next »

[bcohlan1]

redacted
/highjack

[marigolds]

If two (or more) people are equally qualified, why in the world would you choose to hire the less likable of the two? How is that even a question?

[oldfullprof]

My current theory is that likable people do bupkis.

[totoro]

We just interviewed a superstar person yesterday. We are an interdisciplinary department and myself and other colleagues in my field didn't understand the presentation really. The superstar is on the humanities/social science border and we are on the social/natural science border. We were disappointed that he didn't try harder to make his presentation accessible to a broad audience. This raised questions about how useful he will be to our students. Otherwise, we will have no questions about making the guy an offer. He is a name known to everyone in his field. I'm thinking he will get an offer (I'm not on the SC), but if he wasn't a superstar I think he could have been sunk on that. So that is the kind of thing that can be really important in campus visits and which is hard to tell on paper.

[polly_mer]

One of the ways that this management process works for me is that there are certain personal qualities I want to be certain are clear when I interview. I am highly collaborative and interested in others' views, and I also have a strong viewpoint of my own, tend to ask a lot of questions, and generally desire discussion and interchange. These are qualities that not everyone finds endearing, so some people might advise me to try to keep this aspect of myself under wraps a bit, to avoid rubbing any SC members the wrong way. I, however, have made the decision that I do not wish to work with people who wouldn't like this; I actively want to be certain that who I am--and the way I function--will be welcome in a place. Therefore, while I don't strain to insert this part of myself into campus visits, I do try to function as naturally as possible and allow myself to interact in this way.

This is excellent advice.  I can't remember if this is the thread where someone expressed the hope that I'm not this tedious in person, but the question indicates that that person would not be a good match for the departments in which I have worked and would like to continue to work.  One of the odd things about interacting via asynchronous written communication is the lack of immediate feedback and cues.  Consequently, my writing often makes me look as though I am always set at 11 on the assertive dial even though I do have the full range of assertiveness/combativeness/persistence with a tendency toward values about 7 on a ten-point scale.

I do dial back on the "I am right and you will submit" for many situations.  I am pretty good at reading social cues when face-to-face, but as MsP just wrote for Bcohlan1, that's a result of conscious practice over the past 10 years; it's not something that came naturally.  I still won't be a good fit at places where no one is allowed to be a strong personality and state unsugarcoated opinions, but I fit pretty well with people who spend a lot of time with assertiveness/combativeness/persistence above 7 and that's a plus in my fields because that's the norm.

[oldfullprof]

I tend to be quiet if I can't be direct.  I don't like statusy "politeness," and dislike liberal culture, although I like some (not many) liberal policies.  Strongly dislike New England.  Really would check many of the enthusiasts on our campus if I could.

[nekolove]

I am still fairly new in academia, and brand new on the tenure track. We are conducting some searches right now (and it has been incredibly informative to be on THIS side of the hiring table).

As to cfunmathguy's comments about personality—I also don't believe it's about manipulating your own personality completely (and as stated above, most of us would have a really hard time making that work). It's about behaving appropriately within the context of the interview. Yes, these are stressful and long and if you're not naturally outgoing (or even if you ARE) they can be exhausting and difficult.

However, you need to make sure that you act like you want to be there. Be as friendly as you can. Shake people's hands when appropriate (I'm adverse to hand-shaking, so I generally don't offer my hand first, but will always take it if offered). Treat everyone you meet with respect (students, office staff, other faculty, administration, janitorial staff, EVERYONE) and kindness.

Try to strike a balance between being confident and humble (no one wants to hear about how awesome you are; conversely, it's never good to talk about how much you think you suck).

Don't pick your nose, or take off your shoes, or wear revealing clothing, or whine.

I believe most faculty on hiring committees just want to hire someone who will work hard, do a good job, not make a lot of trouble or demands within the department, and who will say hello and good morning in the hallways. If their work is awesome and will bring accolades and good attention to the department, all the better, but as I'm participating in the searches in my department, the work is just one part of the equation.

[liberta]

If it were really about personality, the halls of academia would not be filled with such generic individuals in terms of self-presentation and style and life experience.

Wait, maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe it is precisely because it is about personality that one meets so many generic academics with similar lifestyles.

Maybe it's a blonde leading the blonde kind of thing.

Is that why so many academics are uniformly dressed and mannered and have the same lifestyles?  Because they have similar personalities?

Several times when I was going to campus interviews, my advisors would tell me that searches for new faculty were often contentious when it came to the decision phase --- One camp would be for candidate A because of her innovative research and teaching range, while the other camp was for candidate B because of his publication record and book contract.  Since several faculty refused to vote for the candidate they didn't want, a compromise was struck and candidate C got the job even though s/he had a less interesting research agenda, no book contract, and had only taught at the TA level.  Is kind of compromise a demonstration of social competence?  Blonde following blonde social competence.



 

[canuckois]

If it were really about personality, the halls of academia would not be filled with such generic individuals in terms of self-presentation and style and life experience.

Wait, maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe it is precisely because it is about personality that one meets so many generic academics with similar lifestyles.

Maybe it's a blonde leading the blonde kind of thing.

Is that why so many academics are uniformly dressed and mannered and have the same lifestyles?  Because they have similar personalities?

