next »

[zharkov]

Many SCs are filled with kind, nice, supportive people who want their candidates to be happy. Candidates behaving badly will change that for future candidates.

Agreed, and by the same token, many administrators and organizational leaders want candidates and employees to be happy, and they evoke the a strong sense of trust among employees.  But work for a bad apple or two, and people get skeptical.  (Personal experience, when I worked in industry, I once found a new job and gave the customary two week's notice to the present employer.  I was fired that day and told to box up my stuff.)

But back to the original question, if a school held a job for a year, then I'd say it was unethical not to take it, although specific circumstances and details my alter my take on the situation.  

[mended_drum]

I'm not being snarky with this comment, but can someone clarify how this is different than if the person in question *didn't* take the post-doc, showed up and worked for a year, and during that year applied for new jobs without telling anyone there? Is that also "unethical?" Or is the idea that it is "unethical" because he "never set foot" on this campus in the capacity of a faculty? Why does that matter?

NOTE: I haven't decided one way or another what I think about this...I'm just asking for some clarification.

The difference is that the SLAC will have gotten at least one year of work out of the faculty member, that the courses they wanted to offer would not have had to be either canceled or filled with temporary faculty / people working overloads, that listing the SLAC on the candidate's cv would have genuinely indicated that the candidate had worked there, and, perhaps more importantly, there would not be a new policy put in place preventing new faculty who have not worked X numbers of years at the institution from taking VAPs / fellowships / visiting positions.  As noted above, the candidate's decision to try to avoid EVER teaching at the institution which hired him or her is going to result in less flexible, more draconian rules for others at the institution.

From a practical point of view, though, the candidate had better be really good or very lucky, because the resentment he or she is going to get at that SLAC if the job search fails may well be significant.

[imawakenow]

If I were on the SC, I would be hesitant to hire a candidate who is willing to leave a college that held a position open for him only for that person to go right back on the job market. But it's not the ethics so much that bother me. Rather, I've worked with people like this in the past, and my experience is that a decision like this reflects what they are like to work with. And it usually hasn't ended well.

I will also agree with zharkov, though, that I could envision mitigating circumstances (something like moving to live closer to an elderly parent).

The final thing I would say is a lot would depend on the applicant pool. Two years ago I was on a SC with a somewhat weak pool. Over the objection of some of us on the SC, we allowed the strongest candidate to string us along for several weeks before she took a job elsewhere. In the meantime, candidate 2 and 3 took jobs too. We had to reopen the search and hired a much weaker candidate than 2 or 3. Last year I was on another search and the pool was really strong. We were looking for reasons to eliminate really candidates, and something like this would have ended a candidacy for me.

[the_honey_badger]

I've seen (and heard from others) of it before.  A classmate and a new hire where I worked both did the same with the same rationale---postion at X College is better than unemployment and I get to go back on the market with both a TT affliation, my Big Deal Fellowship and maybe land something better. If I don't?  I still have the job at X College.  Also, in both cases,  people at Big Deal Fellowship encouraged them to try to get something "better" because, after all, their winning Big Deal Fellowship meant they deserved more.  

It is a risk when someone is hired and you let them have a year to do a fellowship or for any other reason delay the start---some keep looking.  

Personally, I don't see it as an ethical issue but I do think that considering that the candidate might think that making the jump "up" once is a good strategy and unless you are at the very top of the academic pyramid, that making another quick jump up to the next level is next.

[ruralguy]

I don't think its unethical.

Anytime you grant a leave, or delay in letting someone start the job you are taking the risk that you will never see the person again (in fact, at my school, in the few cases for which we granted TWO year leave, the person never came back. If I were Dean, I'd likely never grant two year leave---not at a so-so SLAC.)

So, the chair or Dean really has no leg to stand on for complaining.

[janewales]

I'm not being snarky with this comment, but can someone clarify how this is different than if the person in question *didn't* take the post-doc, showed up and worked for a year, and during that year applied for new jobs without telling anyone there? Is that also "unethical?" Or is the idea that it is "unethical" because he "never set foot" on this campus in the capacity of a faculty? Why does that matter?

NOTE: I haven't decided one way or another what I think about this...I'm just asking for some clarification.

We sometimes have new hires who wish to take up a postdoc before beginning with us. We usually allow them to do so-- we're a research university, and a postdoc allows a new hire to hit the ground running in research terms. But this is an investment for us. While the person is gone, we have to hire someone to cover the classes s/he would have taught.

