There have been several good threads on this list about job postings.
Here's an excellent analysis, posted to the American Evaluation Association
list
     Linda Wilson                    Visitor Studies and Evaluation
     Shedd Aquarium                  1200 S. Lake Shore Drive
     Chicago, IL 60605


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 2:29 PM
> Subject:      Re: Job announcements on EVALTALK
>
> From: Michael Scriven (longish: 6 screens)
>
> We're seeing an increasing number of job announcements on EVALTALK, and
> I'm
> being asked to post them more often. On the whole, that seems a good
> thing,
> since the headings are clear enough and the posts are not very long, so
> people who aren't looking for jobs can, if they wish, skip them easily;
> let
> me know if I'm misreading this.
>
> However, it seems to me that these announcements are in some need of
> improvement, and I thought it might be worth raising ten quick points
> about
> them for discussion. Many of you can influence the way jobs are advertised
> and others are in the market, so there could be benefits for you from this
> discussion; but also, I hope this involvement will mean that you have
> thoughts about this topic and will chime in (or email me directly, for
> confidentiality). I teach personnel evaluation in a HR (human resources)
> department and hence I want to get the best suggestions I can in order to
> do
> a better job teaching this topic. The evaluation of job ads is a long
> overdue
> sub-species of evaluation (the same is true for RFPs).
>
> I'll begin with some soft questions aimed at the ad-writer, and move on to
> the hard line comments.
>
> 1a. It's common for there to be no mention of salary, or else for there to
> be
> use of the phrase "competitive salary". In the field of evaluation, people
> move around between very different contexts e.g., academic to state
> agencies
> to high-tech start-ups. Are you sure they have any idea of what you
> consider
> competitive? You may lose people who won't apply, thinking you're paying
> much
> less than you are. Why not indicate a range, and that you might in special
> circumstances move beyond this range? Are you afraid this will encourage
> higher salary requests than otherwise? Don't you have the ability to
> negotiate hard? Look at your matrix of type 1/type 2 errors; if the best
> people you could get don't apply, you traded caginess for good staff.
> Being
> cagy here may not be as smart at all.
> 1b. Same line of thought for fringe benefits including, most importantly,
> vacations, child care, and medical insurance. Even saying they are 'good'
> is
> a lot better than nothing.
>
> 2. No mention of the length of the initial appointment, or of the standard
> renewal options. Is this 30 days? A year? Each of these periods is
> standard
> practice in some organizations; which kind are you? You lose some
> applicants
> every time you don't answer these questions in the ad; they don't want to
> have to call to get the answers, not because of the slight trouble that it
> takes, but because of a deep reflex born out of a sense of not wanting to
> avoid 'getting involved' with salespeople, which includes giving their
> name
> to a recuiter.
>
> 3. No mention of the time the organization has been around and/or the
> length
> of the contracts that it is running.  How soft is the soft funding? Is
> this a
> new start-up running on hope? Sure, you'll tell them if they're "really
> interested": the question is whether you want to talk only to people who
> are
> desperate.
>
> 4. No mention of whether the appointment is basically of the nine, ten,
> eleven, 11.5, or twelve month species. Each of these is the standard
> practice
> for a hundred or more of your EVALTALK readers. You want them to guess?
> And
> not apply if they guess wrong?
>
> 5. The duties. This list is often pretty good, but some of the gaps are
> pretty big. For example, if it's a supervisory job, there's never any
> mention
> of how many people are to be supervised, even roughly. Isn't this
> something
> that bears on the kind of applicant you'll get? Some people don't mind
> supervision of a small number, say 3 to 7 but won't touch 15 or 20. Sure,
> the
> number will change: say so and even whether there are limits before you
> add
> or subtract a supervisor.
>
> 6. The criteria of merit. Not the same as the duties that are normally
> listed. Is creative problem-solving a highly regarded ability? What about
> developing good procedural manuals in order to routinize quality work?
> Replacing supervision with small group training sessions? Quality
> enhancement? Reflective professional practice? You think this is all
> obvious?