Several times when I was going to campus interviews, my advisors would tell me that searches for new faculty were often contentious when it came to the decision phase --- One camp would be for candidate A because of her innovative research and teaching range, while the other camp was for candidate B because of his publication record and book contract.  Since several faculty refused to vote for the candidate they didn't want, a compromise was struck and candidate C got the job even though s/he had a less interesting research agenda, no book contract, and had only taught at the TA level.  Is kind of compromise a demonstration of social competence?  Blonde following blonde social competence.

Well, I'm happy to say that your personality is unique and special.  It really sets you apart and makes you stand out.  There's nothing generic about you! 

Sadly, your personality is special and unique in that it stinks.  It stinks like a family of skunks was destroyed in a conflagration of burning rubber and used diapers.  It stinks in the kind of way that is palpable even through a mere 9 posts on an anonymous internet forum.

Good luck on the job market!

[tinyzombie]

If it were really about personality, the halls of academia would not be filled with such generic individuals in terms of self-presentation and style and life experience.

Wait, maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe it is precisely because it is about personality that one meets so many generic academics with similar lifestyles.

Maybe it's a blonde leading the blonde kind of thing.

Is that why so many academics are uniformly dressed and mannered and have the same lifestyles?  Because they have similar personalities?

Several times when I was going to campus interviews, my advisors would tell me that searches for new faculty were often contentious when it came to the decision phase --- One camp would be for candidate A because of her innovative research and teaching range, while the other camp was for candidate B because of his publication record and book contract.  Since several faculty refused to vote for the candidate they didn't want, a compromise was struck and candidate C got the job even though s/he had a less interesting research agenda, no book contract, and had only taught at the TA level.  Is kind of compromise a demonstration of social competence?  Blonde following blonde social competence.



 

No. They're just all acting the same to get you to go away.

(Seriously?)

[aside]

However, you need to make sure that you act like you want to be there. Be as friendly as you can. Shake people's hands when appropriate (I'm adverse to hand-shaking, so I generally don't offer my hand first, but will always take it if offered). Treat everyone you meet with respect (students, office staff, other faculty, administration, janitorial staff, EVERYONE) and kindness.

Don't pick your nose, or take off your shoes, or wear revealing clothing, or whine.

And please, feel free to maintain these behaviors after the interview, after being hired, after being tenured, after being promoted to full, . . .

Try to strike a balance between being confident and humble (no one wants to hear about how awesome you are; conversely, it's never good to talk about how much you think you suck).

As for being humble, that does not mean you don't mention the awesome thing you've just done.  Just do so humbly, and don't beat people over the head with it.  It's also okay to mention areas in which you need to improve and upon which you are working (and interviewers sometimes ask that very question), but, yes, you shouldn't say you suck at X, nor dwell on the negative.

If two (or more) people are equally qualified, why in the world would you choose to hire the less likable of the two? How is that even a question?

This.  How much personality matters will vary from place to place and position to position, but it is, and should be, a factor in hiring decisions.

If it were really about personality, the halls of academia would not be filled with such generic individuals in terms of self-presentation and style and life experience.

There is a whole spectrum of possibilities between "it's about personality" and "personality does not matter."  But really, that's not the part you can control, nor is it the part you should worry about.  What you can control, and what you should worry about, is the way you behave.

[username2]

Oh good lord.

Personality matters, but so does social competence. Social competence, which the interview helps to demonstrate, is about being able to select the right clothing and behaviors for the right situation. Yes, it's funny that although schools want to have great teachers and researchers, they also want to have people who know how to behave in a given situation. This implies being able to maintain confidentiality when called for, ability to know whether you should show up in a suit or in blue jeans, to know whether a given comment is appropriate for the audience, to know not to sleep with students, and also the ability to realize when one is making unreasonable demands.

The idea that someone can just act/dress/do whatever they want in an interview, despite the interview being a formal situation, is a good example of someone with low social competence who is going to have a hard time getting a job. If you do not want to fit yourself into a general recognized stream of acceptable behavior at an academic interview or job, you are free to start your own company or for profit university where the convention is to show up in bunny slippers and sweat pants.

[liberta]

Not on the job market, canuckois, and don't need the good luck you're sending.  My observations about academia come from the process of getting a job.   Fortunately, some academics appreciate critical thinkers and they understand a sarcastic sense of humor.   (Although, a dept chair once told my former SO to suppress one's sense of humor in academe. )  In any case, the generic academic personality is relatively bland and thus is not difficult to confect and display in the name of social competency and a job.

[alto_stratus]

Maybe it's a blonde leading the blonde kind of thing.

I am very curious about this "blonde leading the blonde" theory.  It seems unfair to pick on a whole group's genetics, ascribing to them a random set of traits that have nothing to do with reality.  I think you see a world without variety.  I think you are wrong.  As they say, there are none so blonde as those who will not see. 

[aside]

Maybe it's a blonde leading the blonde kind of thing.

I am very curious about this "blonde leading the blonde" theory.  It seems unfair to pick on a whole group's genetics, ascribing to them a random set of traits that have nothing to do with reality.  I think you see a world without variety.  I think you are wrong.  As they say, there are none so blonde as those who will not see. 

Heh.  And even a blonde squirrel finds an acorn now and then.