The Clues a Reluctant Applicant Leaves

In response to my previous entry about our recent hiring activities, one commenter asked several salient questions about the conduct of our searches in response to the changed conditions I describe in that entry:

“I have some questions for the author: with so few jobs for so many applicants, and many candidates applying for positions they don’t really want, are those applicants easy to spot during the screening process? Has anyone like that made it all the way to campus interview stage? Would you rule out an otherwise stellar candidate who seemed lukewarm about the position or institution?”

These are excellent and difficult questions, and they deserve a careful answer. Having said that, I would also caution, in advance, that I’m operating from a fairly small data set, though I do have a number of years’ experience hiring at institutions that are not the obvious first choice for many candidates. So, while I wouldn’t generalize too much, I would say that there are some potential trends apparent in what’s happened in our recent searches.

First, for the most part, yes, candidates who don’t really want the job are fairly easy to spot at some point in the screening process. At the application stage, there are some pretty reliable indicators — lack of direct response to the position description; lack of indicators that an applicant is aware of, and interested in, our sort of institution; and lack of clarity on the kind of work a faculty member at a university like ours will need to do — that suggest that a candidate is not really keen on working here. We certainly don’t expect candidates to fawn all over us, but those who demonstrate that they understand what we are, and value that institutional identity, have a distinct advantage in the initial stages of the selection process.

Having said that, many academic job candidates have a pretty good mastery of application rhetoric and so can certainly write a good, convincing letter that contains all these things without any of them being really sincere. It’s easier to detect lack of enthusiasm in an interview, even by phone, than it is on paper. We look for and evaluate the same things there that we do in application materials, but a conversation is often more transparent. It’s easier to spin a letter written in the quiet of a study than it is to simulate real interest on one’s feet in the pressured situation of an interview. 

Even so, we have invited some candidates to campus who, it became evident, were not really interested in the job. That lack of interest became evident in various ways, the most conspicuous of which is being truly uncooperative about arranging to come to campus. In one instance this year, I was within minutes of rescinding an invitation to a candidate who was obviously playing games with our administrative assistant in charge of arranging campus interviews, when the candidate withdrew via an e-mail message.

This does not mean that candidates need to fold up their professional and personal lives and come when we call, but it does mean that they should be cooperative and collaborative in planning their visits. Moreover, a candidate who does not behave positively at this stage is almost certain to be a difficult colleague, so we feel lucky to find that out before we, and the candidate, make a bad mistake.

Yes, even so, sometimes an uninterested candidate does make it to campus. We are fortunate, though, that generally candidates’ interest in our positions tends to increase when they get here. Our campus is attractive, and our facilities are good. Storm Lake is nice if you like small, isolated Midwestern towns, and it shows well even in bad weather. Students are friendly and enthusiastic, and the overall faculty atmosphere is collegial and committed to the institution. We pay reasonably well. So most candidates are pleasantly surprised when they get here, and their interest in our positions tends to increase.

The commenter’s final question, about what we’d do with an “otherwise stellar candidate who seemed lukewarm about the position or institution,” is complicated and requires a detailed answer. I’ll get to it next time.