Several faculty members give up months of work, to do the job of a headhunter. Then come the never-ending meetings, the discussions, the internal negotiations, the politics, the strategies, the bargaining, etc. Is it worth it? Does this happen in other professions? Do engineers stop designing new products so they can hire? Do doctors stop seeing patients and doing research?
Serious question: Why does the demand side enjoy recruiting so much?
-
It's not for enjoyment. Recruitment decisions are the most important decisions a department makes.
Good companies also view their hiring decisions as the most important ones they make. Yet, they still take a fraction of time as academia to make their decisions.
The contrast is even more apparent at the higher levels. I was once at a place that took more than two years to hire a new dean. Yet large public and private companies manage to find new CEOs in a month or two.
-
Academia is noisier than the private sector. Also, we cannot fire as easily.
It's not for enjoyment. Recruitment decisions are the most important decisions a department makes.
Good companies also view their hiring decisions as the most important ones they make. Yet, they still take a fraction of time as academia to make their decisions.
The contrast is even more apparent at the higher levels. I was once at a place that took more than two years to hire a new dean. Yet large public and private companies manage to find new CEOs in a month or two. -
A big part is obviously because once hired, it's very difficult to A: let someone go if they are performing below expectations and B: even tell if they are performing below expectations. So you are making a multi-year commitment which is true for almost no private sector jobs.
It's not for enjoyment. Recruitment decisions are the most important decisions a department makes.
Good companies also view their hiring decisions as the most important ones they make. Yet, they still take a fraction of time as academia to make their decisions.
The contrast is even more apparent at the higher levels. I was once at a place that took more than two years to hire a new dean. Yet large public and private companies manage to find new CEOs in a month or two. -
Academia is noisier than the private sector. Also, we cannot fire as easily.
Evidence? Senior executives in the private sector often get significant compensation when fired, so I think it's a matter of opinion as to who finds it easier to fire someone.
The question is whether academia actually makes better hiring decisions than does the private sector by taking so much additional time.
The typical path for a company looking for a senior executive is to engage professional headhunters, who have expertise in their area, to bring them only qualified candidates who would be good matches for the job and the culture of the company. Maybe that's just a more time efficient method for making as good or better hiring decisions as does academia.
-
You are correct - it is absurd. Private sector hires a lot faster, in weeks instead of months. And they probably do a lot better job of selecting candidates too.
Weeks is definitely not true in Europe. Most companies take months to find someone. One selection process can easily take 2 months between screening the candidate and scheduling several interviews etc, and that's assuming you find someone good right away.
-
I'm in the private sector but love to get involved in hiring. Yes, it can be tedious, but I like evaluating and playing a role in how and who we hire. It provides a bit of a change from the day-to-day, too.
You are correct - it is absurd. Private sector hires a lot faster, in weeks instead of months. And they probably do a lot better job of selecting candidates too.
Depends very much on the firm. Many places take absolutely ages. Including banks, for example.
-
There is some strategy involved as well. Some committee members have a preferred candidate or research specialty while others are just happy to bring in 3 or 4 good people and see what happens. I was on a committee where we were going to bring in 4 candidates and there was a lot of maneuvering around who the 4th candidate would be as person slated 5th was very very good but not in someone's preferred subspecialty.