 |
| Suddenly the candidate's glass is half full. |
It was suggested I call the candidate up and simply say, "We'd like to carry on in the process, but it's been brought to our attention that you've moved a good deal in your career, and we're committed to finding someone who's in it for the long term."
Even the committee thought this was okay.
Called him up. He's a trailing spouse. His wife works in bio-tech, and has jumped around a bit herself because of grants. But she's just taken a longer term position at a large lab near us and since it's more administrative, there's less reason to move. And, here's the clincher. They have a new grandbaby about 30 miles away.
We're going to interview him.
Should he have told us in his letter? What kind of stuff should we tell committees in letter? This personal? Grandbabies?
I'm suddenly reading every job packet differently.
Thanks again,
Marc (Go Wolverines, I guess...)
Sure, all well and good. But he STILL might be a pervert!
ReplyDelete[This is a joke; no cards and letters please.]
Well, that's an eminently sensible resolution to a really-not-all-that-complex problem, made possible, I suspect, because neither HR nor an unfriendly Dean nor the university lawyer was involved. Possible moral of the story: when conducting a job search, do the sensible thing first, let any or all of the above have vapors later.
ReplyDeleteI'm in HR :(
DeleteThis is the thanks we get for planning all your picnics?
DeleteI'm not big on picnics (or holiday parties, or 5x-year-pins, or any of that stuff), I'm afraid (also, my department plans its own celebrations, which are the ones I do attend). I'm an introvert, and just want to be left alone to do my job, preferably for a decent wage, and employer-sponsored "celebrations" often look too much like bread and circuses designed to distract the peons from the fundamental inequities of the situation (even if/when they're planned by people who are paid even worse than the faculty, which I realize is often the case).
DeleteThat said, I do appreciate that people in HR do useful things, including enforcing EOC guidelines, which, unfortunately, is where some of the more rigid rules about what can and can't be done during searches (e.g. asking all the candidates exactly the same questions, from a pre-approved script, during interviews, or including so much boilerplate language in an ad that it's hard to tell what actually matters to the search committee) come from. Add to that the fact that moving academic job searches onto HR platforms designed to work for everyone from janitors (assuming their job hasn't been contracted out) to VPs of something-or-other has not worked out well for those of us applying for faculty jobs (lots of irrelevant questions; sometimes no logical way to enter things like 4 concurrent adjunct jobs), and you get unhappy faculty, all the more so since we/they (both rightly and wrongly) think of our/themselves as being the center of the university.
Actually, I suspect even a sensible HR person (which I assume you are, since you're hanging out here) can understand the value of *not* being consulted when a search committee needs/wants to do something practical, and harmless, but technically against the rules (like calling up an especially impressive candidate to say, in essence, "if you're so impressive, why do keep leaving jobs after 3-5 years?")
Note that the net effect of contacting the applicant at a non-standard point in the search was to short-circuit two possible kinds of potential discrimination: age (self-evident) and gender-based (both the suggestions that he might be a serial harasser and the failure to assume that he might be the trailing spouse he was were based in part on his gender, and on gender stereotypes that are, like most stereotypes, based in part on actual aggregate patterns of behavior which may or may not shed light on any one individual).
"employer-sponsored "celebrations" often look too much like bread and circuses designed to distract the peons from the fundamental inequities of the situation "
DeleteRick Mercer's words are relevant again: there's nothing more depressing than your boss trying to boost your morale.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOver the years, I've learned that one should present only the relevant facts when applying for a job. More than that may confuse people as well as possibly arousing needless suspicions. Unless it has a direct bearing on one will be doing, any other information is nobody else's business.
ReplyDeleteTrailer spouse? I'm confused. This isn't anything like trailer-trash, is it??? Nevermind.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the connection with serial harassment. Could it be that he is following his (former) wife around and using the job possibility as an anchor for his naughty spying endeavors???
Well, that's a relief. It also makes me wish that for once, my ACADEMIC job was the one that paid the best and was the reason we were moving. Why are colleges/universities so cheap when it comes to paying their most-educated resource?
ReplyDeleteYou're supposed to do it for cheap because it's supposed to be a calling, not a job. And for the children. Somebody, think of the children!
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs to tell Administration to think of the faculty! The faculty! :)
DeleteYou're right! The administration should be willing to do it for cheap because supporting their teaching staff is supposed to be a calling, not a job. Their cushy salaries and offices should be disbursed among the faculty, for they are always with of our children, and what's good for faculty is good for the children. Somebody, think of the faculty so they can think of the children!
DeleteNot the grandbaby in the cover letter, heavens no. Nor the spouse. If some explanation is necessary in the cover letter due to the moves, best to leave it as "I've moved several times for family reasons." That is more professional - and understandable - than providing complete strangers with personal details about wives and babies.
ReplyDelete