How To Ask The Right Questions In Assessing An Academic Job Offer

How To Ask The Right Questions In Assessing An Academic Job Offer Author: KARL W. LANKS Editor's Note: In the recently published second edition of Academic Environment: A Handbook for Evaluating Employment Opportunities in Science (Washington, D.C., Taylor & Francis, 1995), author Karl W. Lanks provides a detailed system for assessing the atmosphere, working conditions, and productivity of various types of research environments. In the following sometimes acerbic excerpt, Lanks-head of the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at Staten Island University Hospital-describes important steps in evaluating a particular job offer. Much of the latter part of the book is devoted to rankings of specific institutions, based on his survey of more than 1,500 faculty and professional staff. The first edition of Academic Environment was self-published by the author and yet was able to sell more than 6,000 copies as word of its usefulness spread on Internet newsgroups. The relief and excitement afforded by a firm employment offer after at least 15 years of preparation account for the reluctance of many young scholars and scientists to examine the details critically. They are simply afraid that probing too deeply will ruin the deal and leave them without a job. So, perhaps some excessively cynical overkill is needed at this point to set the tone for the discussion to follow. Naturally, once you are the recipient of such an offer, you want to assume that you were offered the position because you were the most meritorious candidate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At best, you are the cheapest of several alternatives. Why is recruiting not being done at a higher level, say, full professor? Of course, cost is a factor; any competent department chairperson or director will seek to satisfy institutional requirements with the smallest possible outlay. At worst, you are seen as a potential sucker who might fall for a deal that no one will accept. Intermediate possibilities are also distasteful-but you get the picture. How then to reconcile the euphoria of what should be a genuinely happy event with the necessity for critical evaluation of the offer? The answer is to investigate the chairperson, the department, and the institution. KNOW YOUR BOSSES: Author Karl W. Lanks says that academic departmental chairpersons come in four basic types: Altruistic, Parasite, Egoist, and Survivor. Typing The Chairperson No job offer (or any other statement, for that matter) can be fully understood and properly weighed unless the motivation behind it is also known. Chairpersons come in innumerable styles, but only a few sources of motivation are strong enough to induce anyone to take such a thankless job. These are altruism, greed, ego, and survival instinct: Corresponding chairperson types are Altruist, Parasite, Egoist, and Survivor. A leader motivated by one or another of these drives can affect departmental atmosphere and staff career development so strongly that this individual's personality must be considered part of the offer package. Most of the following discussion is devoted to identifying the latter three types, not because they are necessarily the most common, but because their potential for damage is so great. Altruists exist and some devote their lives to building strong academic departments and industrial research organizations in which faculty or professional staff who measure up to their standards can flourish. The general atmosphere can be highly positive with superb opportunities for career development. On the other hand, individuals with psychosocial problems that interfere with personal relations or intellectual inadequacies that limit their productivity will not last long in such departments. Given the wide range of standards (only 5 percent of departments can be in the top 5 percent) and the alternatives described here, this sort of department approaches the ideal. In the process of identifying the Altruist, it is essential that the other three types be eliminated. Although not sufficient for identification, it also helps to note that the department under an Altruist will probably be very good, given the available resources, with clearly stated objectives for future development that are consistent with general trends in the field. The track record will indicate sustained and substantial contribution in a specific area of expertise and proven ability to develop the careers of subordinates. The Rest Of The Field Chairs, especially clinical chairs, carry a higher salary than professorships, and no one expects the occupants to donate the difference to charity. However, leaders motivated predominantly by greed use their position primarily for personal aggrandizement-hence the designation Parasite. Parasitism is also manifest when most of the departmental resources are appropriated to support the chairperson's laboratory, even though personal wealth is not involved. You can flourish in this environment by being a "good" worker, that is, by bringing in more practice or grant income or by making the lab more productive. Don't expect to get most of the credit, but if your share is negotiable this may not be too bad an arrangement. After you pay your dues and become independent, you can always leave. What better way to shore up the Egoist's tottering sense of personal worth than by taking an academic chair? Title is of primary importance; prestige and reputation of the department are secondary. If the individuals are intelligent and competent, only insecure, they may be indistinguishable from Altruists, and their thoughts are their own business. However, if insecurity has driven them beyond their abilities, then challenges to intellect and administrative skill can be met only with arrogance and aggression. Concerns that should be kept between them and their psychiatrists become everyone s, as well. Egoists cannot allow subordinates to flourish, because the success of others is implicitly threatening. However, you can exist in this sort of environment and even get promoted by submerging your own ego, minimizing any outward appearance of success, avoiding all conflict, and using flattery so blatant that it would be disgusting to anyone else. Observation is the key to recognizing the Egoist. Are people in the lab treated like servants or put down in your presence? Do staff display initiative in the presence of this person? Are entrances, particularly at first meeting, intentionally dramatic? Finally, there are the entirely incompetent individuals who realize that they can best survive by becoming the boss. Lacking a high level of intelligence or technical skill, the Survivor can achieve this goal