The conference is officially over. I managed to escape the closing reception after only two drinks and early enough to get a full night's sleep before heading out in the morning to fly back East.
Schmoozing went well. Met some potential collaborators who are interested in just the things the Petting Zoo is hoping to develop in months to come. And learned -- as I've been suspecting -- that the Great Problem of Our Time is social, cultural, and political rather than scientific. The Problem isn't a lack of information or understanding but a lack of credibility and trust.
Why? And what to do about it? Those are the questions we need to be asking ...
Also, Enviro Shark and I did have a chance to talk, and my suspicions about the tensions between Expanding Habitats and Survival in Captivity were not figments of my imagination. While I feared I was being paranoid, in fact I was spot on. But the good thing is that Enviro Shark now "gets" where I'm coming from, and I think we have a solid alliance that will prove useful in the weeks ahead as far as settling the tensions and moving forward.
All in all, a pretty decent conference experience. Wish I had more time to see the sights, as it is beautiful out here in the mountains, but I am looking forward to going home.
Showing posts with label next "next" job. Show all posts
Showing posts with label next "next" job. Show all posts
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Perverse
I cannot tell anyone at this conference that I used to work at Think Tank. They'd spit in my face or throw their drink at me or something.
I realized this yesterday when I was talking to someone, telling hir about the Petting Zoo, how I had just started there recently, and how Expanding Habitats was an awesome program. Then ze asked, "What did you do before Petting Zoo?"
I opened my mouth and was about to say I worked at Think Tank, and then I looked at hir and thought about what hir work was and what people had been talking about all afternoon, and I just said, "Oh, I was at Grad U doing a PhD and then teaching for a bit after."
It's weird, let me tell ya. And the road ahead will be difficult. Because, you see, one of the goals of Expanding Habitats is to get people talking to each other. But if people on either side of this issue loathe each other so much that someone who merely worked as a secretary, briefly, for the "wrong" side is tainted goods, that's a problem. And it is, I can tell you from having been now on the inside of both sides, a problem on both sides.
I really need to write that book I think ...
I realized this yesterday when I was talking to someone, telling hir about the Petting Zoo, how I had just started there recently, and how Expanding Habitats was an awesome program. Then ze asked, "What did you do before Petting Zoo?"
I opened my mouth and was about to say I worked at Think Tank, and then I looked at hir and thought about what hir work was and what people had been talking about all afternoon, and I just said, "Oh, I was at Grad U doing a PhD and then teaching for a bit after."
It's weird, let me tell ya. And the road ahead will be difficult. Because, you see, one of the goals of Expanding Habitats is to get people talking to each other. But if people on either side of this issue loathe each other so much that someone who merely worked as a secretary, briefly, for the "wrong" side is tainted goods, that's a problem. And it is, I can tell you from having been now on the inside of both sides, a problem on both sides.
I really need to write that book I think ...
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Perplexing
If your goal is to get the public to take science seriously, what difference does it make if the motives of some of the actors that help you accomplish this goal differ from yours? If your own motives are communitarian, making the world a better place, and theirs are individualistic, making themselves richer, so what? If working together nonetheless gets you farther towards this common goal than you'd otherwise get on your own, why should you refuse to collaborate?
(Note: I'm out West at a conference. I spent this afternoon on a university campus. Time for short reflections only but two things are eminently clear: 1. I'm glad I no longer work at a university, and 2. Far too many academics are well-meaning and thoughtful people, but they are out of touch with reality when it comes to what is required to get things done in the public sphere. More to come ... )
(Note: I'm out West at a conference. I spent this afternoon on a university campus. Time for short reflections only but two things are eminently clear: 1. I'm glad I no longer work at a university, and 2. Far too many academics are well-meaning and thoughtful people, but they are out of touch with reality when it comes to what is required to get things done in the public sphere. More to come ... )
Monday, September 10, 2012
When they start to recognize you're not totally full of crap ...
After some of my whinier posts recently, I figured I should let readers know that I actually do like it here at the Petting Zoo. A lot of us post-acs, especially in English, get frustrated when the nonacademic world questions or doesn't recognize our madmadwordsmithing skillz acquired through so many long years of bad romance with that sick and twisted lover academe calls "Language and Literature Studies."
Let it be known, however, that my fellow Petting Zoo critters are beginning to realize how nice it is having an Almost English Professor at their beck and call -- especially one that once listed "animal studies" on her CV as a research interest. (Seriously, I shit you not! Could you not tell from all the recent animal metaphors and earlier animal posts?)
Here are three things I did in the last day or so that validate my existence here, at least for the time being:
Enviro Shark is a recent Ph.D., too, in environmental engineering. Ze is a type 1 leaver who only finished hir dissertation because ze couldn't stand the thought of not finishing. Ze immediately got out without ever going on the academic job market. Ze also got hir job here as a research analyst around the same time I started the secretary gig, which maybe tells you something about the relative ease with which science people and humanities people make their escapes.
Anyway, Enviro Shark is part of the Survival in Captivity crew and no doubt felt some of the sense of dislocation and irritation when Expanding Habitats took over, but ze hasn't been here all that long and seems to be adapting rather well -- not as hot and bothered as Senior Pink Elephant (who has been keeping, mercifuly, out of my way).
So ... yes, it's been a good week, and the conference, too, which I leave for Thursday morning, will be good, too ...
Let it be known, however, that my fellow Petting Zoo critters are beginning to realize how nice it is having an Almost English Professor at their beck and call -- especially one that once listed "animal studies" on her CV as a research interest. (Seriously, I shit you not! Could you not tell from all the recent animal metaphors and earlier animal posts?)
Here are three things I did in the last day or so that validate my existence here, at least for the time being:
- Started -- and then settled -- a kerfluffle over when to use the adjectival vs. the atrributive noun form of a certain word. The result was a change to the title of the Flaming Kangaroo Gas event title on our website and in the program and all the promotional materials. In other words, I used my knowledge of the English language to make my fellow critters look smart rather than stupid or pretentious.
- Drafted the speech that Expanding Habitats' Big Dolphin is giving at the Flaming Kangaroo Gas event. FKG has both public and behind-closed-door components, and the speech is sort of a big deal because it introduces the public part and must accomplish several goals in only about 600 words: introduce Expanding Habitats to the public, introduce Big Dolphin as EH's leader, introduce the event itself, introduce the keynote speaker (who is a former member of Congress), and please the EH major donor (as in seven-figure donor) who is sponsoring the event. That's a lot! And it was only after acomplishing a series of smaller, totally insignificant writing tasks that -- presto! change-o! -- suddenly, recent Ph.D. (go figure!) is the go-to person when other critters want something written well and written quickly.
