has far-reaching consequences for morale.
Few recent Ph.D.'s searching for faculty jobs would reject a tenure-track offer out of resentment over how the search process was handled. But academic librarians are in a seller's market and may be able to afford that luxury. A good academic librarian might not think twice about turning down an offer, since a move elsewhere is not only possible but will almost certainly come with a raise and an increase in prestige and responsibility.
That's why I begin with the "endlesse searche" problem that seems so common among academic libraries. Witness a recent search at a prestigious East Coast university that sought to fill a high-level position in one of its libraries. The search took nearly a year from the initial posting to the final outcome, for no reason the finalists ever learned.
The result? An offer was made but -- you guessed it -- rejected in disgust by the top candidate. The position remains unfilled and the library, having reposted the job, must embark on what will undoubtedly prove another endlesse searche.
But there will be one important difference this time: The best candidates from round one will certainly not reapply (nor will anyone else who has heard the story -- and it's a small world), so the pool will be weaker than ever.
The entire problem can be avoided. All search committees have to do is adhere to a few basic policies and procedures designed to accentuate the human(e) side of recruitment. That sounds so obvious you would think it hardly needed to be said, and yet I regularly encounter worthy colleagues from libraries all over the country who have suffered the most heinous insults at the hands of recruiters.
And the saddest thing about the stories has to be that many of the slights were clearly unintended. They were simply the result of the recruiters' lack of consideration. Even the Association of College & Research Libraries has recognized the need for intervention and recently published "A Guideline for the Screening and Appointment of Academic Librarians Using a Search Committee."
But the matter obviously needs a fuller treatment: one that includes, among other things, the don't's as well as the do's plus the rationale. So here goes.
If You're on the Search Committee
Before you post the opening, figure out as a group exactly what you're looking for (e.g., how much education and professional experience? how many, and which, foreign languages?). Then figure out how much you are prepared to pay for an outstanding candidate. That way you are much less likely to wind up bickering about those matters at the end.
Never post a job unless you have the money in your budget. Job seekers seldom appreciate having their time wasted applying for positions that turn out not to exist, and they will tell their friends about your bad behavior. If you know that the salary you can afford to pay is only average, or below average, state the amount (or the range) in the ad itself. That will avoid unpleasant surprises on both sides when your top candidate expresses disbelief that you thought you could snag someone for so little money -- and then turns you down. Unlike in faculty searches, that actually happens in library searches.
If a key administrative position is vacant or in transition -- like the university librarian or the associate university librarian to whom your recruit would report -- consider whether the instability of the situation could jeopardize your search. Senior administrators in academic libraries intervene in searches far more routinely than do their counterparts in faculty searches. There's every chance that a lame-duck administrator, or a new duck who wants to start the search over, may veto your committee's recommendation.
The finalists you choose to interview should be selected based on how closely they match the job advertisement as written, not on unspecified criteria or criteria made up in camera. Say you required applicants to have a master's of library and information science and preferred that they also have a master's or doctorate in French. It is unfair to pass over applicants with both of those qualifications in favor of someone with just a master's in library science.
Why would that happen? Because someone on the committee knows the applicant, or feels less threatened by that candidate than by the "overeducated" ones. That's discrimination or cronyism (or both), and if word leaks out, your central administration won't be pleased. Even if cronyism or discrimination are not at work, it is at the very least unethical and unkind to lure hopeful applicants with the bait of qualifications that they have worked long and hard to acquire, only to have them learn that you hired someone with completely different -- or worse, lesser -- qualifications. If you want that completely different person, then write a job ad that reflects your wishes unambiguously.
And if you find that you have posted an advertisement that asks for one set of qualifications, but after reading the dossiers of your applicants, you decide you really need someone with a different set of qualifications, you owe it to those who applied to admit your change of heart and post a revised ad. To avoid getting it wrong the first time, it would be well to review the postings of similar positions at peer libraries and model yours on theirs.
Keep in touch with all of the candidates you have interviewed, even if you know it's going to take until the next ice age to reach a decision. Don't put the onus on them to contact you. Candidates will appreciate at least knowing that nothing has been decided yet and that you have not forgotten them. Tell candidates when they should expect a decision even if you have to overestimate the wait. And tell unsuccessful candidates the minute you know they are no longer in the running.
I would recommend maintaining a deadline of no more than two weeks after the interviews are completed for notifying candidates of their fate.
And, finally, don't offer your top candidate the lowest salary you think you can get away with. And if you do, treat it as a starting point for a fair negotiation. Stonewalling a candidate to save a few dollars and show him or her who's boss may be penny-wise, but it is literally and figuratively pound foolish, not least because you have begun your formal working relationship on a sour note.