only through deceit, treachery, and Machiavellian plotting. Survivors are typically quite articulate, using this skill to magnify their trivial contributions. In order to prosper with this type, you have two choices: lick 'em, or join 'em. Considering that they are not highly intelligent, it is possible to rely on the overwhelming weight of your accomplishments to provide a continuing level of intimidation and to simply outsmart them as specific situations arise. However, this diverts physical and emotional energy that could be put to more productive use and creates enough tension to increase the risk of ulcer or heart disease. Perhaps their lack of scruples makes them indispensable as accomplices. It may work for now, but remember what happened to Dr. Faustus. The Survivor can be recognized by getting a print-out of all publications during the 20 years before he or she became a chairperson and crossing out the case reports, abstracts, courtesy citations, reviews, and other miscellany. Does the remainder show a period of 10 consecutive years with one or two major papers per year in highly respected journals? If not, then how did this person come to occupy the chair? Most likely by virtue of the "survival skills" mentioned previously. Gathering Information Besides relying on your own instant-recognition skills, there is a cardinal principle to which anyone investigating a chairperson must adhere. You must speak to as many potential informants as possible. Absolutely never limit your source of information to the handpicked cronies to whom you are introduced at the initial interviews. Your potential information sources include all departmental faculty and professional staff, former fellows and students, and colleagues formerly at the institution. Ask open-ended questions such as, "What do you think working in this department will be like?" and don't expect any directly negative answers. Look for what is left unsaid. Speak to every member of the department, especially those who were on board before the present chairperson. Former students probably know the boss better than anyone and are usually overlooked as a source of information. If former colleagues have little good to say, then you can bet that you won't either after a few years. Having completed this stage of the evaluation, you are now in a position to decide whether this offer might be acceptable to you. Perhaps no offer made by this particular chairperson would be acceptable, and negotiations can be aborted at an early stage. If the offer still seems to hold potential, then widening the scope of your investigation is in order. Evaluating The Department The makeup of the rest of the department makes less difference than is generally supposed. In attempting to achieve breadth in a field, most academic departments end up with faculty specialized in such widely divergent areas that they are more likely to find collaborators, and therefore their day-to-day contacts, in a different department or institution than in their own. Even relations among individuals and groups of faculty depend largely on the personality at the top. A Survivor type will set individuals and groups against each other to discourage unity and cooperation, whereas other, less-destructive types will use a variety of tactics to avoid internal conflict. The really important questions have to do with the adequacy of shared resources and the mechanisms by which they are allocated. For example, if four strong faculty are already competing for two graduate students, your chance of getting one is probably nil. In general, the more closely the system approaches a participatory democracy-that is, the greater the faculty input into departmental administration-the better the work atmosphere. This probably reflects both the ability of better chairpersons to delegate authority and the salutary effects of determining one's own fate. If you are a woman, a homosexual, or a member of a racial, religious, or ethnic minority, checking into the department's history of dealing with your group is essential. Of course, you will have spoken to anyone who is currently there, but they may be reluctant to tell the whole truth for fear of driving you away and losing a fellow sufferer. Former department members are more useful. Institutional cultures have a long half-life, so anyone with your characteristics who has left within the last 20 years should be contacted. Go to the library and look up some old school catalogs: You might be surprised who has been through the place. This might be a good opportunity to get in touch with them, and you can be sure that they will be anxious to relate any relevant horror stories. Even though new staff are not likely to interact frequently with the president or with chairpersons of other departments, several aspects of the larger organization also need to be considered. Potential collaborators should be identified and contacted. Faculty at institutions having highly positive effects on career development rank the availability of collaborators among the most important factors. Of course, this process also provides an excuse for talking to a few staff from outside the department about the conditions on the inside. The final reason for considering the supradepartmental administration has to do with the process by which administrators are "cloned." Deans and presidents choose chairpersons with whom they are comfortable and who fit into the organizational pattern. Unless they make a mistake, the attitudes of all their appointees will be similar, and the institution will acquire a characteristic atmosphere. Therefore, unless the institution has recently undergone a radical reorganization, you can reason from the general to the specific and deduce the atmosphere of your department from that of the institution as a whole. If this approach is not valid for your specific department, then it is up to someone to explain with some precision how this department has come to isolate itself from the rest of the institution. Karl W. Lanks is director of the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at Staten Island University Hospital. Know Your Bosses: Author Karl W. Lanks says that academic departmental chairpersons come in four basic types: Altruist, Parasite, Egoist, and Survivor. From Academic Environment: A Handbook for Evaluating Employment Opportunities in Science, 2d ed., by Karl W. Lanks (Washington, D.C., Taylor & Francis, 1995). Re-printed by permission. For information on availability, contact Taylor & Francis at (800) 821-8312. Fax: (215) 785-5515.

How To Ask The Right Questions In Assessing An Academic Job Offer

How To Ask The Right Questions In Assessing An Academic Job Offer

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of