- Worked with a colleague -- we'll call hir Enviro Shark -- on hir PowerPoints for an upcoming presentation and had some input, from a humanities perspective, that ze hadn't thought of.
Enviro Shark is a recent Ph.D., too, in environmental engineering. Ze is a type 1 leaver who only finished hir dissertation because ze couldn't stand the thought of not finishing. Ze immediately got out without ever going on the academic job market. Ze also got hir job here as a research analyst around the same time I started the secretary gig, which maybe tells you something about the relative ease with which science people and humanities people make their escapes.
Anyway, Enviro Shark is part of the Survival in Captivity crew and no doubt felt some of the sense of dislocation and irritation when Expanding Habitats took over, but ze hasn't been here all that long and seems to be adapting rather well -- not as hot and bothered as Senior Pink Elephant (who has been keeping, mercifuly, out of my way).
So ... yes, it's been a good week, and the conference, too, which I leave for Thursday morning, will be good, too ...
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Meetings Suck
Here at The Petting Zoo, people have a love/hate relationship with meetings. On the one hand, they like meetings enough to schedule them frequently. On the other hand, sometimes we have an hour-long meeting on Flaming Kangaroo Gas, and before not three days have gone by, we have another hour-long meeting on the same thing. As interesting as Flaming Kangaroo Gas may be and as important as it may seem to talk about it frequently, two (or even three!) meetings that close together don't accomplish anything. People go through their "to do" lists from the previous meeting, and simply state that they have started Whatever It Is but not finished. The meeting ends and everyone resolves to continue doing Whatever It Is they already know they're supposed to be doing and report back at the next meeting.
Gah. Somebody diligently takes notes (today it happened to be me, but we take turns), noting tasks for everyone, and the notes get circulated so everybody double knows Whatever It Is they're supposed to be doing that they already know they're supposed to be doing and have now just wasted another hour NOT doing.
You know you have a problem with meetings when the notes for consecutive meetings are more or less the same.
Everyone, you get the sense, feels somewhat imposed upon, but no one, including the meeting organizers, will speak up and say, "Hey, there's not a whole lot that's happened since the last meeting, so why don't people who need to do so just touch bases informally and we'll re-convene all together next week." Most people know how to send email, and, better yet, why not go drop by your colleague's office? It's right next door or maybe just two doors over.
But that gets me to the other issue. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are some tensions brewing just under the surface between the old program, Survival in Captivity, and the new program, Expanding Habitats.
There's a lot of passive aggressiveness on the part of the Survival in Captivity people, and, while I understand the reasons for it, it's really getting tiresome. After a certain amount of time, you just move on from these things, but that doesn't seem to be happening. They resent having to expend effort and time on Flaming Kangaroo Gas, which is an Expanding Habitats event upcoming in the next few weeks. They resent having to work with staff hired exclusively for Expanding Habitats, like me. And they seem to resent the general philosophical directive behind the misison and goals of Expanding Habitats. And this is all despite the fact that Survival in Captivity still exists as a program, and nobody lost their job when Expanding Habitats took over. And, really, the only thing that's changed is the leadership and a push towards creating public dialogue over policy rather than pointing fingers.
Some people, it turns out, aren't very good at dialogue, even among their coworkers, it seems.
Possibly the thing that irritates me the most about these Flaming Kangaroo Gas meetings is Senior Pink Elephant's attitude and immature behavior. SPE is one of the people most loyal to Survival in Captivity. Describing SPE's tone and body language and behavior as "resentful" understates the bitterness SPE expresses. While everybody is frustrated by these stupid meetings, most behave like grown-ups. SPE, on the contrary, will go to meetings and PASS NOTES to the other pink elephants, snicker, and nod and smile at them, as if we were all in high school. The other pink elephants just look uncomfortable and, when the meeting finally ends, carefully pick up those little slips of paper -- no doubt filled with snide comments -- so as to make sure nobody else sees them. SPE never does anything really big, but these little things undermine collegiality, which is maybe SPE's subconscious goal. Like, for example, at today's meeting, somebody in Expanding Habitats said they didn't get the email about Flaming Kangaroo Gass Solids that was sent around this morning. Instead of simply forwarding the email from the iPad SPE also obsessively plays with at meetings, which would be the civil, grown-up thing to do, SPE says dismissively, "Yes, you did. It was sent to everybody. Whatever. It's not important that you see it anyway." Somebody else did forward the message, but that kind of bitchiness lingers. Did I mention how tiresome this all is? It's toxic. It's spawned this whole bitchy post, which I needed to get out of my system before getting back to Flaming Kangaroo Gas tasks (that I could have done earlier but was at the meeting).
Did I mention also that SPE especially hates me because 1) I was hired specifically to work on Expanding Habitats, 2) I am not a pink elephant, and 3) I used to work at Think Tank, which makes me, ipso facto, either evil or crazy.
So, even if I'm being a little paranoid, I feel like a fair amount of SPE's passive aggressiveness is directed at me, especially since the other two main Expanding Habitats people -- the people, also, that hired me, know my background, and respect what I bring -- are in Other City Office. In other words, my allies only participate in meetings via video or phone conference, and I really don't think they pick up on this pepto bismal colored Pink Elephant shit, even though it may almost all (except for the Think Tank part) be actually directed equally at them.
I really do try hard to be civil to SPE, because, quite frankly, I would prefer to work in a civil environment. I'm willing to let stuff slide. I go out of my way to say hello and otherwise be polite. But, really? For how long? Even in academe, as petty as people could sometimes be, I never had to put up with this crap. Maybe I was lucky, but the closest workplace situation for me was a retail job I had in college. One of my coworkers there resented me because she thought I "stole" her customers. In fact, she ignored "her" customers, but I talked to them so neither of us would get yelled at by the manager. And I was just better at selling because I was actually NICE and POLITE and CIVIL and FRIENDLY and DECENT to the customers. When I got promoted from sales associate to sales supervisor, my coworker got into all this stupid passive aggressive stuff, like leaving messes for me to clean up or actively pissing customers off by being overtly rude to them because she knew I would get blamed, since I was "supervising." Fortunately for both of us, she quit after not too long.
Maybe SPE will just up and quit, too. SPE getting fired would be even better. Are there some job gods out there who would accept the burning of a pink elephant effigy?
You know what's ironic? The environment and people at Think Tank/New Think Tank, as I've blogged before, despite our differences, were entirely civil, polite, decent people to work with. There was nothing like this situation with any of them. Ever. And you know what else? It's that kind of civility that allows people to forge valuable and loyal relationships in this small little world where Who You Know Matters More Than What You Know. You want there to be people for whom you will go out of your way and who will go out of their way for you. You never know when that sort of thing will pay off, but it's worthwhile to work at because, in the long run, it's as important as showing up and doing all the other stuff you're supposed to.
