For those who might be thinking of one in the near future.
Cheers,
Madiba.
---------------
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 else
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 else'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 else 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group email addresses:
Unsubscribe: [log in to unmask]
Delivery Options(click on the edit link by your address and once in, change your settings as desired: http://www.egroups.com/GroupMembersPage?listName=naijanet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Check out your group's private Chat room
-- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=naijanet&m=1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