> Bet you have not done a trial of the ad against your own staff reactions
> to
> it (given anonymously but with rewards for best suggestions - use proxies
> to
> combine these)? The results will surprise you: you are likely to find you
> aren't (or are not seen as) rewarding or even identifying these qualities.
>
> 7. You could not have - or didn't want to - put all this stuff in the ad
> because it would have made it too long? (i) It can be indicated in the
> same
> space you used; there is considerable padding in most of these ads. (ii)
> An
> extra 50 words would not have upset anyone who's even marginally
> interested,
> and might have generated one or two very good applicants. The cost of the
> other kind of error is trivial, by comparison.
>
> 8. Now for the tough comments. Given that you opted for an ad that is
> cryptic
> about the crucial attractions, it is completely inappropriate to ask that
> applicants submit the name of 'five or six' (or three or four) references
> or
> letters of recommendation (which they will of course assume will be
> followed
> up for authenticity). One way or another, getting into that will mean you
> talking to the applicant's present supervisor or peers. That immediately
> loses you a number, often a large number, of the best candidates. They do
> not
> want their interest in moving known at this point, when the chances of an
> offer and the key details of the job are completely unknown. The correct
> procedure, in my opinion, is to move to AT LEAST the short-short list
> stage -
> and in my view probably the top-of-the-short-list stage - before you
> require
> or open up the possibility of getting those. You could possibly ask for
> one
> letter, not from someone in the present work situation, to indicate high
> quality work from someone knowledgeable e.g., a previous employer; but for
> the most part, you have to go for a combination of detailed job reports
> from
> the candidate, along with coupled work samples, Class A interviews*, and
> evidence of conscientiousness in previous job placements. This is
> unfamiliar
> territory, but it's time to become familiar with it, because of a couple
> of
> other considerations about letters of reference, as below...
>
> 9. In the current legal climate, letters of recommendation are a joke.
> Since
> you can be sued for being critical in one, and since their confidentiality
> is
> non-existent (professionals frequently write their own letters and ask
> people
> to sign them), they are uniformly favorable. Even eminent writers
> personally
> known to you and who know many defects in the applicant will often not
> mention them at all (Einstein and Bertrand Russell were doing this, forty
> years ago, to the confusion of naive appointment committees). They think,
> justifiably, that you should understand the rules of the game today. Phone
> calls are sometimes better but increasingly no better (large organizations
> are told by their attorneys to refuse to supply any information except
> dates
> of employment on the phone or in writing).
>
> 10. Many people, myself included, do not like to ask others for letters of
> recommendation - although I've done it a time or two, with great
> reluctance.
> People better than I won't do it at all. They feel it's asking a favor
> which
> puts them under an obligation likely to affect the honesty with which they
> will return the favor; or they feel that their work is good enough to
> stand
> on its own; or it just makes them feel uncomfortable. Given that in the
> world
> of work today, references have the near-zero value indicated above, they
> may
> also conclude that any employer that's making their candidacy depend
> strongly
> on them is simply not competent, or not competent enough to be worth
> working
> for.
>
> *Footnote. What's a Class A interview? It's an interview conducted
> according
> to the well-established evidence in the research literature, including the
> laws preventing discrimination. That's probably less than 1% of interviews
> today. While Class B interviews (done by intelligent and well-intentioned
> professionals lacking specific knowledge of or commitment to interviewing
> at
> Class A standards) and Class C interviews (all others) have virtually zero
> average value in selection (sometimes having seriously negative outcomes),
> and cost a lot, Class A interviews do pay off well, despite their cost.
> Class
> A interviews have a trained chair, tough enforcement of the research and
> ethically/legally based guidelines, use only a set of standard questions
> and
> a rating scale tied to the job description and interviewee pool, include
> zero
> questions with obviously preferred answers, and several other features.
> (One
> reference, that needs updating with other literature, is Eder and Ferris,
> The
> Employment Interview.)

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ museum-l.html. You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).