If You're in Library Human Resources
Administrators in human resources play a far more integral role in library searches than they do in faculty ones. If you're a human-resources official involved in a library search, it is your job to keep the ball rolling and inform candidates about the progress of the search. Until an offer is accepted, you are the only connection applicants have to your institution, so it is your duty to run interference with search committees and the library director. If the head of the search committee doesn't answer your e-mail messages, you might have to pick up the phone or pay a visit to apply sufficient pressure to assure that the process flows evenly.
The worst thing you can say to applicants who reluctantly telephone you in frustration is that you have no idea when they can expect to hear more, as though the matter had nothing to do with you. They will hold it against you, of course, but far more damaging, they will hold it against your institution.
If You're the Library Director
Do not undermine your search committee by rejecting the recommended candidate, whatever your personal feelings about that person. Doing so not only hurts the rejected finalist but also damages your relationship with people on the committee.
Don't delay an offer for arbitrary reasons. Just because you are away from the office for a month after interviews does not mean you can't deliver an offer during that time. Fax it. Remember that candidates' lives hang in the balance.
A friend was waiting to hear on a distant library job following a very successful interview, but his lease was up. He had been told that an offer was imminent so I suggested he move in with me while he waited. By the time he was able to move to the job, we had been living in my apartment with two households' worth of furniture and countless boxes for seven weeks.
If you are a library director, do whatever is necessary to push the process along in a timely way. A search for an academic librarian can, and should, be concluded in a semester. Treat your top candidates as if they were your houseguests, because they very well might be someone else's.
Todd Gilman is the librarian for literature in English at Yale University's Sterling Memorial Library.
Endlesse Searche
Todd Gilman
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/07/2006072701c/careers.html
Thursday, July 27, 2006
An opening is posted for an academic librarian. Applicants promptly and eagerly forward their materials. Then they hear nothing. For months and months, they are trapped in -- to paraphrase the Elizabethan poet Edmund Spenser -- an "endlesse searche."
One of two things can happen at that point: (A) The search is cancelled, reposted, or left unfilled. Those who applied may or may not be told. If they're lucky they may spot the ad when the position is posted anew -- an indirect and hurtful form of closure. (B) Or, more typically, the search process takes seven months to a year from start to finish, leaving many applicants embittered. Even the candidate who is offered the job may view the supposed triumph as a Pyrrhic victory, wondering what took so long, and may even balk at the insult and turn down the job.
In my previous First Person columns, I have described my transition from gypsy scholar to academic librarian and offered advice to fellow Ph.D.'s who might wish to make a similar career move. Now, in this and future columns, I would like to talk about working conditions in academic libraries.
It may seem odd to start such a discussion by focusing on the job search, but problems with working conditions for an academic librarian can begin in utero, so to speak. The manner in which an institution recruits an academic librarian sets the tone for the relationship between the two, and has far-reaching consequences for morale.
Few recent Ph.D.'s searching for faculty jobs would reject a tenure-track offer out of resentment over how the search process was handled. But academic librarians are in a seller's market and may be able to afford that luxury. A good academic librarian might not think twice about turning down an offer, since a move elsewhere is not only possible but will almost certainly come with a raise and an increase in prestige and responsibility.
That's why I begin with the "endlesse searche" problem that seems so common among academic libraries. Witness a recent search at a prestigious East Coast university that sought to fill a high-level position in one of its libraries. The search took nearly a year from the initial posting to the final outcome, for no reason the finalists ever learned.
The result? An offer was made but -- you guessed it -- rejected in disgust by the top candidate. The position remains unfilled and the library, having reposted the job, must embark on what will undoubtedly prove another endlesse searche.
But there will be one important difference this time: The best candidates from round one will certainly not reapply (nor will anyone else who has heard the story -- and it's a small world), so the pool will be weaker than ever.
The entire problem can be avoided. All search committees have to do is adhere to a few basic policies and procedures designed to accentuate the human(e) side of recruitment. That sounds so obvious you would think it hardly needed to be said, and yet I regularly encounter worthy colleagues from libraries all over the country who have suffered the most heinous insults at the hands of recruiters.
And the saddest thing about the stories has to be that many of the slights were clearly unintended. They were simply the result of the recruiters' lack of consideration. Even the Association of College & Research Libraries has recognized the need for intervention and recently published "A Guideline for the Screening and Appointment of Academic Librarians Using a Search Committee."
But the matter obviously needs a fuller treatment: one that includes, among other things, the don't's as well as the do's plus the rationale. So here goes.