Do you know what else is ironic? At Think Tank/New Think Tank -- because it was a small place, an open office, and a collegial environment in which people could just walk over and talk to each other about Whatever It Is that needed to get done -- there were no goddammedmotherfuckingmindblowinglyborrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring meetings EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gah. Somebody diligently takes notes (today it happened to be me, but we take turns), noting tasks for everyone, and the notes get circulated so everybody double knows Whatever It Is they're supposed to be doing that they already know they're supposed to be doing and have now just wasted another hour NOT doing.
You know you have a problem with meetings when the notes for consecutive meetings are more or less the same.
Everyone, you get the sense, feels somewhat imposed upon, but no one, including the meeting organizers, will speak up and say, "Hey, there's not a whole lot that's happened since the last meeting, so why don't people who need to do so just touch bases informally and we'll re-convene all together next week." Most people know how to send email, and, better yet, why not go drop by your colleague's office? It's right next door or maybe just two doors over.
But that gets me to the other issue. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are some tensions brewing just under the surface between the old program, Survival in Captivity, and the new program, Expanding Habitats.
There's a lot of passive aggressiveness on the part of the Survival in Captivity people, and, while I understand the reasons for it, it's really getting tiresome. After a certain amount of time, you just move on from these things, but that doesn't seem to be happening. They resent having to expend effort and time on Flaming Kangaroo Gas, which is an Expanding Habitats event upcoming in the next few weeks. They resent having to work with staff hired exclusively for Expanding Habitats, like me. And they seem to resent the general philosophical directive behind the misison and goals of Expanding Habitats. And this is all despite the fact that Survival in Captivity still exists as a program, and nobody lost their job when Expanding Habitats took over. And, really, the only thing that's changed is the leadership and a push towards creating public dialogue over policy rather than pointing fingers.
Some people, it turns out, aren't very good at dialogue, even among their coworkers, it seems.
Possibly the thing that irritates me the most about these Flaming Kangaroo Gas meetings is Senior Pink Elephant's attitude and immature behavior. SPE is one of the people most loyal to Survival in Captivity. Describing SPE's tone and body language and behavior as "resentful" understates the bitterness SPE expresses. While everybody is frustrated by these stupid meetings, most behave like grown-ups. SPE, on the contrary, will go to meetings and PASS NOTES to the other pink elephants, snicker, and nod and smile at them, as if we were all in high school. The other pink elephants just look uncomfortable and, when the meeting finally ends, carefully pick up those little slips of paper -- no doubt filled with snide comments -- so as to make sure nobody else sees them. SPE never does anything really big, but these little things undermine collegiality, which is maybe SPE's subconscious goal. Like, for example, at today's meeting, somebody in Expanding Habitats said they didn't get the email about Flaming Kangaroo Gass Solids that was sent around this morning. Instead of simply forwarding the email from the iPad SPE also obsessively plays with at meetings, which would be the civil, grown-up thing to do, SPE says dismissively, "Yes, you did. It was sent to everybody. Whatever. It's not important that you see it anyway." Somebody else did forward the message, but that kind of bitchiness lingers. Did I mention how tiresome this all is? It's toxic. It's spawned this whole bitchy post, which I needed to get out of my system before getting back to Flaming Kangaroo Gas tasks (that I could have done earlier but was at the meeting).
Did I mention also that SPE especially hates me because 1) I was hired specifically to work on Expanding Habitats, 2) I am not a pink elephant, and 3) I used to work at Think Tank, which makes me, ipso facto, either evil or crazy.
So, even if I'm being a little paranoid, I feel like a fair amount of SPE's passive aggressiveness is directed at me, especially since the other two main Expanding Habitats people -- the people, also, that hired me, know my background, and respect what I bring -- are in Other City Office. In other words, my allies only participate in meetings via video or phone conference, and I really don't think they pick up on this pepto bismal colored Pink Elephant shit, even though it may almost all (except for the Think Tank part) be actually directed equally at them.
I really do try hard to be civil to SPE, because, quite frankly, I would prefer to work in a civil environment. I'm willing to let stuff slide. I go out of my way to say hello and otherwise be polite. But, really? For how long? Even in academe, as petty as people could sometimes be, I never had to put up with this crap. Maybe I was lucky, but the closest workplace situation for me was a retail job I had in college. One of my coworkers there resented me because she thought I "stole" her customers. In fact, she ignored "her" customers, but I talked to them so neither of us would get yelled at by the manager. And I was just better at selling because I was actually NICE and POLITE and CIVIL and FRIENDLY and DECENT to the customers. When I got promoted from sales associate to sales supervisor, my coworker got into all this stupid passive aggressive stuff, like leaving messes for me to clean up or actively pissing customers off by being overtly rude to them because she knew I would get blamed, since I was "supervising." Fortunately for both of us, she quit after not too long.
Maybe SPE will just up and quit, too. SPE getting fired would be even better. Are there some job gods out there who would accept the burning of a pink elephant effigy?
You know what's ironic? The environment and people at Think Tank/New Think Tank, as I've blogged before, despite our differences, were entirely civil, polite, decent people to work with. There was nothing like this situation with any of them. Ever. And you know what else? It's that kind of civility that allows people to forge valuable and loyal relationships in this small little world where Who You Know Matters More Than What You Know. You want there to be people for whom you will go out of your way and who will go out of their way for you. You never know when that sort of thing will pay off, but it's worthwhile to work at because, in the long run, it's as important as showing up and doing all the other stuff you're supposed to.
Do you know what else is ironic? At Think Tank/New Think Tank -- because it was a small place, an open office, and a collegial environment in which people could just walk over and talk to each other about Whatever It Is that needed to get done -- there were no goddammedmotherfuckingmindblowinglyborrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring meetings EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Petty Schadenfreude
Just before I arrived on the scene, the Petting Zoo got a freebie they just couldn't pass up: The use of a major public venue to host an event that would normally cost about fifteen grand for use just in the morning. Now, that's pretty sweet, but the catch (of course there's a catch!) is that we could only have it on a certain day. Planning such an event would normally require at least four months. Six would be better. What did we have? Two.
Yes, TWO months to put something together that would normally take SIX. On the plus side, this event is in DC, whereas we expect future events in the series (this is the first) to be held around the country with partnering orgnizations or institutions or even museums. So, we don't need to coordinate those types of logistics. However, the hard part, as far as I can tell from these my first six weeks on the job, is getting Important People to participate.
