• About us
  • Contact us
  • Search

You are not logged in:

28 January 2010

By Matthew Salois

"Be everything to everyone."  This was the interview advice recently given to me by my mentor. 

In short, on a given panel interview for a lectureship there will be someone interested in your potential to do research, your ability to obtain external funds, your strengths as a teacher, and your openness and desire to engage in important administrative and outreach activities.

There could be three, four, or seven members on the interview -- all with a distinct agenda and all listening for you to mention that key word or phrase they are looking for so he or she can check the box that they stand for (be it the teaching box, the research box, or the whatever box).

You can stand strong in five out of six important areas, but if you fail to check even just one box on the all inclusive list, then chances are another  candidate will and you will be out of a job.  The point to the advice is that you can be stellar in everything you do but have one deficiency.  That is all that matters, for someone on the interview panel will pick up on this and be vocal against you as a candidate.

I started thinking about this advice and really how quite unreasonable it is; though perhaps it does approximate reality.  Still, as researchers competing in a competitive job market (either for another contract or the coveted lectureship) we are expected to be all things to all people at all times.  I find this daunting to say the least.

But the advice reminded me of something I was told in pre-marital counseling (my church required this of all couples before the wedding day): that as a husband I should be all things at all times to my wife.  Playing just one role (provider, leader, friend, partner, etc.) will inevitably leave a gap in our relationship opening the doorway to apathy (or worse, resentment).

I found this to be a tall order.  But I learned that although I cannot be all things in reality, I can always be mindful of trying my hardest to be all things; and there is a subtle difference.  Of course this requires effort and careful thought.  But as the pre-marital sessions pointed out, if you love your spouse, you will do all that you can to make her happy.

So, while I may feel overwhelmed in my search for the next job and the need to be everything to everyone, I know that all I need to do is my best.  Because if I truly love this career and the job that I do, then I will strive to make my career a happy one.

 

 

Comments Subscribe by RSS

  1. Rachel Talbot 02 February 2010 at 10:00 AM

    Matthew, I really appreciate your positivity in this post. I agree it can be overwhelming when you are expected/need to be 'all things to all people' but I agree we should strive to do our best and in the job interview situation, then if our best is not good enough then perhaps it is not the right job anyway... Although this doesn't make the job hunting process any less daunting when you are in the midst of it!

  2. Matthew Salois 04 February 2010 at 12:27 PM

    Thanks Rachel for the comment. Having experienced more dissapointment than success in actual interviews is a lot like having more traffic accidents on the road - you feel more prepared for the next time your skills are tested. By the way, I've had 4 actual car crashes in my driving history and I like to tell everyone that I am now an expert at car-crash-avoidance (but that was the US, I do not dare get behind the wheel here in the UK!).

Please log in to post a comment.

Have your say

You need to be a registered user to join the discussion. Once you're logged in you'll be able to Create an article and Comment on existing articles
Sign up or login to get started

Latest activity

"Thanks Rachel for the comment. Having experienced more dissapointment than success in actual interviews is a lot like having more traffic ..."

Matthew Salois - 210 days ago

Read More Comments