At a time when many companies and Universities are either freezing hiring plans or reducing them, the jobs that are open are even more competitive than usual.  For example, the typical academic job (tenure-track assistant professorships) in my area, Psychology, typically bring in 75-100 applications, but this year, there are many more.  The competition is stiffer for the few jobs that are out there, whether in academic or in the corporate world.   This is especially true for academia, as many of the jobs out there are tenure-track; Universities look very carefully for new colleagues as we are making a 7-year pre-tenure commitment, in general.  

As the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs in my college, I spend a lot of time looking at CVs and interviewing job candidates for positions all across my college.  It is a privilege to meet these potential colleagues, but I am continually amazed at the variability in how folks approach job interviews, and the apparent lack of understanding of the simple fact that how you present yourself in an interview matters.  This blog entry is aimed at providing a few core “best practices” for doing job interviews in academia and beyond.  It could be titled “Don’t do Dumb Stuff that Assures That You Will Not Get a Job.”  The take-home message is that you need to put your best foot forward now more than ever if you want to be competitive for that job you want. 

Dumb Thing #1:  Dressing Down   

Especially in academia, there seems to be a misconception that what you wear to a job interview does not, or perhaps should not, matter.  I’ve had several aspiring Assistant Professors show up in my office, to interview with the Dean’s proxy, in this case, wearing jeans.  Sometimes it’s jeans with a sport coat, and other times it’s jeans and a fleece.  Neither one presents the required level of professionalism;  remember that an interview is a 2-way street in which not only are you looking to see if you’d like to work at a certain company or university, but the organization is looking to see if they want to hire you instead of, perhaps, hundreds of other people.  It is so easy to make a stronger first impression by dressing up a bit, even if once you get the job you do not have to.

Dumb Thing #2:  Failing to Prepare  

Don’t show up to a company or university without having spent some time learning about them.  Websites, printed literature, and blogs are easy ways to learn about the mission, vision, and values of the place you’re visiting.  I’m stunned at the number of job candidates who come into the interview with me without knowing basic stuff such as the types of degrees offered in the department in which they’re interviewing or the name of the Dean of the college.  Asking questions about the fundamental characteristics of the organization, such as “How many students does the colleges serve each year?” or “What is the focus of the company right now?” are simply ways of saying “I don’t care enough about this job opportunity to have done even the minimal prep for this interview.” 

Dumb Thing #3:  Being too Familiar  

Dear Job Candidate, 

Thanks for applying to our posting, but I want to follow up on our interview with a few clarifications.  We are not friends.  Do not speak to me like you know me and I am a buddy of yours from graduate school.  It is no more appropriate for you to ask me who my kids are or what my spouse does that it is for me to ask you those same questions.  I am interviewing on behalf of the Dean to see if you would be a good addition to the college, and you should ask me intelligent questions about the University and college.  Also, you might want to talk less about your sister who lives at the ski area and how it would be great if you got this job so you could hang out with her more in favor of talking about why you want to come to this University.  Best of luck with your job hunt.

Best regards,

Associate Dean Mary

Dumb Thing #4:  Arrogance

It’s true that you may be interviewing at several companies or universities, but know that most likely, hundreds of people applied for this position and the ones who are being interviewed are as good as or better than you.  Do not take it for granted that the job is yours and ask questions that suggest that we would be lucky to get you.   For example, statements such as, “The last company I worked for was really inflexible with letting me work from home.  I hope that won’t be a problem here.” or “It will be critical for me to be able to determine my own teaching schedule each semester, as I really don’t like teaching in the mornings.” do not work in your favor.  (Yes, someone said the latter to me in an interview recently).   It’s certainly important to get information that you need, but remember that you are trying to sell yourself as well as check out the suitability of the company or university to your needs.

The Take-Home Message:  Use that Big Brain of Yours!!!

These four things really are common sense when you stop and think about them.  The goal, of course, is to present yourself in the best light possible and distinguish yourself in a positive way from the other applicants.  Be yourself, but do show the appropriate level of respect for the folks you’re talking to.  Remember that they are talking to you and a whole bunch of other bright, eager people; you should be working to distinguish yourself from the others and show that you would be the best choice.  Of course you deserve the job, but if you present poorly, you’ll lose it.  

Inside Higher Ed this week had a piece about Faculty grievance processes, how they work, how they fail, and the controversy that often surrounds the role of administration in such processes.  As a former Faculty governance leader and now an administrator dealing with such processes from the “Dark Side”, I found myself thinking about the points in the piece form several perspectives, but at the core of my reflection is sadness that the overarching faculty view of administrators is so negative.