For better or worse, the public part of the event is coming together reasonably well. Important People like media attention, right? Most of those speakers are confirmed, with the exception of a Republican keynote. We have a Democrat, but it's proving rather ... well ... "difficult" to find a moderate Republican counterpart. That is, someone who would please certain organization higher-ups who think there needs to be more talking with "others" without causing donors to barf up their breakfast.
People are working on this, however, and, well, it ... just isn't really my problem becase -- in this town where who you know counts more than what you now -- I am a nobody and know nobody.
Which is not to say I'm not making efforts to make this event a success anyway. My role is to work on the non-public portion of the event, which is a workshop thingie of sorts, in the afternoon following the public part. It's in the same venue. In a beautiful conference room, in fact, overlooking the Capitol. Lunch will be catered by Fancy Celebrity Chef's Catering Company (leftovers will go to Mama Duck and her gourmet-fed babies who live in a wading pool on the roof, but I digress!).
We're trying to get 20-30 Important People to show up and talk at each other for a couple hours and come up with a sort of public document that everyone signs on behalf of their Fancy Very Important Organizations and which is ultimately presented to the next administration as a set of policy recommendations.
Turns out it's hard to get 20-30 Important People to show up and talk at each other for a whole afternoon when all you're giving them in return is Fancy Celebrity Chef's funburgersandmixedgreens, which they can very well go buy for themselves should they wish to eat such things.
So, the petty schadenfreude ... Yeah, well, so we divied up the list of people we want to invite. I had a handful of possibilities and alternates to pursue. A few academics and a few other types. The academics, surprisingly, have been relatively easy to get in touch with and talk to. We'll have a few of them. The "other types" I volunteered for are in an industry dealt with frequently by Think Tank. I figured I'd at least have an excuse to send an email and do some friendly name dropping.
The result? Total. Cold. Shoulder. As in, no response at all or a blatant blow-off: "Sorry, who-the-fuck are you again and why are you bothering me? No, I'm not available. I'm traveling. Can't rearrange. Now, go fuck yourself."
Not sure how that's going to work out. It kinda reminds of high school, actually. The social dynamics of it, that is. Whatevs.
But, so, the schadenfreude ... Yes, well, turns out it's not just me, Dr. Nobody Who Knows Nobody, that's gotten the ole fuck-off reponse. People Who Know Important People aren't getting their repeated and increasingly desperate voicemails answered, either. Woohoooo!!!??!!!???!
Is it totally perverse of me that I take some pleasure in this? Probably ...
I do, sincerely, want this event to go well. And, the truth is, it probably will go just fine. We have far from exhausted the list of possible participants in this workshop-thingie-do. It just amuses me in a sick-ish way that these people who think they're Special are being ignored, too -- and by people they expected would talk to them.
At least I was expecting to be ignored. Water off a baby duck's back ...
Yes, TWO months to put something together that would normally take SIX. On the plus side, this event is in DC, whereas we expect future events in the series (this is the first) to be held around the country with partnering orgnizations or institutions or even museums. So, we don't need to coordinate those types of logistics. However, the hard part, as far as I can tell from these my first six weeks on the job, is getting Important People to participate.
For better or worse, the public part of the event is coming together reasonably well. Important People like media attention, right? Most of those speakers are confirmed, with the exception of a Republican keynote. We have a Democrat, but it's proving rather ... well ... "difficult" to find a moderate Republican counterpart. That is, someone who would please certain organization higher-ups who think there needs to be more talking with "others" without causing donors to barf up their breakfast.
People are working on this, however, and, well, it ... just isn't really my problem becase -- in this town where who you know counts more than what you now -- I am a nobody and know nobody.
Which is not to say I'm not making efforts to make this event a success anyway. My role is to work on the non-public portion of the event, which is a workshop thingie of sorts, in the afternoon following the public part. It's in the same venue. In a beautiful conference room, in fact, overlooking the Capitol. Lunch will be catered by Fancy Celebrity Chef's Catering Company (leftovers will go to Mama Duck and her gourmet-fed babies who live in a wading pool on the roof, but I digress!).
We're trying to get 20-30 Important People to show up and talk at each other for a couple hours and come up with a sort of public document that everyone signs on behalf of their Fancy Very Important Organizations and which is ultimately presented to the next administration as a set of policy recommendations.
Turns out it's hard to get 20-30 Important People to show up and talk at each other for a whole afternoon when all you're giving them in return is Fancy Celebrity Chef's funburgersandmixedgreens, which they can very well go buy for themselves should they wish to eat such things.
So, the petty schadenfreude ... Yeah, well, so we divied up the list of people we want to invite. I had a handful of possibilities and alternates to pursue. A few academics and a few other types. The academics, surprisingly, have been relatively easy to get in touch with and talk to. We'll have a few of them. The "other types" I volunteered for are in an industry dealt with frequently by Think Tank. I figured I'd at least have an excuse to send an email and do some friendly name dropping.
The result? Total. Cold. Shoulder. As in, no response at all or a blatant blow-off: "Sorry, who-the-fuck are you again and why are you bothering me? No, I'm not available. I'm traveling. Can't rearrange. Now, go fuck yourself."
Not sure how that's going to work out. It kinda reminds of high school, actually. The social dynamics of it, that is. Whatevs.
But, so, the schadenfreude ... Yes, well, turns out it's not just me, Dr. Nobody Who Knows Nobody, that's gotten the ole fuck-off reponse. People Who Know Important People aren't getting their repeated and increasingly desperate voicemails answered, either. Woohoooo!!!??!!!???!
Is it totally perverse of me that I take some pleasure in this? Probably ...
I do, sincerely, want this event to go well. And, the truth is, it probably will go just fine. We have far from exhausted the list of possible participants in this workshop-thingie-do. It just amuses me in a sick-ish way that these people who think they're Special are being ignored, too -- and by people they expected would talk to them.
At least I was expecting to be ignored. Water off a baby duck's back ...
 |
| "Quack, quackk! Aren't we teh cutest?" |
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Blue Flamingos and Pink Elephants
This next "next" job hasn't been too bad so far for the past month and a half since I started. As you may have surmised from my relative lack of blogging, I've at least been busy enough. But I have a few minutes to spare today, and since I originally started the blog for purposes of venting, I shall vent.
At the time I started, The Petting Zoo (that's what I've decided to call this new place where I'm now working in my new, non Think Tank, non secretary job) was experiencing a time of significant transition. Upheaval, some might call it. A new program (Habitat Expansion, let's say), the one I'd been hired to work on, was eating in its entirety another, older program (let's call that one Survival in Captivity). Noobody from Survival in Captivity lost their jobs during the transition, but there was some reordering of priorities. And, maybe more importantly, Director of Survival in Captivity had made a bid for the job of Director of Habitat Expansion but an external candidate ended up getting it.
