The Philosophers' Cocoon

I had a conversation recently with a friend who served on their first search committee. One of the things they said they found most surprising about the experience–and which they never would have really thought much about as a job-candidate–is the role that 'horse-trading' can play.

This person said that as a candidate, one sort of imagines that search committees sit down, agreeing who the best candidates are, developing a coherent rank-order of candidates, and then interviewing them. However, the reality is quite different. Typically, what happens is that each person on the committee develops their own ranking of candidates. Then the committee gets together to share and discuss their rankings, and what often occurs is something like this:

Candidates A and B are near the top of everyone's list.

Candidates C and D are at the top of some people's list, but far down other people's.

Candidate E is at the top of one person's list (who feels very strongly about them), but far down everyone else's list.

The same search committee member is ambivalent about C, but strongly opposed to D.

This actually simplifies a great deal. Things can be much more complicated than this. Indeed, in some cases there may be no candidates at the top of everyone's list. But let's stay with this simple example. What will tend to happen in this sort of case?

The short story is, candidates A and B will probably be selected for interviews as the Clear Frontrunners. Because everyone on the committee had them highly ranked, these Frontrunners will probably have a decided advantage throughout the interview process: they may basically have to not royally "screw up" their interview in order to get a fly-out – though, as I will note below, a truly spectacular interview by another candidate can make a difference.

What about candidates C and D? Given that a majority of (but not all) committee members have them at the top of their list, will C and D both be interviewed? It is likely, especially if the committee utilizes a majority vote. But it doesn't follow necessarily. There are many ways things may go here that could result in C or D not being interviewed, and E being interviewed instead (even though only one committee member likes E). First, the search committee member strongly opposed to D may be really adamant about not interviewing them–and they may have some power in the committee (viz. seniority, etc.). Second, they committee may not approach decisions in a majoritarian manner, but instead want to ensure that every member of the committee gets to interview someone they really like (and since a good number of people on the committee are ambivalent about C and D, they may interview E instead of one of them so that the member who really wants E is satisfied with the interview list). Alternatively, the person who really doesn't like D may try to drive a hard bargain, saying they would be fine interviewing D on the condition that the committee interviews E as well (even though they are the only one who wants to interview E). Fourth, further discussion may lead other members of the search committee to decide that C and D are too much alike as candidates (similar teaching styles, etc.), and it might be good to interview E to see a different kind of candidate. Etc. You see how it is: when there are candidates committees disagree over, things can go any which way.

Consequently, as awful as this might admittedly sound, we might call candidates like C and D the Tradeables – as they are candidates who some search committee members favor, but who different committee members may be willing to "bargain over" for various reasons. Finally, we might call candidates like E the Dark Horse, as they may have minority support on the committee but the person(s) who supports them feels very strongly about them and may be willing to fight for them. There are probably more categories than this–and I would very much invite people who have served on search committees to share more examples of how bargaining occurs–but you get the gist. This can happen not only at the first-round interview stage, but also in decisions about who to fly out. If candidates C, D, and E all perform unexpectedly well during interviews (and Frontrunners A and B unexpectedly poorly), there can once again be a complicated process determining who to have to have to campus: the person who favored Dark Horse E the whole time may once again suggest that C and D are so similar that it would be better to have E to campus as a clearer contrast (viz. C and D have a similar teaching style, but E has a very different style, and they'd like to see how E's works with their students). 

Why is it important to know about all this as a candidate? It might seem unfair and as though there's nothing one can really do about it. But there are several reasons why I think it's important to be aware of it. 

First, I think it's important in terms of combating the (entirely natural) sense that if you don't get interviewed or get a fly-out, people on the committee didn't like you or want to interview you. That can be far from the truth. There might have well been some people on the committee who though you were great, but bargaining got in the way. This may be unfortunate, but on the whole I suspect things even out on the job-market as a whole (if you're "bargained away" for one job, you may well be "bargained for" at another).

Second, I think understanding horsetrading can help understand interview results. Sometimes, you may have what you think is a great interview but not get a fly-out. Why? The answer may be because there were Clear Frontrunners who had to basically not totally blow their first-round interview, and there's not much you could have done in the interview to beat them out (as the entire committee may feel very strongly that they are the best candidates). Conversely, sometimes you may even have a bad interview and still get a flyout. Why? It could be for a number of reasons. It could be because both of the Clear Frontrunners had disastrous interviews (this can happen!). Or it could be because you were the Clear Frontrunner, and the committee is willing to look past a subpar interview on the basis of your file (though I would note here: truly disastrous interviews will almost certainly disqualify you from getting flown out).

Third, however–and candidates should take solace in this–I've seen Clear Frontrunners be overtaken and Tradeable/Dark Horse candidates get hired. How does this happen? Answer: by one or more Clear Frontrunners really tanking the interview, and/or some other candidate absolutely blowing the committee away. Although I've expressed skepticism about the value of interviews, in practice they matter a great deal. So, I'd say, really put a great deal of time into preparing for interviews. Although sometimes you may not be able to beat out a Clear Frontrunner, in other cases you may very well. I'll say more in a post soon-to-come about what sorts of things are good/bad in interviews.