next »

[xeno_cratus]

In an ongoing search for a faculty position in our department (of which I'm chair), we have 4 candidates who have been invited to interview on campus, some 35 in whom we are definitely not interested, and to whom I've sent "thanks for applying, but . . ." letters, and then 5 who are possible, but not our top candidates.

My concern is with the last category, the 5 "backup" candidates, and how to treat them. The search is in a field where the few top candidates are in high demand; my colleagues (including former chairs) advise that, since we may need to turn to these candidates in the event that our top choices don't work out, I should not notify them of their status, but just keep them waiting, without any letter.

My feeling is that they deserve some kind of notification of their status in our search.  By the time we know if we will need to turn to this backup list, it will be two months after we interviewed these folks at our professional meeting.  It seems impolite, to say the least, to just let them languish without any communication.

The problem is: If I do write to them, what do I, as chair, say: "Sorry, we consider you second best, but if we are desperate, we'll contact you"?

So the question is: Do I write to them?  What do I say so as not to demean them?

Thanks!

[derosa]

In our searches, I respond to each applicant, thanking them for applying.  Then, then I communicate by phone with candidates who we are interested in.  If everything goes smoothly (recommendations check out, they are ok with the salary range, workload and general institutional values) they get invited for an interview.  I communicate with other applicants (those invited and those not) again only after an offer has been accepted.

[aandsdean]

My practice in this instance is to cut the candidates you know you're not interested in, and to write to the candidates who are still in the running to the effect that:

"while you are not in our initial group of candidates invited to interview, we remain interested in your candidacy and would like to keep your file active.  We will notify you of your status as soon as we have further information about our search."

I borrowed this practice from a school which sent me such a letter years ago.  I've always thought very highly of them for doing that, and though they did hire from their first group I was grateful to know. 

This practice also avoids alienating someone whose goodwill you may need later.  Unless your HR department forbids, I think it's a good compromise.

[sockgumbee]

Ditto what A&S Dean said and for the same reasons. I also was in the "back-up" candidates group and got a similar letter. Since at the time, I really wanted the job, and my background is varied, it was nice to know, while I wasn't the 'best' I was worth their consideration.
Besides being timely in sending out info about the search, it also made me feel good about the SC that they were that organized. Made me want to work with them. Good will, yes.

As in A&S Deans case the SC hired someone from their first choice group. When I checked out the person's experience I can see why they were chosen--more experience in some areas than I.

In the end I'm happy I didn't get the job, including the necessary household move. I like my present job a lot.

[xeno_cratus]

Thanks to all of the above kind colleagues for their very helpful responses.

[sibyl]

Anyone who receives such a letter will realize that they are a second-choice candidate.  That sword cuts both ways, of course; while in that case aandsdean was glad to know he was a second choice, some candidates may get snooty and say "first choice or not at all," and withdraw.  When people tell you not to contact those individuals, that's the risk they are afraid of.  I think it's well worth taking. 

Another possibility is to write to all nine and say, You have passed the first stage of the review; we will be contacting candidates for interviews in the next few weeks, but we wanted to say we were impressed with your credentials.  That's somewhat less helpful to the candidates, but it is a way of finessing the downside risk.

Good luck.