A few people wanted to know why I wasn't writing to the recruiters and giving them advice. Truth is, some need it. But the jobseekers generally need it more, mainly because there's just more of them.
Slight change of topic, but I'll come back to the other in a moment. I've been pondering lately about jobs for mid-career archivists. (No, I'm NOT searching right now. Now, if I get head-hunted...) But the thing is, all you entry-level archivists who are bemoaning the lack of entry-level jobs? Let me tell you, get 15+ years of experience behind you and you might as well start thinking about retiring because there's even fewer jobs for those of us at that level. When's the last time you saw a job advert that required anything more than 3 or 5 years of "progressively responsible" archival experience? My sense is that nobody comes out and says 7-10 years, minimum. So that's what I was researching (yes, occasionally I don't assume that my perceptions of events are necessarily accurate) with a future post in mind when I read a rather odd job advert.
The title of this posting? Was one of the required qualifications for the job.
Umm... People? People who wrote that job ad? How exactly do you intend to evaluate that from a resume or cover letter? The rather snarky side of my brain, after having read all of the ad, thought that maybe the best evidence of ability to make rational decisions was not to apply for that job at all.
Here's the thing. I'm not quite at the point where I'm ready to tackle creating a workshop or writing another lengthy focused blog on recruitment skills. But in the interim, I would like to offer up a list of some of the most common and problematic mistakes I see recruiters make in job ads. For the moment in no particular order, but I'm guessing you'll be able to tell by my commentary how egregious I consider the errors.
- Having required or preferred KSAs that are impossible to demonstrate in the application materials. "Ability to make rational decisions" has just suddenly hit the top of my list for exemplars of this. Remember, for all this search is costing your institution and how important it is for you to get the right candidate, don't drive your poor applicants nuts as they're drawing up their documents for you. Some of the best candidates? They'll take one look at things like that, see giant red flags, and never bother to apply. They know there's no way they can explain something like this within the confines of a cover letter. Your loss. Really. (And if you can explain how to demonstrate this in less than 3 sentences in a cover letter, will you please send me a sample? I would LOVE to share that here.)
- No idea as to wages. This one makes me absolutely incoherent with rage. I encourage every job-seeker I know not to apply for jobs that do not include a pay range. Here's the thing: it's in your own best interests to put in a range, even if you're paying very, very badly. In that case, yes, you should be ashamed of yourselves, but at least you don't spend a ton of time and effort to do the search to have all your top candidates turn you down at the end just because they can't afford to live on what you're paying. Why on earth would you go to all that effort when your applicants might have been able to do some self-selection for you? Not to mention the gossip mill in the profession when people talk about your institution as an employer: very few people are as annoyed and potentially vindictive as candidates who have done a great deal of work to win themselves a job offer only to find out that the institution won't be paying them enough to keep themselves in coffee and sardines. Bad news like that not only gets around, it gets blown out of proportion.
- Overly narrow degree requirements. Okay, also drives me more than a little crazy. I once had a recruiter tell me that she'd never hire me (Ms. MA) because her archivists had to work the main library reference desk so she preferred to hire librarians (note, she said nothing about MLSs with archival training, just librarians). I have whole bunches of thoughts on this one, but I'll spare you those for now. In this case since my bridges had been burned long before I even arrived at the onramp, my response to her was "So you'll hire somebody who has to be trained for 90% of the job instead of 10%?" On behalf of the people graduating from library schools with the strong archival foci, my anger works on your behalf too. I see a few too many job ads that require a public history, or a history degree, or whatever hasn't got the LIS or equivalent in it. Why? These days the profession has developed some pretty strong standards for graduate archival education. Why does the initial set matter if the candidate has the required education? Not to mention those of us older types: I graduated from an archival focus program (took twice the credit hours of the standard history grad students) but I also have 16+ years of professional "progressively responsible" archival experience and continuing education behind me that should at some point counteract any perceived inadequacies in my original graduate education. Don't take those of us with elderly degrees or even lower degrees but tons of valid experience out of the pool. I don't care if you're an academic institution with evaluation criteria that require a terminal degree: been there, done that. Those criteria are NOT that hard to rewrite: maybe you're stuck with the masters, but you are not stuck with the initial set following that. My institution did it before they hired me. I further revised them once I got here. It can be done. I'll even share our criteria language with you if you like. If you're not an academic institution, chances are that you have more flexibility on degree requirements--including Masters vs Bachelors vs Doctoral--and can bring experience into play.