If that person does not return, there is no guarantee that we will keep the line, since every hiring line is a matter of negotiation with the higher administration: a shift in the budget situation could easily lead to the line being clawed back if it is unoccupied.

We have in fact never had a postdoc fail to take up his/ her position with us after the period of the fellowship, but there are costs to a university in this arrangement.

[lyndonparker]

I see getting permission to take a post-doc before beginning as the same as accepting a t-t job in February and then continuing to search. It's sleazy. I don't know how one could stop that, but it's not operating in good faith and leaves the hiring institution in a terrible situation, even if they are able to keep the line.

[monsterx]

I'm in the position of having been hired for a tenured position, and I asked for and got a one-year delay so as to be able to continue in my current tenure-track job for another year.  I was tempted by a recent job posting, but did not apply - not for ethical reasons, because I don't think there are any ethical barriers, but because I don't want to mess up my relations with the department which agreed to hire me, as I think I will want to end up there eventually anyways.

I don't think it is unethical to leave your current job for a better one.   People have their own lives and careers to look out for, and you just have to deal with that in a productive way - for example, I invest in my subordinates and want them to give something in return, but I also understand that they might pick up and go if working for me isn't their best option.  So I try to make sure it is there best option by giving them good opportunities to develop their careers, and balance their work with their personal lives as much as possible.  That's the only good way to keep  people, and once in a while even that doesn't work.

[doctorcat]

Oh....

 the "candidate" is a candidate for new jobs. He has a job at his SLAC. I'm concerned about the ethics of his candidacy for new positions.

I didn't realize that you were at the school to which he is making new applications.

This is very interesting stuff! I'm glad to hear that SC think this way... hehe, as those of us who are above board maybe get a chance then.

[sugaree]

Oh....

 the "candidate" is a candidate for new jobs. He has a job at his SLAC. I'm concerned about the ethics of his candidacy for new positions.

I didn't realize that you were at the school to which he is making new applications.

This is very interesting stuff! I'm glad to hear that SC think this way... hehe, as those of us who are above board maybe get a chance then.

As evidenced by the responses on this thread, there is hardly universal agreement about what constitutes ethical or "above board" behavior regarding various aspects of the job search.

I suggest you adjust your attitude - a persecution complex doesn't come across well during interviews.

[thehighking]

I don't think its unethical.

Anytime you grant a leave, or delay in letting someone start the job you are taking the risk that you will never see the person again (in fact, at my school, in the few cases for which we granted TWO year leave, the person never came back. If I were Dean, I'd likely never grant two year leave---not at a so-so SLAC.)

So, the chair or Dean really has no leg to stand on for complaining.

This.

I think what ruralguy said is right.

[scampster]

Here's the thing that pisses me off about it as a candidate. Every time someone abuses this privilege that was granted them (such as this school granted the candidate), it becomes less likely that someone will bestow the same privilege on someone else. Sure, you don't have to think about anyone else when it comes to your job search. And I don't think this has anything to do with ethics. But that doesn't mean you still aren't an a**hole for ruining things for other people.

[pink_]

Here's the thing that pisses me off about it as a candidate. Every time someone abuses this privilege that was granted them (such as this school granted the candidate), it becomes less likely that someone will bestow the same privilege on someone else. Sure, you don't have to think about anyone else when it comes to your job search. And I don't think this has anything to do with ethics. But that doesn't mean you still aren't an a**hole for ruining things for other people.

This.

[theblackbox]

I am in agreement with those who say this is not so much about ethics if it was worked out by both parties that he could take the postdoc with no written commitment to return. Either candidate signed a document saying he would show up after the year delay or he didn't. (I don't know if there is a standard process for this in many schools or not. I have heard of others deferring for one year, usually to finish out a postdoc as opposed to start a new one, and they did show up after the one year deferral. I always assumed there was a signed agreement for this.)

I absolutely agree that this reflects a person's reliability, commitment, and general attitude toward his employer. I would never do this.

[larryc]

I have mixed feelings--I am usually the first person to advise anyone on a contingent contract to bail, or for TT folks to go on the market whenever they like, but this guys is pushing it. Then again, if he has not signed a contract for the coming year or made a promise to return, he is not bound to do so. I guess I would ask him outright: "Did you make an agreement with the SLAC to return after your postdoc? Do you think it is ethical to do as you are proposing?" Put him in the hot seat and see what he says.