If You're on the Search Committee
Before you post the opening, figure out as a group exactly what you're looking for (e.g., how much education and professional experience? how many, and which, foreign languages?). Then figure out how much you are prepared to pay for an outstanding candidate. That way you are much less likely to wind up bickering about those matters at the end.
Never post a job unless you have the money in your budget. Job seekers seldom appreciate having their time wasted applying for positions that turn out not to exist, and they will tell their friends about your bad behavior. If you know that the salary you can afford to pay is only average, or below average, state the amount (or the range) in the ad itself. That will avoid unpleasant surprises on both sides when your top candidate expresses disbelief that you thought you could snag someone for so little money -- and then turns you down. Unlike in faculty searches, that actually happens in library searches.
If a key administrative position is vacant or in transition -- like the university librarian or the associate university librarian to whom your recruit would report -- consider whether the instability of the situation could jeopardize your search. Senior administrators in academic libraries intervene in searches far more routinely than do their counterparts in faculty searches. There's every chance that a lame-duck administrator, or a new duck who wants to start the search over, may veto your committee's recommendation.
The finalists you choose to interview should be selected based on how closely they match the job advertisement as written, not on unspecified criteria or criteria made up in camera. Say you required applicants to have a master's of library and information science and preferred that they also have a master's or doctorate in French. It is unfair to pass over applicants with both of those qualifications in favor of someone with just a master's in library science.
Why would that happen? Because someone on the committee knows the applicant, or feels less threatened by that candidate than by the "overeducated" ones. That's discrimination or cronyism (or both), and if word leaks out, your central administration won't be pleased. Even if cronyism or discrimination are not at work, it is at the very least unethical and unkind to lure hopeful applicants with the bait of qualifications that they have worked long and hard to acquire, only to have them learn that you hired someone with completely different -- or worse, lesser -- qualifications. If you want that completely different person, then write a job ad that reflects your wishes unambiguously.
And if you find that you have posted an advertisement that asks for one set of qualifications, but after reading the dossiers of your applicants, you decide you really need someone with a different set of qualifications, you owe it to those who applied to admit your change of heart and post a revised ad. To avoid getting it wrong the first time, it would be well to review the postings of similar positions at peer libraries and model yours on theirs.
Keep in touch with all of the candidates you have interviewed, even if you know it's going to take until the next ice age to reach a decision. Don't put the onus on them to contact you. Candidates will appreciate at least knowing that nothing has been decided yet and that you have not forgotten them. Tell candidates when they should expect a decision even if you have to overestimate the wait. And tell unsuccessful candidates the minute you know they are no longer in the running.
I would recommend maintaining a deadline of no more than two weeks after the interviews are completed for notifying candidates of their fate.
And, finally, don't offer your top candidate the lowest salary you think you can get away with. And if you do, treat it as a starting point for a fair negotiation. Stonewalling a candidate to save a few dollars and show him or her who's boss may be penny-wise, but it is literally and figuratively pound foolish, not least because you have begun your formal working relationship on a sour note.
If You're in Library Human Resources
Administrators in human resources play a far more integral role in library searches than they do in faculty ones. If you're a human-resources official involved in a library search, it is your job to keep the ball rolling and inform candidates about the progress of the search. Until an offer is accepted, you are the only connection applicants have to your institution, so it is your duty to run interference with search committees and the library director. If the head of the search committee doesn't answer your e-mail messages, you might have to pick up the phone or pay a visit to apply sufficient pressure to assure that the process flows evenly.
The worst thing you can say to applicants who reluctantly telephone you in frustration is that you have no idea when they can expect to hear more, as though the matter had nothing to do with you. They will hold it against you, of course, but far more damaging, they will hold it against your institution.
If You're the Library Director
Do not undermine your search committee by rejecting the recommended candidate, whatever your personal feelings about that person. Doing so not only hurts the rejected finalist but also damages your relationship with people on the committee.
Don't delay an offer for arbitrary reasons. Just because you are away from the office for a month after interviews does not mean you can't deliver an offer during that time. Fax it. Remember that candidates' lives hang in the balance.
A friend was waiting to hear on a distant library job following a very successful interview, but his lease was up. He had been told that an offer was imminent so I suggested he move in with me while he waited. By the time he was able to move to the job, we had been living in my apartment with two households' worth of furniture and countless boxes for seven weeks.
If you are a library director, do whatever is necessary to push the process along in a timely way. A search for an academic librarian can, and should, be concluded in a semester. Treat your top candidates as if they were your houseguests, because they very well might be someone else's.
Todd Gilman is the librarian for literature in English at Yale University's Sterling Memorial Library.