Back when I was looking for grad schools, I interviewed for a spot in a lab where they told me I was "perfect on paper". That was not, however, enough for this professor to take me on. He wanted to be sure I would "fit in" with his lab. In fact, this guy had his whole lab approve new members before he made offers. In effect, everyone had to like each other. I wonder if they had better lab dynamics or if it was just a gimmick.
Since then, I have met some people who I find exceedingly annoying, yet they are good students (or post docs or faculty or whatever). In the case of university labs, I wonder if the irritating personality traits are considered by faculty when they take on students, given that they will have to work together for 4-6 years. Perhaps these people aren't annoying to their supervisors. Maybe it's just judgmental me. I have been known to have limited tolerance for human frailty. note the silly font
Is there a balance for selecting staff that are both competent and cool? Does it matter? Should aggravating personality traits be overlooked, or is that a reasonable way to decide among candidates who are otherwise equal? I don't mean people who seem abusive, racist, dangerous, etc., just run of the mill annoying. What do you think?
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
In labs, most PIs don't care. You're a slave, who cares if you're annoying to the other slaves.
But when you go for a faculty position, IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.
For faculty jobs 'fit' is the most elusive yet critical thing. People mostly all look great on paper but fit is the deciding factor. I think smaller departments are less likely to hire the jerks because they will have a bigger impact. Larger departments can absorb some irritation from less than perfect personalities. Still, negative attitudes don't help regardless of ability.
I've seen PIs go through the whole parade of a potential hire to the group thing and it is just BS. You can't spot anything that isn't obvious when someone is acting good for the interview.
Sorry if I posted this twice...
I agree with previous posters: on the job seaches I've seen personality/fit are top priority.
It does not seem to be that way for students. Particularly if they are accepted before committing to a research advisor.
I think it probably would come up (if only in an unspoken way) if we met students before accepting them (we don't), but as ms.phd said, personality traits are highly considered when hiring people for faculty jobs!
My husband had a post doc hired in his lab that was great on paper and gave a great interview. Turned out he was a total prick and had a "i'm better than you and will boss you around" attitude. I'm sure he was a prick previously and it's just too bad that can't be on a person's resume anywhere because he created a hostile environment in the lab.
Hmm, I definitely don't feel like a slave.
Yes, I suppose "fit" is the nice way of saying it. Although, I've always interpreted fit to mean "intellectual fit" or "good potental collaborator" rather than "this person kind of sucks socially".
Note that some who sucks with one group of people may be a star with another, so I'm not trying to say that anyone is a definitive loser.
I feel like sometimes people place WAY TOO high a value on personality over competence (maybe not true in science, but certainly in corporate America.)
I can't tell you how many jobs I've lost because I can't talk sports in interviews. Finally I started reading the sports page so that I could at least make a half-hearted attempt to discuss it.
(And inevitably the sports nut they hire ends up crashing and burning a few months later. That's when I get my non-sports nerd revenge.)
If all labs selected personality over ability, science would be a very different place!!
I think compatibility between labmates is an important factor. But then both labs I worked in had a super social core of people who all hung out together outside of work. Like propter said, the smaller the group, the more it matters. Larger groups can find a place for less popular / social staff.
As an aside, when I write job references, I make a point of mentioning it when the person is a pleasure to work with and be around. If they're not, I just don't say anything...
My grad lab typically consisted of 10-15 people, including students and postdocs. I know that my advisor ALWAYS considered personality before taking someone new. Often, new grad students in our department were out of his control (if the student selected the lab, and if we had room, we had to take them). So sometimes we didn't have a choice.
However, when interviewing postdocs, my advisor would always ask us if we would enjoy working with that person.
Our lab may have been a bit unusual. My advisor's first two students had hated one another and made lab life miserable for 4 years. I think my advisor learned the hard way right off the bat that personality clashes matter.
In my current lab, most applicants (including myself) have to meet with everyone, after which we have a lab meeting to discuss whether we like the person or not - answering the do they fit questions. Everyone who has gone through that process has been well received - those that didn't have been hit and miss. Personally, i chose a lab that I fit with to ensure a reasonably enjoyable PhD.
Personality doesn't matter if someone's competent, but having someone in the lab with an annoying personality sure makes lab less fun.
Students have personalities?
Why does nobody tell me these things?
I am not hiring anyone I think is annoying. It doesn't seem worth it. I want to work with people who make me excited to go to work.
It also ends up as 'hiring the best looking person' subconsciously without the benefit of human resources reminding you not to make superficial decisions. I bet if a 5,4 overweight, balding grad student with a lazy eye wanted to join a group with an interview process by everyone in the group, he'd be a 'bad fit' 9 times out of 10. Probably selects out the Asian post-docs as well more often than not.
One of the biggest factors for success in professional life is having nice teeth. After all, we all had dental insurance as kids, why the hell would we want to spend 4 years with those that didn't?
Post a Comment