I read a recent posting on hiring “tricks” by prospective employers that applicants should be aware of when they interview. One stuck out: “They Watch While You Wait,” which warned folks that when they enter the interview space, including the outer office suites, they are being scrutinized from the first minute. The office dynamics described in the article don’t fit most higher-education searches, but the interaction with the receptionist brought to mind an important point: The search committee is not the only group with whom applicants are interviewing. Search committees will often talk with trusted secretaries, student workers, and others in the work area to see what they thought of a candidate. I have been amazed at the rudeness of some candidates, especially toward secretarial and housekeeping staff. Collegiality doesn’t just include faculty colleagues; it includes those underpaid and overworked staff members who enable us to do our work. I’ve never known of a candidate getting “blackballed” for being uncollegial toward a staff member, but I have seen staff concerns produce efforts to investigate a candidate’s commitment to life in an academic community.
Have you known of candidates whose behaviors while on campus have spoiled their chances of success?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
7 Responses to When the Search Committee Is Not the Only Search Committee
nathans - August 13, 2009 at 7:18 am
I have always consciously put candidates for administrative (usually assistant or associate dean) positions in situations in which their attitude toward support staff colleagues and their interactions with support staff will be evident, and I have always included support staff colleagues in formal interview conversations. Ours has always been a “team” oriented operation, and one in which I expect professional staff to “model” for students the courtesy and respect I expect students to accord support staff colleagues as well as faculty and deans. I have told search committees more than once that I will not consider further a candidate whose interactions with support staff were less than collegial and less than respectful of staff members’ competence and their role. Our most memorable “case” involved a candidate who was vocally displeased by his inability to score tickets to a particular off-campus event during his planned extended (and personally-funded) stay in town following his interview, and who demanded that an administrative assistant “arrange” to “get” him a ticket before the close of his interview day and “have it ready’ for him to “pick up” after his exit conversation with me. The exit conversation became precisely that — the candidate’s inappropriate expectation of concierge service scuttled what otherwise seemed his promising candidacy. My practice is always to confirm “observations” of this sort before finally cutting a candidate from a search. In this instance, enquiries directed to some of the candidate’s referees who were also personally known to our staff confirmed the candidate’s habitually condescending and demanding demeanor in interactions with support staff. The candidate was a man of obvious intelligence and many talents, but we had no trouble in finding others of equal accomplishments who were also pleasantly and respectfully collegial.
laroi - August 13, 2009 at 7:54 am
This is a very timely article that should be read by all personnel within an academic environment. I have heard many HR administrators and even some department heads commenting that a person is not being hired to be “liked” but to do a specific job. This comment is very contradictory in any working environment since the concept of congeniality is essential. All personnel should be treated with respect but there are many faculty and staff members “personality traits” are less than desirable. Yet, for whatever reasons are tolerated to the chagrin of others they come in contact with. Two years ago a new director for our college’s Office of Disabilities Services hired a candidate whose background was in Pyschological Services. The candidate knew nothing about disability services from an academic college point of view and their soft skills were inadequate when it came to relating to any student who came to that particular office. The college finally realized that they needed someone more in line with that departments’ protocols but for two years, services in that office were less than satisfactory. At the same time this faculty member’s salary was in excess of 95k. While many of us make it a practice of be very observant of any potential candidate, all too often some candidates will not exhibit their less than stellar traits until after the fact.
roro1618 - August 13, 2009 at 9:36 am
Yes, at my institution, if a candidate were rude to two key department secretaries,that person will not get the job. As it should be: why hire someone with poor manners? If this person is rude to secretaries, how will they treat students???
pwherry - August 13, 2009 at 3:12 pm
My husband, a retired professor, routinely included treatment of departmental secretaries in his appraisal of candidates for faculty positions in his department. Candidates also need to not “play to the house” so aggressively they forget that people compare notes. I once was in a group interview session where the candidate for a mid-management type of position did almost everything wrong (and he was old enough to know better). Most amazingly, when talking to the faculty representative, he spoke slightingly of “what the dean expects” and then when he moved on to the dean, he made a disparaging remark about faculty–never mind that these two folks were sitting next to each other. I’ve also had the experience of meeting with a search committee (I was the appointing officer) when their comparing of notes revealed that with each group the candidate met she disparaged other groups. Once we identified this pattern there was no further discussion of that candidate.
As a candidate, I try to be alert to the same things. I have also begun asking a question about office sociology. If you ask a group, “what’s the best thing about working here?” the inevitable answer is “the people.” So instead, I ask something like “what’s the office sociology like? How do you celebrate birthdays, who cleans the break-room microwave, things like that?” I started doing this after noticing, my first week into a job, that the roster of assignments to clean up the kitchen were made only to the women in the group, not the men–and this was in the 21st century! Collegiality really IS important!
dee615 - August 15, 2009 at 10:47 am
Some faculty candidates are even dismissive of search committee members! I am a Physics faculty member who was recently on an Engineering search committee and was repeatedly ignored by a candidate. This happened even when we were in a small group at dinner. Throughout dinner, the candidate directed his conversation at the other two members, treating me as if I were completely invisible. When the check was presented to me, his eyebrows shot up – I think my presence marginally registered in his consciousness only at that time. After dinner, he held out his hand to the other two committee members, excluding me. It is unbelievable that such incidents occur in this day and age. (If any of you are wondering about this issue, I’m a foreign born Asian woman.)
dee615 - August 15, 2009 at 11:02 am
Oops – above post should read: When the bill was presented to me…It was truly a Kodak moment. At least I got a nice expense account meal and a great anecdote for faculty get-togethers.
baker1655 - August 15, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Absolutely – I was in a position a few years ago as a student worker at a front desk. When a candidate for a position was very rude to me, I informed the person hiring, who told me he wouldn’t consider hiring a person who treated student workers that way.I’ve been in positions (search committees, group interviews, etc.) where I felt like my input didn’t matter as much because I was an undergrad at the time, but also in positions where people took student input very seriously.