Interviews

Nothing lasts forever and people come and go.  When they go, we most often must replace them.  The selection of the replacement is always difficult and always involves an interview.  We’ve been interviewing a lot of potential new employees recently.  That happens every summer, more so this one.  At a professional level I understand how important it is to find someone who is qualified, someone who knows their stuff, and someone who “fits.”  Administrators do not want to do this alone; we want a committee to screen and interact with candidates in the interview setting to select a nominee that goes through the reference mill and arrives as a recommendation for a supe to take to the Board.  Grueling.  It occurs to me as I enter the third week of such efforts that there is a reality show component to this process that I have never seen before.  We could call it “Talking with Stars,” or “American Idle”, but “Survivor” probably makes the most sense.  Perhaps even “Bachelorette”.  I have oft compared interviewing to the blind date where both parties wake up married.  You never know exactly how it is going to work out until the new person is on board and functioning.

There are different philosophies regarding identifying candidates to interview.  I’m in the minority on this one, I think, in that I do not believe in recruiting.  I know some great folks in our profession who are highly successful elsewhere, and I have a hard time posting for a position then inviting applicants to apply.  First, if they are happy and functional where they are, why mess that up?  Secondly, if invited and they do not end up the candidate, you are likely to have messed up where they currently are and surely have messed up the relationship you had with them.  Thirdly, if you already know who you want to hire, why put everyone else through the ringer?  And finally, I don’t think it is ethical, but that is just me.  If you put a posting out there and someone is interested in joining your team then they will apply.  If they don’t apply, then leave them alone.  My mental model is this: if I were single, I wouldn’t ask a married woman out on a date.  The best pool of candidates is not those who are successful where they are and love it, they are the people who are successful but are interested in change and new levels of success.   They come to the table eager to please rather than invited and entitled.

Given that our applicants are qualified and not felons, what are we looking for?  Chemistry, philosophy, fit and match.  In my ideal world, every top administrator I recommend is someone who thinks enough like me to get along, thinks enough unlike me to challenge me, and is willing to do so.  I also look for those who are still learning versus those who already know it all.  We must have folks who do not insist on defending their perfection versus perusing their improvement.  Give me someone nimble of mind, open to learning, and willing to explore who will approach the job as a learner not an expert and we are much more likely to be successful.  I also look for someone who has thought beyond the current boundaries of the job description to the basic philosophy of public education, has their own philosophy, and that philosophy evolves with the times rooted in their core beliefs.  I want someone coachable.  A new person joining an established team has to fit.  The team will change because of their presence, and vice versa.  Can we picture them here, will they fit?  Larger systems do not worry about this so much.  We do.  We are small, tight-knit family and the new son or daughter-in-law better like Christmas at Grandma’s and homemade ice cream on the 4^th or they just won’t make it any more than if they have purple hair, piercings and tats.

Candidates are an interesting crew.  Rarely do they ask the right questions, in my opinion.  I think candidates should interview their potential future employers.  What is the prevailing philosophy here?  Who would be my boss?  Tell me about them.  What are they like, what do they expect, how long have they been here and how long are they likely to stay?  Are folks here more interested in safety and control or risk taking and improvement?  What matters most here?  What are the sacred cows and how do I avoid milking them?  What will be the variables used to measure my success if I come here?  Will I fit here?  This is a people business and if the people in this business are not compatible, then children suffer and that is not good.

So, after the give and take of the interviews, the follow-up one-on-ones, and the recommendation, a name goes to the Board for blessing.  What if the candidate has last minute jitters, insecurities, cold feet?  That is normal before any marriage and only the candidate can answer the question, “Is this what I really want to do?”  I have taken candidates to the Board for approval only to get a phone call the next day saying “I’m not coming.”  My response always is, thank God!  If you have doubts, if you have listened to your guts and you do not think this will work for you I deeply appreciate your courage to tell us now.  I have done that before when offered jobs and have always been glad when I did so.  That’s another reason not to recruit.  People who place their own names in the hat are much more likely to actually show up and do the job than those recruited, selected, and then lobbied into signing.

Yes, the reality show should be called “Survivor.”  But this show is for real.  People move, end friendships, make new ones, and engage in a highly intense effort to help kids be successful, a task that requires a tremendous amount of energy and teamwork and support.  Joining our team is no easy decision. 

Being invited to is an honor.