Of course I know all about being dooced, and I'd certainly wondered about my own potential position once I seriously re-enter the job market (I don't count packing textbooks into boxes last summer as a serious foray into workspace).
But now this Chronicle article has got me wondering yet again whether I should keep doing this or not. I began the blog frankly, because I'm lazy. I found after I moved, that I wanted to keep in touch with my friends back home, but would also get tired of writing the same things in emails to different people. And when I would try and change things up, I'd try to write about something different in my life to everyone I was emailing. But then I would forget who I had told what, and sometimes I'd get these confused responses because I'd tell the sequel to a story to someone who hadn't heard the first part of it!
So I started blogging thinking that everyone could just read about what I'm doing and I wouldn't a) repeat myself, b) tell someone only half a story, or c) be a delinquent emailer and only send an email once a year because I got tired of repeating myself etc. Now I just do it 'cause I like it. And I also think it's helped me loosen up in my academic writing, like all this blogging just lets me play with words so often that it's much easier to sit down and try to write serious ones.
Not many people read this thing (check out the statmeter), which is cool with me - the people who want to know (or who might be mildly amused at my so called life) read. Those who don't want to, don't. Their loss. So, I don't have a wide presence out there in the world wide gossip-monger. And I've tried to be fairly non-descript. Sure, you know some stuff about me. But chances are that's 'cause you know me in person (or think you do!), not because of what I say here. Even if you didn't know me in person, you're probably mostly going to know general things - even my recent rant about my university is probably pretty innocuous since I live in the greater Boston area and there's something like a gajillion schools here.
But this is the part of the article that gets me thinking:
Professor Shrill ran a strictly personal blog, which, to the author's credit, scrupulously avoided comment about the writer's current job, coworkers, or place of employment. But it's best for job seekers to leave their personal lives mostly out of the interview process....
The content of the blog may be less worrisome than the fact of the blog itself. Several committee members expressed concern that a blogger who joined our staff might air departmental dirty laundry (real or imagined) on the cyber clothesline for the world to see. Past good behavior is no guarantee against future lapses of professional decorum.
Huh?!
Okay, so I've worked in HR before - small company/non-profit - but I think I've interviewed enough people and screened enough applicants to know that past behaviour IS a good predictor of future behaviour - it's the whole idea behind Behavioral Descriptive interviewing. Note: 70% of the time BDI finds the behaviors employers want as opposed to 20% for traditional inteviews.
Believe me, BDI works. It's pretty hard to lie to a BDI question unless the candidate has prepared a script ahead of time. The questions are generally broadly enough based that you can evaluate almost any behavior or attitude type you need for the job at hand (what's sometimes actually less accurate is figuring out what kind of behaviors you value for a given position). The lesson? Past behaviour IS a good indicator of future behavior. Someone who is professional and discrete enough before being hired will continue to be professional and discrete after they sign the contract.
Also makes a good case for people in academia who have non-academia-type skills, you know, who might know that BDI works... like me!
What also disturbs me is the writer's admission that they Googled candidate's names. Now, the article does point out that several people included their blog URLs in their CV or even cover letter. That invites a look-see. BUT, not everyone did, and it sounds like this hiring committee decided to Google everyone they interviewed whether they were invited to or not.
This is the part where it gets dodgey. I wouldn't include this blog in a cover letter or CV - it's not professional in any way, and really just for my friends, so I don't think anyone else would be interested in it. But do I have to worry about potential employers snooping it out? (Not that a Google search will do you much good - it doesn't turn up this site - though it does turn up a woman with my name who saw a UFO and another who advertises on an adult page (at least she doesn't look like me))*
I'm not really worried about it - if a search committee wants to find out things about me, they can, whether I invite them to or not. I just don't think it's terribly ethical of them to do so without me being aware of it - sounds a bit like the Patriot Act then.
*I did however find out in my google search that something I wrote for a book review was quoted on another website, which was kinda cool 'cause it was an academic book review after all. I think it makes me sound kinda smart too (unlike this sentence!)
No comments:
Post a Comment