In our ongoing discussion of whether job-candidates should have professional websites, a reader ('designer') wrote:
My issue is that people's webpages are often quite unprofessional. They often have a lot of nonsense on them. Some people, for example, post a lot of pictures of themselves milling about at conferences with famous philosophers. Or they post pictures of themselves on holidays in exotic places. Of course, one can post what one wants to, but it is no longer a professional webpage.
Several readers responded to this comment. Francois wrote:
I have a photo of my cat on my website, just so the impression I give off is a *little* lighthearted rather than totally stodgy. Is this objectionably unprofessional?
Then 'R' wrote:
For what it's worth, to me it still seems quite unfair, if not a bit mean, to judge people for having a personal website. Most of us are not professional designers and at least during graduate school cannot afford to pay a professional designer for our website, but as the OP indicates there is some pressure to have a personal website. I would (still) recommend to cranky and designer that they avoid personal websites rather than holding it against candidates that they have one.
Finally, an anonymous postdoc wrote:
It's less off-putting than standard personal websites, which always gives me a narcissistic vibe. However, I come from a less individualistic and assertive culture than the US, so I might be unrepresentative of how most academics think…
I try hard to stop a personal website being a negative in assessing candidates, but it's definitely not a positive for me. I'm sure that, for others, it's the other way around.
This conversation raises a bunch of important issues in my mind. First, do personal/professional websites come off poorly or narcissistic to most people? I have no idea, and I'm really curious to hear what readers think. I will say that I've come across some that came across that way to me, but that most of the websites that I've come across don't bother me at all. Am I an outlier? Second, given that different people can respond very differently to websites (some very negatively like 'designer', some more positively), what should candidates do? Here are a few quick thoughts…
My father once told me long ago a child, "You'll never make everyone happy." This is of course just a version of the common saying, "You can't please everyone." There's real wisdom in it, I think. It's often stunning to me the things that some people will take issue with, and just how wildly divergent people's judgments can be on just about every issue imaginable–including on search committees. My experience is that if you ever sit on a search committee, chances are you'll find yourself in a position where you have very strong feelings about aspects of a particular candidate, and someone on the search committee will feel exactly the opposite. How are these disagreements resolved? Answer: through a vote. That person may feel strongly. However, if they are outvoted by others on the committee, then that's just how it goes. What does this mean for job candidates? It means you can't please everyone. So then what should you do? Well, let's turn to some examples.
Francois wrote that he has a picture of his cat on his website. This might rub 'designer' the wrong way. But guess what? There are a lot a people who love cats in this world. Funny cat videos are, for example, are evidently one of the more popular things on YouTube. So, you may very well have a cat lover on a search committee, and they may look at your website. Will having a picture of your cat on there make the difference in terms of whether you are interviewed or hired? Probably not – but it may well give them a warm feeling inside about you, and if you have a campus visit, who knows? Maybe they'll mention your cat, and you'll have funny conversation about your cats. That can't hurt, right? In my experience, campus visits are equal parts getting a handle of a person's professional competencies, but also how well members of the department 'gel' on a personal level. If you have a good rapport, that has to help, I think–and that's where personal things in common can help. Or, to take another example, I know someone who posts videos of her past bands' music on her professional website. I spent most of my adult life (including during graduate school) as a semi-professional musician, playing and recording in various bands. Suppose I come across a candidate that I really like–as a teacher and researcher, etc.–and I come across their website, finding out there that they're into music and played cool stuff. Could that make a positive difference with me on a subconscious level? Surely, and again, it could lead to a conversation later on a campus visit. That conversation might even be directly relevant to work. I might find out that they're interested in creating a course on philosophy and music, or whatnot. Finally, there's a lot of empirical research that people tend to make decisions on affective/emotional grounds, and that people tend to implicitly prefer people 'like them' (for better or, in some obvious cases, worse).
The point then is this: when it comes to search committees, there are people like 'designer' out there–who find stuff like this on websites annoying or 'unprofessional'–and then there are cat lovers or musicians like me who find personal stuff like this potentially interesting. Given that you never know who will be on a search committee, what should you do? Well, again, you can't please everyone. So, what should you do? One of the more common job-market strategies (or so I've gathered over the years) is to 'play it conservative', trying to avoid doing anything that could look remotely 'less than professional.' But I think there are real risks to such a strategy: playing things conservatively runs a risk of making you look anodyne, that is, it runs the risk of you failing to stand out in any way whatsoever. There's another risk, too: you could end up hired by a department of stodgy people who expect you to repress everything personal about yourself in the workplace–which can really stink if you're the kind of person who doesn't like to repress those features of yourself. The more ideal thing, if you're this kind of person, is to find yourself hired by a department that welcomes people like you. So, since you can't please everyone, what should you do? I don't think there's a simple answer. Remember, your task as a job candidate is not to impress as many search committees as possible. Your task is to impress enough voting members of one search committee enough that they want to hire you. Some search committees may be dominated by people like 'designer.' But other search committees might have cat people and musicians. So, I say, decide what kind of candidate you want to be–conservative or cat-person/musician–and roll with it. The job market's a crapshoot anyway.
But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?
Leave a Reply