Job applications and interviews are nothing new to ACRLog. Violet finished off her series on being unemployed and interviewing in February, there are older posts about how to interview, and more recent ones about AI in the job search. Lately, though, I’ve been thinking about things from the other side: how do search committees work and how do librarians get hired?
Hailley wrote about chairing search committees and how that impacted her other work. There’s also a lot of scholarly literature out there about search committees broadly and about librarian search committees specifically, including how search committees can work more effectively together and how search committees can push to integrate better interviewing practices and more diversity.
I write from a slightly different angle, wondering what the point of search committees really is. Having served on several at this point and been interviewed by a few more, I find myself with questions about the entire system.
Search committees, in theory, make the process of filling an open position at a library a group effort. To an extent that undoubtedly varies between institutions, they determine the criteria to judge candidates, conduct multiple rounds of interviews, evaluate and discuss candidates, and more. This is unquestionably a lot of work, especially if the search committee is thinking critically, properly screening candidates, and consciously working to bring in diverse and qualified candidates for interviews.
Doing this work effectively will also likely involve hard discussions and compromise. Search committees must work through how everyone on the committee perceived each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses and what these impressions mean when paired with the library’s needs. This is not easy work, nor is it clear cut. Different candidates will bring different things to a job, and it’s entirely possible that more than one would be able to do the job well.
What, then, is a search committee to do? Listen to each other, compromise, and try to work out what recommendations to make in a situation where there is no single right answer—at least if it all goes well.
But herein also lies one of the oddities of the search committee (in my experience anyway—every institution is different and I have no idea what else might be happening out there, which is partially why I’m writing this post). The search committee makes recommendations, but ultimately decision-making power likely rests elsewhere, possibly with upper library management or possibly with the university librarian or someone in a similar role. It can then very much be opaque as to how final decisions are made.
From what I’ve gathered on the subject, based on talking to people, my own experiences, and combing through the literature (though, to be honest, there isn’t a lot out there), it seems that those who make the decisions do everything from simply rubber stamping a committee’s decision, to making it clear what their preference is, to simply thanking the committee for their work. All of this is down to the institution and the individual in charge.
But it all leaves me a little troubled. Again, search committees, when they work well, are doing a lot of work. What’s the point of this work if, ultimately, the committee is only advisory? What, especially, is the point of this work when the committee has made efforts to remove biases and seek out diverse candidates if the committee are not actually the ones who can hire said diverse candidates? Are all the papers about more effective search committees missing the mark?
Cynically, I might say yes, but I understand that there’s nuance. For the diversity question, inclusion has to start at the bottom—in this case the search committee—and rise up through all levels of the organization. It is not a waste of time for search committees to make interviews more accessible and to interview diverse candidates. University librarians are also not constantly placing their thumbs on the scales and making their own decisions. Or, when they are, perhaps they have good reason to do so.
But still—is this a good system? This is a question that, in the land of academia in which we exist, can probably only be answered at the level of an individual institution: are search committees working well in this individual library? And, if not, what would librarians at this institution want to see improved?
Change, of course, is hard. In this case, any sort of change or even analysis of the situation should likely come from conversations about how things are working, including what’s going well. Any proposals for change would eventually need to go through the proper channels, be that a working group, a steering committee, or something else.
I’m not advocating for a complete overhaul of the system (unless we think collectively that’s a good idea), but there might be small changes that could have a positive impact. For example, the role of the search committee could be made clear to candidates during their interview—are they making the decision or is someone else? To the extent it’s possible, other factors impacting a decision could be shared with the search committee, bearing in mind, of course, that there are things that need to remain confidential. All it might take is setting clear expectations for the search committee, those making hiring decisions, and the candidates. To me, it seems that much is left unspoken, but as so many of the details vary from library to library, being more explicit does not seem unwarranted.
What about you? How do search committees work at your institution? How have they worked when you’ve interviewed? What’s worked well? Is there anything you’d change?
