I mentioned in my latest newsletter that this study EAB released on job descriptions in higher education really resonated with me. I’ve been on a bunch of search committees and of course, applied for several along the way and the EAB study is spot on with my experiences. Too often we assume that candidates would be ready to move heaven and earth for an opportunity to work for a school while we don’t offer competitive pay, paths for promotion and growth, and have removed (or are in the process of removing) benefits like really good health insurance, pensions, tuition reimbursement for children and more. And this applies to both faculty AND administrators/professional staff.
We need to do better.
In any case, this study got me thinking about my own experience and I’d add a few notes for things we can do to make the hiring process better for everyone. In no particular order.
1. Post the salary range. Post the salary range. PoSt ThE sAlArY rAnGe!!1!1
If you live in a handful of states (CA, MD, NV, NY, RI, WA, PA) you have to do this anyway. More statehouses across the country are weighing putting this into law because it is a good practice. Even if your institution isn’t in one of these states, you should post the salary range. After all, it’s not a secret. Every institution knows exactly how much they plan to pay for every role they post. Posting the range has two direct benefits in my opinion.
First, it signals to the candidate exactly how senior a role this is and lets them determine if they are qualified or not, especially in higher ed where titles tend to be made up and can vary drastically from one institution to another. One school’s director of something is an associate director of another thing is a VP for something else. This will help the school narrow the field of candidates to the most qualified since candidates will self-select when applying for a role.
Second, it eliminates the need for the back and forth dance that happens in an initial screening call. Applicants know the script now, you cannot scroll through a handful of posts on LinkedIn without seeing advice on salary negotiation and what you say when a recruiter asks, “what’s your salary range?” Just post the range and keep everyone’s expectations in check. Eliminate the needless back-and-forth game of poker at this stage which makes everyone feel icky.
2. Updates about the search process should be consistent with how invested a candidate is in the interview process.
It’s fine to use the boilerplate auto-email to candidates who apply for a role but aren’t selected for an interview (provided a few other things have happened…more on this below).
However, if a candidate has made it to any interview stage don’t send them the automatic email if they aren’t selected. It’s unprofessional and tacky. It makes you and your institution look bad. Look, sometimes the HR system that you have to work in has this setup by default and often these things can be immovable. But someone from the committee should be established as the “designed news-teller” (probably the chair) and must own this step. Unless something went completely off the rails during the interview, a candidate who isn’t selected should expect at the very least a personalized, polite email explaining that they were not selected for the role. You don’t have to explain to the candidate your exact reasoning for moving on, but you should thank them for their time. Every person who talked to you about this job likely spent some time preparing for the conversation and took time out of their busy schedule to be considered. Interviewing takes courage. We need to respect candidates who put themselves out there. You might find yourself working with these people again (or FOR them). You never know.
Ghosting a candidate after they have interviewed with you at any stage? Unacceptable.
3. Extra “asks” such as long-form questions or essays, presentations, or creative exercises are okay in opinion with the following guardrails.
I’ve had to do a few presentations as a candidate and I actually appreciate having the opportunity if it’s for a job I want. For a candidate, it can be a rare moment in the process where you’re in the driver’s seat.
But there are few rules here. First, don’t ever ask for this on the application itself. You’re not going to review every single essay or long-form answer that comes in at this stage so don’t waste the candidate’s time. You’re looking at a lot of candidates for the job and guess what, they are probably applying for a lot of other jobs too. Don’t slow them down by asking them to do an exercise that someone might not even look at.
Second, the exercise shouldn’t take the candidate more than a few hours and you absolutely cannot use anything produced out of this exercise after the interview. Delete or destroy any artifacts from this stage from candidates that aren’t selected. Their work was on loan.
Also, it goes without saying that if a candidate has made it to this stage you better follow up with them directly when you’ve made your hiring decision.
Again, ghosting after this stage is totally and completely unacceptable.
4. Review the job description before publishing.
Strictly speaking from a marketing and communications perspective, this doesn’t happen often enough. I can’t speak for other disciplines but in this world, things change pretty fast and our tech stack has a very short lifespan. For example, are you asking applicants for a web position if they are competent in Flash and Dreamweaver? Google Universal Analytics (It’s GA4 now)? Social media experience on Google+ or Vine? Be mindful of the fact that your job description is your best opportunity to sell the role to a qualified candidate. Good candidates will make assumptions about the job based on the language you use in the description and the job duties/skills you list.
5. We need to treat the digital experience of applying for a job with the same reverence that we treat an admissions application.
Applying for a job at most institutions sucks. It just does. Consider the frustrations involved in the process. You may have to re-register an account or go through a password reset. Then you upload your resume but the system doesn’t scrape the data in it correctly so you have to re-enter every item of your complete work history into the system. You try to enter your education background but the CEEB codes listed don’t have your school or major entered correctly. Then you have to fill out a bunch of other needless info — like your previous employer’s complete mailing addresses or reference contact info. And maybe some follow-up surprise essay questions at the end. I’d rather dance on a pile of legos than submit a job application.
Now, all that being said, there are certain immovable realities to improving this experience. There are silos between IT and HR with what can be changed in the system. Moving to a new ATS is only about as disruptive as getting a brain transplant. But can we make some changes around the edges?
Let’s look at the data we are collecting first. Do candidates really need to upload their resume and then type in their full work history? Do you need to know the mailing address of all of their previous employers? Why? Will you be mailing them or are you looking to save a step for the background check process?
Why are we asking for references already? References are only contacted if a candidate is a finalist or maybe a top three finalist. From a candidate’s perspective, I would want to know more about the job before I recommend a reference because some topics may emerge from the natural discussion of the role where I’d think, “I worked with XYZ on this similar project, she could really vouch for my project management skills.”
Why are we collecting sensitive info like social security numbers? Seriously, why do I see this?
Treat the application form like any other form. Ask if you really *need* this data?
Also, for my IT friends in the back — how are we securing this data and how long are we holding on to it? Would it be a problem if thousands of candidates’ complete educational and work history, SSN, and contact information were leaked in a hack? It certainly will be a problem for university counsel.
Hiring doesn’t have to be an unpleasant experience. Let’s treat our candidates with respect, communicate updates with them, and consider their perspectives when we do this important work.