- Not ever hiring entry-level when there's a possibility of doing so. I see a lot of good jobs out there that require a couple of years of post-grad experience for no apparent reason. It's sustainability here, folks. Okay, I'm not asking you to make every basic hire an entry-level, but why not take a few of them on when you can? There are some benefits. Training to meet your specific needs instead of re-training from another ingrained pattern. Energy. Enthusiasm. Willingness to try the untried. Not that people with experience can't be like that, I know for a fact they can because I've hired both, but every so often, bring in that newbie. And related to that:
- Advertising a job as an entry-level position but setting it up to favor those with experience. Stop making your KSAs and pre-interview screenings automatically self-select for the candidates with experience. I did this once. Really, really wanted the candidate I hired to be fresh out of grad school because every so often I go off on the "this is the right thing to do" kick and want to support professional sustainability. 40+ applicants. Top 15 all had experience and wound up at the top of the ranking list coming out of the second screening and into the phone interview phase. Only thing that carried the day for my cadre of terrific freshly minted archival candidates was that due to my lack of experience in the recruitment process for this particular institution, the early part of the process took a few months longer than it should have and by the time we got to the phone interviews, 13 of the top 15 had already accepted other jobs or pulled themselves out of the pool. Now, I firmly believe had we been insane enough to try phone interviewing 20 or so candidates, many of the rookies would have done as well as some of the experienced individuals so things might have worked out for my theoretical goal but who can afford to do that many phone interviews? Time or otherwise? Now, I would have been fine with most of those top 15. No problems at all. But given my intent to hire new--and the institutional support I had to do it with this recruitment--this was a learning experience for me on how not to write an "entry-level archivists are encouraged to apply" recruitment.
- Overly effusive sales job on the institution. Does no one other than me ever wonder about those places that call themselves award-winning? Don't you just kind of want to ask to see what award it is? If you sell too hard, some of your candidates who are doing what I advise and reading between the lines of your ad in order to evaluate the institution as a workplace, those candidates? They may just decide that kind of a snow job is covering up something icky underneath. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But why even plant the thought?
- A job ad that doesn't actually describe the job on offer or the hiring priorities. This is far more common than it should be, but let me tell you about a story I just heard from a librarian friend of mine. Apparently she applied for what appeared to be a basic cataloging/tech services/back of the house librarianship position. Wasn't til the in-person interview (for which they flew her in) that it became clear that what they wanted was somebody who could be an archivist with some "lite" cataloging duties. She didn't get hired, as she shouldn't have, but I also wonder if they ended up with any candidates who met their actual needs. Guessing not.
Is that a comprehensive list? Of course not, especially because I was focusing solely on the ad and not even looking at the other aspects of the process. Am I innocent of all of the above? Well, not entirely. I haven't done all of them, but I've done a few. Job-seekers? I do share your pain, really. But be patient with recruiters. Trust me, someday when you're on the other side of the table you can refuse to make the mistakes that drove you nuts as a candidate. And in the meantime, unless you're absolutely positive you have never, ever submitted an application with the name of the wrong hiring institution embedded somewhere within, just remember that everybody makes mistakes. And the nature of the marketplace is that recruiters get a little more leeway on this than you, the candidate, does. Be picky, but be very careful how--or if--you express that to the recruiters. The job you save may be yours to turn down.