Round Pegs

(or Rethinking the Job Application Process)

‘Do you have any questions?

In a Neoliberal job market where we are forced to ‘survive, thrive, or die’, either living hand-to-mouth in a gig economy (which academics can experience as much as anyone, with the casualisation of labour, zero hour contracts, and perilous PTHP positions), taking on increasingly unsustainable workloads (out of top-down pressure or a desperate desire to be ‘indispensable’), or being forced to reapply for our own jobs as a result of ‘night of the long knives’ cuts, the masochistic ritual of job applications and interview panels rules. How many of us have put hours or days into yet another application (driven often by the lack of security of a current contract), had hopes lifted by being shortlisted, spent more time preparing a presentation or rehearsing potential questions or interview technique, spent time and money on travelling to said interview, undergoing yet another grilling by a poker-faced panel, only to discover one has, regretfully, not been selected this time. Yet again, the standard of application was ‘extremely high’. If one isn’t merely informed by a standardised email but called in person, one is expected to take the rejection graciously and be grateful to be ‘kept on file’ for another time… in other words: don’t call us, we won’t call you. It seems an enormous waste of everyone’s time and resources (and will to live).

Often it feels highly likely the respective institution had someone in mind all along, and just needed to go through the ‘performance’ of selection; that one’s face didn’t fit, because of some unspoken positive bias in the selection process (e.g. not the right demographic blend to allow their department to tick certain boxes); or, some other intellectual prejudice (e.g. the wrong genre, school, theory) or subtextual psychodynamic. One can put in a good presentation, respond eloquently to every question, ask some engaged questions, and leave the panel feeling it ‘went well’, only to hear the dreaded bad news. Feedback is often tenuous, and leaves one in the dark, non-plussed as to what went exactly wrong.

Now, I have had successful interviews that have resulted in job offers – substantial contracts that have lasted, sometimes, for years, so I am not writing this out of bitter resentment (the panel have to choose the candidate who is the best for the job, and it must be a hard decision at times) – but … surely there is a better way of doing things?

My suggestion is to adopt a pro-active approach to seeking employment – not only putting one’s resume out there and hoping for the best, but designing one’s dream ‘job spec’. This avoids the ‘trying to fit a square peg in a round hole’ phenomenon of the standard job application/interview process.

Rather than performing the contortionism often expected by so many jobs – bending over backwards to fit ourselves into roles that do not honour who we fully are or what we are fully capable of – how about designing the roles we know we would thrive in? Surely, by having employees firing on all cylinders and fulfilling their potential it is better all round? For staff, students, and the institution.

So here is a speculative dream job spec template, customise as you see fit. No doubt there are platforms for ‘pro-active job seeking’ out there, but as a creative I like the challenge of creating my own, rather than using something ‘off the peg.’ As William Blake said: ‘I must create my own system, or be enslaved by another man’s. My business is not to reason and compare, it is to create.’

DIY JOB SPEC

The job I would love to have.

The position I would like to be considered for (or to create) is …

The duties and responsibilities of this position would be …

The training & support I would receive …

Opportunities for development …

Any other benefits …

Why I am the ideal candidate for this role.

My name is…

You can contact me via…

I self-define as…

My credentials (qualifications, professional memberships, etc)…