I appreciate that at the core of effective faculty grievance policies is faculty review of a grievant’s case and the opportunity to discuss and deliberate the case freely.  An important aspect of faculty governance at non-unionized school however, is “shared” governance in which administration and the faculty partner to make decisions and policy for the good of the University.  Among the faculty’s most important role in this partnership is addressing personnel issues including the award of tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review.  Even in these roles, however, the faculty and administration work together to create processes that are consistent, defensible, rigorous, and that assure that tenured faculty are productive, engaged, and committed to the work of higher education.  In this partnership, of course, the faculty are the ones who set the standards, make the judgments regarding the academic and scholarly achievement of other faculty, and determine expectations for collegiality, productivity, and scholarship.  The administration provides support in the form of policy, budget, and legal and fiscal compliance to implement and uphold the standards of the faculty.  Tenure and promotion committees, for example, although populated with faculty, are run and overseen by administrators, and when those processes result in a grievance from a faculty member, who goes to court?  Not the faculty members-  it’s the administrators who carried the water on the decision of the faculty committee and had the responsibility of conveying the decision-  we are where the rubber meets the road.  Faculty get to make the decisions, but administrators have to take responsibility for those decisions and defend them.  It’s a pretty good deal for the faculty, but given this arrangement, it’s sad that faculty governance tends to view university administration with such mistrust. 

Given that faculty grievances involve unhappy people who believe they have been wronged, lawyers and litigation are common endpoints.  The folks who have to deal with that part of the “faculty grievance process” are usually not the faculty members who want to be free to “make a decision” about the grievance without the administration present, but the administrators themselves.  Many faculty would express concern that having administrators who may end up in court be part of discussions of grievances may create problems in that nobody want to go to court, and as such, administrators may try to keep the committee from reaching a negative conclusion to avoid litigation.  In fact, I recall serving on a tenure and promotion committee once as a faculty member in which the Associate Dean advised us not to turn down a very weak faculty member because it would result in the Dean’s office going to court.  That was totally inappropriate, but I know that happens (I’ll be the first to admit that there are plenty of weak Associate Deans out there), but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

One possible solution is to have administrators serve as ex officio on grievance committees, so that person can listen and understand the position of the committee, provide resources, and reflect policy and legal concerns to the committee from time to time.  Moreover, it’s worth noting that many administrators, especially mid-level folks who are frequently the ones who deal on a daily basis with faculty and personnel issues, especially grievances, are still people with faculty appointments who engage in “faculty” activities.  Having said that, many of us move into administration because we care deeply about the University and its faculty, and realize that we can have a positive impact as mid-level administrators (Associate Deans).  We are faculty through and through, and can provide a bridge between the “faculty” and the upper administration, many of whom are, truly and my necessity, very detached form the work of the faculty and the issues faced in the trenches.  My hope is that my faculty colleagues can appreciate that many of us who are “administrators”  are faculty first and foremost, and can add something valuable to grievance and other processes to assure that the collective decisions we make are sound, fair, defensible, and consistent with our (the faculty’s) priorities for our profession and our institutions.  

There’s a great post today at Inside Higher Ed entitled “Wanted: Leaders Who Produce“, by Larry Issac.  Dr. Issac points out that modern institutions of higher education face a real challenge of relevance and accessibility as our population grows and as the need for an educated populace expands accordingly.  He calls for action on the part of university leaders to support faculty in creating and implementing innovative educational approaches and programs that will increase the reach of the university and provide a mix of career-related and Liberal Arts and Sciences experiences for the students who attend, either physically or online.  He aptly points out, of course, that dwindling state and federal support for higher education makes this particularly challenging, and suggests that a philosophy of of doing more with less should be at the core of university leadership.  I agree in principle with Dr. Issac, but let’s talk about the elephant in the room.

As faculty at research-intensive institutions, we know from the moment we cross the threshold that our job is to do some teaching, but mostly it’s to get grants and publish high-quality, peer-reviewed papers.  There is little room in this model for the development and implementation of innovative academic programs;  for many disciplines and units, activities classified as such do not fit into criteria for promotion and tenure. For example, although creating a fully-online degree program in Psychology would increase access and reach for a junior faculty member’s campus, it would likely be viewed negatively in supporting a tenure case for that individual at a research-intensive institution.

It’s true that the costs of such activities are less for tenured faculty, but many folks with a passion for doing really innovative things around curriculum are junior faculty, for whom the cost can be great. At the same time that we work to become more nimble and accessible as institutions, we need to update our expectations of faculty for tenure to reflect that we value innovation that serves students.

This is a huge conversation that, of course, has to happen beyond the walls of single institutions such that when dossiers get sent out for external review, senior faculty assessing readiness for tenure and promotion also see value in innovation and creativity in teaching and instruction.  I’ve been involved in several tenure cases in which although the faculty member was contracted to do more teaching than research in the pre-tenure period (a slippery slope, in my view, but that’s another post), their review was difficult because even on our campus, they were criticized for a lack of research productivity. 

What is necessary is a sea change, at least in the sciences, of how we view faculty progress and contributions that is reflected in broadly-accepted standards for tenure and promotion.  Until then, innovation will remain a challenge and, for many, will be a sword that cuts both ways.

Today I heard a great lunchtime presentation by a colleague of mine, a History Professor and the Director of our new Women’s and Gender Studies program, entitled “Why Feminism Matters”. She spoke clearly and eloquently about what Feminism is, what it is not, and why it’s not a thing of the past. She told a story about talking to one of her classes about feminism, in which she asked the students to raise their hands if they identified as “Feminist”. What do you think happened? You’re right- essentially *nobody* raised his/her hand. When my colleague followed up with questions like (more…)