Transitions can be good times to start new jobs because there's a lot of flexibility in terms of the roles you carve out for yourself. I'm still grappling with all that and think in the long run it will work out for the best, but it's a little hard to know where I fit in right now, especially given the under-the-surface yet still perceivable tensions between Survival in Captivity and Habitat Expansion, which are now one and the same.
Add to these tensions the fact that one of the more senior people from Survival in Captivity is a Pink Elephant, only hires other Pink Elephants (including interns -- there's a stableful), and seems to find it weird to have to deal with Non Pink Elephants.
I happen to be a Blue Flamingo. If I were a Blue Elephant or a Pink Flamingo, there'd be less of a problem.My elephant-ness or pinkness would provide common ground. But no. I am a Blue Flamingo and can not change either my blueness or my flamingo-ness. While I have no problem personally with Pink Elephants, it irks me that Semior Pink Elephant, while capable of interacting superficially politely in the course of getting work done, seems to despise the presence of Blue Flamingos and wish them to go away or at least not have to be bothered with their stink and feathers in the Pink Elephant Stable.
So, amyway ... I don't really have a purpose here other than to vent. I'm not going anywhere, and Pink Elephant isn't going anywhere. But the stableful of Pink Elephant interns is emptying out at the end of this month when they mostly all go back to school, and Senior Pink Elephant and I will probably have to intereact more then. And that will be annoying. Maybe Senior Pink Elephant will have gotten used to me by then????
Meh, I doubt it ... Right now, I just wish SPE, who is a loud talker and a hall walker, would STFU!!!
At the time I started, The Petting Zoo (that's what I've decided to call this new place where I'm now working in my new, non Think Tank, non secretary job) was experiencing a time of significant transition. Upheaval, some might call it. A new program (Habitat Expansion, let's say), the one I'd been hired to work on, was eating in its entirety another, older program (let's call that one Survival in Captivity). Noobody from Survival in Captivity lost their jobs during the transition, but there was some reordering of priorities. And, maybe more importantly, Director of Survival in Captivity had made a bid for the job of Director of Habitat Expansion but an external candidate ended up getting it.
Transitions can be good times to start new jobs because there's a lot of flexibility in terms of the roles you carve out for yourself. I'm still grappling with all that and think in the long run it will work out for the best, but it's a little hard to know where I fit in right now, especially given the under-the-surface yet still perceivable tensions between Survival in Captivity and Habitat Expansion, which are now one and the same.
Add to these tensions the fact that one of the more senior people from Survival in Captivity is a Pink Elephant, only hires other Pink Elephants (including interns -- there's a stableful), and seems to find it weird to have to deal with Non Pink Elephants.
I happen to be a Blue Flamingo. If I were a Blue Elephant or a Pink Flamingo, there'd be less of a problem.My elephant-ness or pinkness would provide common ground. But no. I am a Blue Flamingo and can not change either my blueness or my flamingo-ness. While I have no problem personally with Pink Elephants, it irks me that Semior Pink Elephant, while capable of interacting superficially politely in the course of getting work done, seems to despise the presence of Blue Flamingos and wish them to go away or at least not have to be bothered with their stink and feathers in the Pink Elephant Stable.
So, amyway ... I don't really have a purpose here other than to vent. I'm not going anywhere, and Pink Elephant isn't going anywhere. But the stableful of Pink Elephant interns is emptying out at the end of this month when they mostly all go back to school, and Senior Pink Elephant and I will probably have to intereact more then. And that will be annoying. Maybe Senior Pink Elephant will have gotten used to me by then????
Meh, I doubt it ... Right now, I just wish SPE, who is a loud talker and a hall walker, would STFU!!!
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Friday, August 3, 2012
Academic Accent?
At an event the other day, as people were chitchatting over coffee before the presentations began, somebody asks me: "Where are you from?"
Me, thinking ze is asking where I work: "Organization X."
Other Person: "No, I mean, I work with diplomats, and I'm good at picking up accents. I thought when you spoke I detected a bit of an accent. You're from here then?"
Me: "Huh???? Yeah. I am from here. Born and raised."
Other Person: "Oh, must be an academic accent then. I used to have one myself, but I lost it over the years. Haha!"
Me: "Yeah, I'm gonna go sit down now ... away from you. I think the presentations are about to start."
I walk away and sit down safely -- so I thought -- between two already occupied seats, but Other Person follows like a puppydog and sits right down in the row in front of me. Apparently ze wants to continue the conversation. The presentations have not started yet.
Other Person: "So, where was it you said you worked?"
Me: "Organization X, but I just started there a few weeks ago."
Other Person: "And where were you before that?"
Me, thinking Think Tank and New Think Tank might be liabilities too complicated to explain in this environment: "I was at Grad U, stupidly teaching my way through a PhD in English."
Other Person, overcome with delight at hir clever detective work: "I knew it! You really do have an academic accent!!"
I stared momentarily at Other Person in disbelief. Thankfully, finally, the event began, as the moderator stepped up to the podium and told everyone to shut up.
An academic accent?????!?! WTF is an academic accent!! Have any of you ever heard of such a thing?
Maybe it really is true: You can take the post-ac out of academe, but you can't take academe out of the post-ac.
Me, thinking ze is asking where I work: "Organization X."
Other Person: "No, I mean, I work with diplomats, and I'm good at picking up accents. I thought when you spoke I detected a bit of an accent. You're from here then?"
Me: "Huh???? Yeah. I am from here. Born and raised."
Other Person: "Oh, must be an academic accent then. I used to have one myself, but I lost it over the years. Haha!"
Me: "Yeah, I'm gonna go sit down now ... away from you. I think the presentations are about to start."
I walk away and sit down safely -- so I thought -- between two already occupied seats, but Other Person follows like a puppydog and sits right down in the row in front of me. Apparently ze wants to continue the conversation. The presentations have not started yet.
Other Person: "So, where was it you said you worked?"
Me: "Organization X, but I just started there a few weeks ago."
Other Person: "And where were you before that?"
Me, thinking Think Tank and New Think Tank might be liabilities too complicated to explain in this environment: "I was at Grad U, stupidly teaching my way through a PhD in English."
Other Person, overcome with delight at hir clever detective work: "I knew it! You really do have an academic accent!!"
I stared momentarily at Other Person in disbelief. Thankfully, finally, the event began, as the moderator stepped up to the podium and told everyone to shut up.
* * * * *
An academic accent?????!?! WTF is an academic accent!! Have any of you ever heard of such a thing?
