I was doing an Interview Intervention today with a senior scholar prepping for a Chair interview at an R1 department.

I asked a question that is common in Chair/Head interviews, and in this case was clearly signposted in the job ad itself: “what is your experience with fundraising and development?”

My client: “Uh, i helped with fundraising in the department by working on …”

I stopped her.

“Not the department,” I said. “MY department.  Better yet, “MY CURRENT department.”

Why?

Because when a candidate uses the definite article ‘the ‘  in an interview to refer to their current department, it signals that they see THAT department as their inner unmarked “norm.”  It telegraphs that, for the candidate, their current department is not just a department, it is THE department…

Why is that a problem in an interview? Because it signals, at a subtle yet also pointed level, that the candidate’s identity is wrapped up in their current department. For them, the current department is their default. 

When a candidate does this in an interview, it sends a very clear message that the candidate, far from demonstrating a focus on the new department to which they are applying, is, rather, psychologically (and otherwise) enmeshed with their current institution.

This is all quite unconscious needless to say. Nobody does this on purpose.

However, just because it’s unconscious doesn’t mean it’s inaudible.

While – as I always say – most search committee members do not have my excessive attentiveness to spoken and unspoken job market messaging, all humans pick up subtle cues of this kind. And draw conclusions from them.

Consider the contrast here:

“Uh, i helped with fundraising in the department by working with the Chair to put on a benefit concert to raise money for X, which involved my bringing in XX, who is a well known musician who works in that area, and to support that I got in-kind contributions from some other musicians who… ”

vs.

“Yes. In my current position I managed the fundraising for a benefit concert for XX, and successfully solicited both in-kind and monetary donations. Based on that experience, I can envision working with your development office to target community and alumni funds to put on an event for…”

See the difference? The first answer is weak, disjointed, and quickly gets lost in the weeds of describing “XX” (I’m keeping all details vague for anonymity) and why the details about him and some other musicians mattered to this long past event at this other campus…

None of which matters one single iota to a search committee.

The second response, by contrast, alludes to the past, yes (it is, after all, pertinent experience), but ONLY IN SERVICE TO the new job.  It clearly shows an orientation toward the needs and priorities of the search committee, and the department that it represents.

Most of all, it showcases the skills in fundraising as fundamentally portable/transferrable to the new place, and not stuck in some past location, benefitting some other institution.

Of course the second response also has energy, dynamism, and specificity… all lacking in version one.

All of this matters especially for an external chair interview.  Why? Because there is always a fear of the new Chair/Head – that they won’t “get” the department or won’t care about its priorities. So it’s even more incumbent on senior candidates to be vigilant for this kind of misstep. Yet senior scholars are actually most at risk of this kind of error (although junior folks can do it too related to their PhD institution). It’s understandable. You’ve been at your current institution a long time.  It’s easy to be enmeshed.

But if you are serious about moving, and making an effective case for a new job, you have to show yourself to be mobile, nimble, and above all focused on the new institution you hope to join, and not still absorbed in an obsolete (from the perspective of the search committee) past.

It’s amazing how much can be communicated by just one tiny three-letter word.

It’s why I absolutely love coaching for interviews, and particularly love coaching senior scholars for their first admin position. Because the work requires a shock to the system – a wholesale shift in self-identity – away from the familiar and toward the new.  Over the course of the hour, it happens! With impacts that potentially go far beyond just that single interview.