Moving Up

Quo Vadis?

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines First Person The Rejection Letter I Wish I Could Send If we had to make up a story for why you might be interested in our position, then interviewing you was too risky. Peer Review Hirings and Firings The new law school at the University of California at Irvine gets some high-profile hires ... and other appointment news. Ms. Mentor Does This Make Me Look Old? Advice on how best to dress, and act, when you look as young as your students. Career News Gone, and Being Forgotten Why are some of the greatest thinkers being expelled from their disciplines? Resource Salaries: Faculty | Administrative Presidential pay: Private | Public Financial resources: Salary and cost-of-living calculators Career resources: Academic | Nonacademic Library: Previous articles by topic | by date | by column Career Talk, Ms. Mentor, and more... Landing your first job On the tenure track Mid-career and on Administrative careers Nonacademic careers for Ph.D.'s Talk about your career Blogs

By Dennis M. Barden

"Why do you want this job?"

Most interviews for presidencies or other top administrative posts start with some version of that question. It gives candidates a chance to introduce themselves, to get a sense of the room, and to connect with the people on the search committee. The question is open-ended, innocuous, unthreatening, and it has no correct answer.

Yeah, right.

No question is more important at the end of the day. Certainly, none is so loaded with traps and pitfalls. In fact, while there really is no right answer to that question, there sure are wrong ones.

Often, the most dangerous answer to "Why do you want this job?" is also the most honest, "I don't know that I do."

That type of ambiguity doesn't really resonate well with colleges and universities. They ignore or forget that they've hired search consultants to recruit people who are not out there overtly looking for jobs. We prevail upon candidates to investigate the opportunity we're offering and then come to the table to discuss it. Most recruited candidates didn't set out on that journey on their own initiative, and the best of them don't want to stretch the truth. How, then, are candidates supposed to answer the question?

The opposite answer tends to be viewed just as negatively by committees: "This is perfect for me. I want this job very badly and am dedicated to convincing you that I am the right person for it."

Academic search committees tend to subscribe to the converse of the Groucho Marx philosophy of club membership -- they don't want as a member anyone who would want to join. The more intensely that a candidate expresses a desire for the job, the more negatively he or she is viewed: If a person is actually looking for a job, there must be something wrong with him or her, and heaven forbid if the person is currently unemployed and therefore not only wants but needs the job.

There are lots of other answers to the question -- "Why do you want this job?" -- that committees perceive as wrong:

• What the candidate said: I have aspired to, and worked hard to prepare myself, for a position like this. What the committee heard: I don't want you; I only want a job at this level.

• What the candidate said: This is a great time in my career to make a move like this. What the committee heard: I am looking to get out of my current job.

• What the candidate said: It is time for me to assume the mantle of leadership. What the committee heard: I am sick of working for others and want others to get sick of working for me.

• What the candidate said: I don't resonate with the leadership of my department. What the committee heard: They don't like me.

• What the candidate said: There has been a change of leadership at my institution. What the committee heard: I wasn't good enough for the job there but maybe I'll be good enough for you.

• What the candidate said: There are some things going on at my current institution that compromise my integrity and ethics. What the committee heard: I am being forced out.

• What the candidate said: This would be a great move for my family. What the committee heard: I only want the job because of the quality of life in the region.

• What the candidate said: I want to run my own shop. What the committee heard: I am a control freak.

• What the candidate said: I want to make a difference somewhere. What the committee heard: I want to be somewhere different.

There is at least one way in which the question of wanting the job is purposefully booby-trapped -- time. We all love to talk about ourselves and sometimes find it difficult to stop. As a search consultant, even when I tell candidates how many questions they will be asked and the period of time available to cover that ground -- a pretty simple division problem even for the numerically challenged -- they sometimes can't resist the temptation to wax expansive.

In my own experience, the record for longest answer to the question of why the candidate wanted the job was 26 minutes. I clocked it. That answer resulted in a different mathematical formula: A 60-minute preliminary interview minus 23 minutes on the first question equals one candidate DOA.

Another candidate went as far astray as is possible in answering the question. He started out by making it abundantly clear to the committee members that they were lucky to have him there. He went on to inform them how greatly superior his current institution was to theirs and to give specific examples of bad decision-making on their part. He brought handouts to illustrate his points and flipped them to the committee members as one might toss breadcrumbs to pigeons. The interview went downhill from there.

So, if there is no right answer to the question, is there a good one?

Let's go back to the premise. Let's say that you are the candidate. The search committee wants to learn something about you that may not arise in the exchange on more specific topics. It really is trying to give you a chance to "warm up" and allow you to open with a statement about what you find important. That attempt to give you the floor is an opportunity that should be judiciously seized.

The answers that seem to work generally start out with courtesy. Thanking the committee for their time and consideration may seem de rigueur, but it never fails to have a salutary effect.

With courtesy should come humility. You are about to spend an hour or more talking about your talents, abilities, accomplishments, aspirations, potential, and ambitions; an acknowledgement at the outset that success is generally a communal achievement will help the committee keep your catalog of professional assets in perspective.

Remember, you are showing the committee who you really are. Acting as though your mother were looking over your shoulder is therefore not the worst tactic you could choose.

The committee members are there to learn about you, of course, but what is really interesting to them is their own institution and its challenges and opportunities. They are really listening the hardest to you when you are talking about them. Focus your answer on what you find compelling about them rather than on what they should find compelling about you. Particularly when you are not sure that the job is right for you, lead with what you find interesting and exciting. After all, you agreed to show up -- to spend your valuable time and theirs to figure out whether the job is a match for you -- there must be real reasons why.

Finally, what committees and candidates want are win-win scenarios. Sure, the committee members want to decide whether you are right for their institution and the job, but they are also disposed to be suspicious of your motives. What's in this for you?

If they perceive that it is about the trappings -- the money, the perks, the title, the power -- committees and the people they represent are likely to react very negatively. They expect those things to be secondary to the more fundamental aspects of the job -- the institution, its mission, its values, the effect that it has on its constituents, and your chance to use the job to have a direct impact. If you can convince the committee that you will draw joy from those aspects of the position and its challenges and opportunities, they may just offer it to you.

And if you can convince yourself that your analysis is correct, then this may indeed be the job that you want.