Maybe it really is true: You can take the post-ac out of academe, but you can't take academe out of the post-ac.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Race, Gender, Class, Culture, and Climate Change
This study analyzing social and cultural obstacles to climate change found that among the "six Americas" (alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive), those people most dsimissive about addressing climate change because they are convinced either it doesn't exist or isn't a problem are most likely to be
It's also interesting that the group most likely to be "alarmed" about climate change is older, well-educated white women with higher than average household incomes, while lower income women of color are the most likely to be "disengaged" from the issue altogether. In other words, socioeconomically privileged women can afford to overlook the "dirty" sources of their status (e.g. the oil company executive husband) while personalizing the exploitation of the environment (recall, traditionally Nature = Woman). However, socioeconomically underprivileged women have more pressing priorities, like reliable jobs, healthcare, and childcare, and cannot necessarily afford to question -- no matter how valid the basis for their questions -- the status of the ruling class.
Shit. I may have just convinced myself to give up cheese.
Hmmmm. Fancy that! In other words, the group whose social, cultural, and economic dominance is most likely to be challenged by A) the environmental consequences of climate change and B) collective actions to mitigate those consequences is the group most resistant to the facts.high-income, well-educated, white men. They are also more likely to be very conservative Republicans who are civically active, hold strong religious beliefs and are the segment most likely to be evangelical Christian. They strongly endorse individualistic values and oppose most forms of government intervention.
It's also interesting that the group most likely to be "alarmed" about climate change is older, well-educated white women with higher than average household incomes, while lower income women of color are the most likely to be "disengaged" from the issue altogether. In other words, socioeconomically privileged women can afford to overlook the "dirty" sources of their status (e.g. the oil company executive husband) while personalizing the exploitation of the environment (recall, traditionally Nature = Woman). However, socioeconomically underprivileged women have more pressing priorities, like reliable jobs, healthcare, and childcare, and cannot necessarily afford to question -- no matter how valid the basis for their questions -- the status of the ruling class.
* * * * *
While the majority of Americans actually fit into the categories "concerned" or "cautious," rather than "dismissive," "disengaged," or "alarmed," I'm still pretty well convinced we're screwed.
Why? Because even poeple who are "concerned" enough to do things like bike to work and maintain a compost bin in the office kitchen are only willing to accept inconveniences they deem appropriate -- it's great having low-flush toilets, you know, as long as everyone still gets to eat factory farmed burgers for lunch.
* * * * *
Like I said. We're screwed.
 |
| Via |
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
RIP Sally Ride
I don't know about you, but I admired Sally Ride a lot when I was growing up. I was deep into middle school hell when she went up for her shuttle missions in 1983 and '84, and I thought it was just the coolest thing beyond this world that a woman was going into space, even though I didn't really think science per se was all that cool at the time. It was inspiring.
Here's an excerpt from an interview with her discussing the science education organization she founded later, after her time as an astronaut, which essentially took concrete action on all the things she herself represented:
Anyway, RIP Sally! You are an icon that people -- smart girls especially -- will look up to for many, many years to come!!
Here's an excerpt from an interview with her discussing the science education organization she founded later, after her time as an astronaut, which essentially took concrete action on all the things she herself represented:
Is it too ironic that the organization I now work for -- in fact, both my immediate supervisor, as well as the organization's president -- had been in contact with her just a few months ago? They talked with her about supporting our new program, about being involved in some way. Apparently, she was enthusiastic but not in good enough health to take an active role.ID: So you put a female face on science?
SR: That’s a good way to say it. We put a female face on math and science. We target both boys and girls, but we emphasize girls. We try to introduce them to female role models. Make the girls appreciate you can be a scientist and be a normal person.
ID: Discuss the intersection of science education and its intersection with innovation – does one beget the other?
SR: They absolutely go together. Basic science research, basic engineering are what lead to some of the innovations that propel the country. Look around, there’s a computer on every desk, everyone has a cell phone. iPods have taken over. That’s just in the consumer-electronics market. These things are part of our lives. We can’t imagine a world without them anymore. Some of our largest, most productive companies wouldn’t exist without a science engineering base – HP, Apple, Microsoft, Dell, the list is endless. This stuff is all around them. It’s in their pink Nanos. It’s in IM (instant messaging). It’s in their cell phones that can take pictures.
ID: What’s at stake should the nation lose its scientific standing?SR: We’ve always thought of ourselves as an innovative country that keeps at the forefront, a world leader for the last many many decades. We’ve always prided ourselves on innovation. In World War II, the Cold War, the race to the moon – our self-image is being a technologically superior country. Without the new generation having some background or ability to enter engineering or science, we risk losing that. It’s part of our identity. We’re pioneers. We’re innovators. And we’re not producing engineers and scientists in the numbers we need.
Anyway, RIP Sally! You are an icon that people -- smart girls especially -- will look up to for many, many years to come!!
Saturday, July 7, 2012
"We still believe in pirates. Do you?"
My last day as Operations Director of New Think Tank is this Friday, July 13. We held my farewell lunch yesterday, though, since New Think Tank President will be out of town most of next week.
At lunch, my successor asked what I would most miss most about leaving. Now, I am not a huge fan of such questions, reasonable as they may be. This falls in the same category of questions as "What is your favorite book?" Of course, you can always come up with some kind of answer, but it's always a bullshit answer. So, I gave a sort of bullshit answer that may perhaps have disappointed people who may have cared about what my answer was.
Becauses, of course, there are silly things I will miss (a desk in a former art gallery by a floor-to-ceiling window with an awesome view) and silly things I won't miss (taking out the trash). And I could, of course, add onto these lists ad infinitum, but what would that really tell you? Not much.
Instead, since they say a picture is worth a thousand words, I offer you one of the coolest pictures ever:
On the far left is New Think Tank President depicted as the pirate captain. On the far right with the red bandana is me. And on the bottom right with the glasses and beard is the person I've occasionally referred to here as "Other Colleague." The other three are directors of New Think Tank's offices in Ohio, Texas, and Florida.
The guy with the eye patch is -- ooooooooo! evill!!!! -- a former executive director of ALEC who has never been anything but polite, respectful, and an all-around cordial and colleagial person to work with, which is pretty much what I can say about EVERYBODY at New Think Tank and, sadly, a lot more than I can say about more than a few people I knew in academe. While some of my liberal friends (who have often wondered how I could "stand" to work where I did for as long as I have -- WTF people!??!!?) might cringe to hear me say it, I'd rather work with nice people who vote differently than I do than asshats who claim to share my politics but hypocritically reinforce an exploitative and destructive class system in their own workplaces and profession.
(Ahem ... Yes, Academe, you and some of your loyalest servants still piss me off.)
Pirates are sort of a theme around here. I won't go into details, but, suffice it to say, I like working in a place where, unlike in academe's lower ranks, you get to make up your own rules, chart your own course, and keep the treasure you acquire along the way.
That piratical spirit, shared by all of my New Think Tank colleagues, is what I'll miss most when I leave.
But, fortunately, I don't think I'll be entirely leaving it behind. If you look closely at the picture, notice the text at the very bottom. You might have to enlarge your screen to see it, but it's an inside joke of sorts. If you figured out what the Great Scandal of May 2012 was about, you'll get the joke. Even if you didn't and don't, appreciating the spirit of it is enough. The text says, "We still believe in pirates. Do you?"
My answer: Yes, friends, always and forever! Once a pirate always a pirate!! And the best adventures, for me and for you, are yet to come!!!
Thursday, June 21, 2012
My Successor Hired
In case you were all waiting on pins and needles ...
After a great response (though, alas, from very few post-academics) to our ad, we narrowed it down to five we wanted to interview in person. We interviewed them this past Monday and Tuesday. Of the five, three turned out to be not quite as good in person as they seemed on paper and on the phone (alas, among these was the only post-ac who made it to the interview stage), and two were really great. Between those two, it was a difficult decision because they had acquired their qualifications in very different environments, brought different "enhancements" to the position that went above and beyond the requirements (e.g. firsthand experience running a small business vs. outstanding MS Office proficiency and industry knowledge), and had extremely different personalities. Ultimately, it came down to who New Think Tank President and Other Colleague felt they could best deal with personality-wise on a day-to-day basis. Even then, it was a tie, and even though I am leaving and won't have to deal with this person on a day-to-day basis, I ended up weighing in to break the tie.
Perhaps fittingly, the person who will replace me as New Think Tank Operations Director spent exactly the same seven years (2003-2010) I spent working on my PhD owning and operating hir own independent bookstore. Like many independent bookstores, hir business suffered a lot first from the increasing sales of online retailers like Amazon and then from the explosive popularity of e-readers. Despite heroic efforts, ze had to close the store and move on. Similar market forces to the supply/demand problem for academic labor? Maybe ... but, no, not really. In book sales, consumers ultimately did express preferences for the ways they wanted to browse, buy, and read books. Suppliers either adjusted to meet their demands or went (sadly, since I do still love bookstores) out of business. Contrastingly, in academe the same parties control both supply (graduate students entering the profession) and demand (number of crappy contingent positions vs. decent tenure-track ones). In book retail, the market kinda sorta works, but in academe, the "market" (why do we still call it that?) really is broken ...
But I digress.
Some general (and maybe more specific) things about being on the other side of the hiring process that struck me:
A lot of people are looking for work. Seriously, I don't know if this is the norm or not, but we got way too many applications. Well over 100, I'd say, within barely a week of posting the ad. For an admin job.
A great many of these were from people who were probably applying for every single similar job, of which (fortunately for those people), there are plenty. However, many of them simply did not qualify for New Think Tank Operations Director for any number of reasons. For starters, we said we wanted someone smart and described what we meant by that. On this qualification, misnaming a school you attended doesn't help your credibility -- especially when the person reading your application, whose job you would be taking over, happened to teach at that very same school WHILE YOU WERE GOING THERE! If you learned nothing else, one would hope you would at least have learned the NAME of the school you went to. What would happen if you were editing a press release at New Think Tank and misnamed the organization you were working for? And I'm talking misnaming, too, not merely misspelling, although we had plenty of applications with spelling and basic grammar errors, too.
Then there were the etiquette errors. In 2012, does anyone ever still address a cover letter to "Miss" anybody? Yes, apparently, and it sends their application straight to the trash. I'm not asking for "Dr." It's not appropriate in a lot of nonacademic situations and I certainly don't require it, although addressing me that way would have been one way to show you had at least visited New Think Tank's website (and quite a few people had). But, "Miss"? Please. Maybe you are from another country where that's appropriate -- I don't know -- but your resume indicates you went to an American university and an American law school (yes, we did get several applications from law school graduates, some who had actually had practiced law -- but apparently the job market's not great for them, either). AND you're not so old that you grew up when "Miss" was still commonplace ... It's "Ms.," OK? You have no idea whether I'm married or not. Okay??? Do you get why??????
OK, enough about the crappy applications. After eliminating those, we were left with about roughly 20% that could have taken the job and done at least reasonably well at it. How to narrow it down? You have to look at more than simply base qualifications at this point, especially given that for this type of job one could acquire those qualifications in any number of different ways. And those ways themselves become important in what they tell you about a person -- about their interests, their work ethic, whether they are pushed from one job to another (not so good) or pulled from job to job (good).
Several post-acs made it to this stage, and New Think Tank President did phone interviews with at least three of them. What differentiated the one who made it to the in-person interview from the other two? Hard to say since I didn't talk with them myself. One simply rubbed New Think Tank President "the wrong way," ze said. The other, although a PhD from one of the top schools in the country, New Think Tank President felt didn't have enough "real world" work experience to comfortably assume the responsibilities of the position, which include managing the expenses for what we expect to be an annual operating budget of close to a million dollars. While someone who had no other paid work experience besides part-time teaching certainly could do this job, the issue of work experience turned out to be a deciding factor. The post-ac we brought in for the in-person had lots of teaching experience but also experience as a bank teller and a few years of almost full-time experience as an assistant retail store manager.
It also shouldn't go without noting how damning it is of academe and its job "market" that A) somebody with a PhD from an Ivy was even applying for this job and B) they didn't make the in-person interview cut largely because they lacked the "real world" experience academe especially discourages its most "promising" graduate students from "wasting their time" acquiring. But I digress ...
What is it about this type of experience that tips the scale? I guess it says something about a person's ability to do a job for money rather than love and/or its potential to advance their academic career and yet to nonetheless take the responsibilities of that job seriously. Also, references from nonacademic employers can answer questions academic references can't, and these answers turned out also to be important in lots of ways -- for example, explaining why someone got promoted from sales associate to assistant manager tells us more about someone's day-to-day work ethic and style of interacting with coworkers, supervisors, supervisees, and the public than does an adviser's explanation of why someone's dissertation is good.
So anyway, this post is way too long already. At the in-person interviews, we narrowed it down to the former bookstore owner and somebody who is currently working as an operations manager in another city but is relocating to Crapitol City to work on a professional master's degree part-time at Grad U. Of the three we rejected outright, one appeared much less experienced and capable in person than ze did on paper, another said negative things about a supervisor (who actually gave hir a very good reference) which reflected badly on hir as an employee and coworker, and the third seemed uninterested in the interview or the work of New Think Tank (sardonically critical would have been more acceptable because it would have demonstrated intelligent engagement). Also, all three of these people got some general, are-you-in-touch-with-the-world questions wrong, like "Who is the current attorney general?"
Ultimately, Former Bookstore Owner got the job because ze seemed the most quirky, creative, resourceful, open-minded, adaptable, independent, and self-confident. Those are the qualities the person taking this job needs in addition to the basic qualifications in order to get along with others at New Think Tank, contribute to its culture, and help it grow.
Anybody want to throw any questions my way about nonacademic hiring processes that seem mysterious to you?
After a great response (though, alas, from very few post-academics) to our ad, we narrowed it down to five we wanted to interview in person. We interviewed them this past Monday and Tuesday. Of the five, three turned out to be not quite as good in person as they seemed on paper and on the phone (alas, among these was the only post-ac who made it to the interview stage), and two were really great. Between those two, it was a difficult decision because they had acquired their qualifications in very different environments, brought different "enhancements" to the position that went above and beyond the requirements (e.g. firsthand experience running a small business vs. outstanding MS Office proficiency and industry knowledge), and had extremely different personalities. Ultimately, it came down to who New Think Tank President and Other Colleague felt they could best deal with personality-wise on a day-to-day basis. Even then, it was a tie, and even though I am leaving and won't have to deal with this person on a day-to-day basis, I ended up weighing in to break the tie.
Perhaps fittingly, the person who will replace me as New Think Tank Operations Director spent exactly the same seven years (2003-2010) I spent working on my PhD owning and operating hir own independent bookstore. Like many independent bookstores, hir business suffered a lot first from the increasing sales of online retailers like Amazon and then from the explosive popularity of e-readers. Despite heroic efforts, ze had to close the store and move on. Similar market forces to the supply/demand problem for academic labor? Maybe ... but, no, not really. In book sales, consumers ultimately did express preferences for the ways they wanted to browse, buy, and read books. Suppliers either adjusted to meet their demands or went (sadly, since I do still love bookstores) out of business. Contrastingly, in academe the same parties control both supply (graduate students entering the profession) and demand (number of crappy contingent positions vs. decent tenure-track ones). In book retail, the market kinda sorta works, but in academe, the "market" (why do we still call it that?) really is broken ...
But I digress.
Some general (and maybe more specific) things about being on the other side of the hiring process that struck me:
A lot of people are looking for work. Seriously, I don't know if this is the norm or not, but we got way too many applications. Well over 100, I'd say, within barely a week of posting the ad. For an admin job.
A great many of these were from people who were probably applying for every single similar job, of which (fortunately for those people), there are plenty. However, many of them simply did not qualify for New Think Tank Operations Director for any number of reasons. For starters, we said we wanted someone smart and described what we meant by that. On this qualification, misnaming a school you attended doesn't help your credibility -- especially when the person reading your application, whose job you would be taking over, happened to teach at that very same school WHILE YOU WERE GOING THERE! If you learned nothing else, one would hope you would at least have learned the NAME of the school you went to. What would happen if you were editing a press release at New Think Tank and misnamed the organization you were working for? And I'm talking misnaming, too, not merely misspelling, although we had plenty of applications with spelling and basic grammar errors, too.
Then there were the etiquette errors. In 2012, does anyone ever still address a cover letter to "Miss" anybody? Yes, apparently, and it sends their application straight to the trash. I'm not asking for "Dr." It's not appropriate in a lot of nonacademic situations and I certainly don't require it, although addressing me that way would have been one way to show you had at least visited New Think Tank's website (and quite a few people had). But, "Miss"? Please. Maybe you are from another country where that's appropriate -- I don't know -- but your resume indicates you went to an American university and an American law school (yes, we did get several applications from law school graduates, some who had actually had practiced law -- but apparently the job market's not great for them, either). AND you're not so old that you grew up when "Miss" was still commonplace ... It's "Ms.," OK? You have no idea whether I'm married or not. Okay??? Do you get why??????
OK, enough about the crappy applications. After eliminating those, we were left with about roughly 20% that could have taken the job and done at least reasonably well at it. How to narrow it down? You have to look at more than simply base qualifications at this point, especially given that for this type of job one could acquire those qualifications in any number of different ways. And those ways themselves become important in what they tell you about a person -- about their interests, their work ethic, whether they are pushed from one job to another (not so good) or pulled from job to job (good).
Several post-acs made it to this stage, and New Think Tank President did phone interviews with at least three of them. What differentiated the one who made it to the in-person interview from the other two? Hard to say since I didn't talk with them myself. One simply rubbed New Think Tank President "the wrong way," ze said. The other, although a PhD from one of the top schools in the country, New Think Tank President felt didn't have enough "real world" work experience to comfortably assume the responsibilities of the position, which include managing the expenses for what we expect to be an annual operating budget of close to a million dollars. While someone who had no other paid work experience besides part-time teaching certainly could do this job, the issue of work experience turned out to be a deciding factor. The post-ac we brought in for the in-person had lots of teaching experience but also experience as a bank teller and a few years of almost full-time experience as an assistant retail store manager.
It also shouldn't go without noting how damning it is of academe and its job "market" that A) somebody with a PhD from an Ivy was even applying for this job and B) they didn't make the in-person interview cut largely because they lacked the "real world" experience academe especially discourages its most "promising" graduate students from "wasting their time" acquiring. But I digress ...
What is it about this type of experience that tips the scale? I guess it says something about a person's ability to do a job for money rather than love and/or its potential to advance their academic career and yet to nonetheless take the responsibilities of that job seriously. Also, references from nonacademic employers can answer questions academic references can't, and these answers turned out also to be important in lots of ways -- for example, explaining why someone got promoted from sales associate to assistant manager tells us more about someone's day-to-day work ethic and style of interacting with coworkers, supervisors, supervisees, and the public than does an adviser's explanation of why someone's dissertation is good.
So anyway, this post is way too long already. At the in-person interviews, we narrowed it down to the former bookstore owner and somebody who is currently working as an operations manager in another city but is relocating to Crapitol City to work on a professional master's degree part-time at Grad U. Of the three we rejected outright, one appeared much less experienced and capable in person than ze did on paper, another said negative things about a supervisor (who actually gave hir a very good reference) which reflected badly on hir as an employee and coworker, and the third seemed uninterested in the interview or the work of New Think Tank (sardonically critical would have been more acceptable because it would have demonstrated intelligent engagement). Also, all three of these people got some general, are-you-in-touch-with-the-world questions wrong, like "Who is the current attorney general?"
Ultimately, Former Bookstore Owner got the job because ze seemed the most quirky, creative, resourceful, open-minded, adaptable, independent, and self-confident. Those are the qualities the person taking this job needs in addition to the basic qualifications in order to get along with others at New Think Tank, contribute to its culture, and help it grow.
Anybody want to throw any questions my way about nonacademic hiring processes that seem mysterious to you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)