ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


400 I C&RL News ■ April 2001

THE WAY I SEE IT

Keep those vague phrases coming!

A response to Scott DiMarco

by Marilyn Christianson

I
n his C&RL News article, “I know that’s 

what it said, but it’s not what we want: 
The difficulty of really describing a job,” Scott 

DiMarco roundly criticized our position de­
scriptions and ads as vague and general.1 
He is right, of course. He believes that if 
only we wrote with more detail and clarity, 
mismatches would be prevented.

Alas, the forces that shape our environ­
ment also shape our hiring practices. One 
force acting on us is the desire not to be 
sued, or if sued, not to lose. Even the 
clearest and best writers among us bow to 
this. Other forces are money, human feel­
ings, and individual motives. The longest, 
most detailed ads can hardly prevail against 
these.

DiMarco seems to believe clearer and 
more detailed job descriptions will pre­
vent unqualified candidates from apply­
ing. You know and I know why they ap­
ply. They are desperate, blind to their own 
weaknesses, lacking in insight, or pos­
sessed of insufficiently pruned egos. They 
need jobs in particular locations. They 
hope that more qualified applicants haven’t 
applied. A two-page description of quali­
fications will not deter them.

The best solution is for a support staff 
member to scan each application for bare- 
bones requirements, such as an MLS. Ap­
plicants without these requirements need 
not take the time of a committee.

Closing dates won’t stop them 
from being late
He seems to think that a closing date will 
prevent late applications. I’ve served on 
search committees since before the birth of 
most freshmen. We always had closing dates 
and always received late applications. Of 
course, people knowingly apply late. Some 
have just started to job hunt. They hope the 
committee hasn’t begun its work yet. They 
know how often libraries miss submission 
deadlines for advertisements, resulting in a 
short application period for all contenders. 
If their applications are late, perhaps so are 
everyone else’s.

Others delay because of the ego-threat­
ening tasks of compiling résumés and ask­
ing colleagues to act as references. All too 
often, the best use of a closing date is sim­
ply to make a committee feel comfortable 
that it won’t be sued by refusing to look at 
yet another late résumé.

Speaking of hirings that should not have 
happened, DiMarco says: “Many of these 
mismatches could have been avoided if 
the position description had been detailed 
and more in line with the library’s expec­
tations.”2

Tell it like it really is?
Unfortunately, most of the story about an 
open position, such as what it is really like 
to work for a prospective supervisor, can’t

About the author

Marilyn Christianson is coordinator of Science Collection Development at the Louisiana State University Libraries, Baton 
Rouge, e-mail: mcchris@lsu.edu

mailto:mcchris@lsu.edu


C&RL News ■ April 2001 / 401

Advertisements can’t point out 

that employees haven’t gotten 

raises in three years or that the air 

ducts are filled with mold.

and won’t be delineated in an ad. Adver­
tisements can’t point out that employees 
haven’t gotten raises in three years or that 
the air ducts are filled with mold. These 
specifics might indeed prevent mismatches. 
Most ads already delineate the basic daily 
activities, such as “works reference desk.” 
I don’t know why DiMarco acts as if they 
don’t. Being more specific, such as saying 
“Works twelve hours per week at the cen­
tral reference desk,” will only get libraries 
in trouble as times change.

DiMarco dislikes general phrases such 
as: “Strong and positive commitment to 
public service,” “An understanding of user 
behavior,” and “A rapport with faculty, stu­
dents, and staff.”

Why are the “common currency” 
phrases he abhors, well, common? In two 
words, money and lawsuits. Paying for an 
ad that lists all possible attributes of good 
communication skills, for example, could 
exhaust the search committee’s budget 
right there. What are these skills? Libraries 
need people who can speak easily with 
their patrons. Libraries need people who 
have the emotional wherewithal to get out 
the door to visit members of the teaching 
faculty. We need people who change with 
the times. We need people who cheerfully 
work when needed. Committees use those 
vague and general phrases to remain within 
legal bounds when they talk to references. 
They rely on their inclusion to be able to 
request evidence that the candidate will 
get out of the library, will learn new skills, 
and will work weekends without exhaust­
ing management with whining.

DiMarco seems to think that only people 
who work well with the public apply for 
public services jobs. Who among us has not 
met library school students lacking this very 
quality? They learned their stereotypes be­
fore they went to library school, and not all 
the warnings of employment counselors or 
experiences in internships will dislodge what

some need—a belief that they can succeed 
in a profession despite their terrible inter­
personal skills. “Libraryland” is filled with 
candidates who in no way should be let loose 
on students and faculty.

How to choose the best candidate
How can you weed them out? Require evi­
dence of positive interpersonal skills and a 
desire to help the public. How do you find 
this evidence? Call references and question 
them closely. What can you ask references 
about? The advertised required and desired 
qualifications.

DiMarco alludes to lawsuits but fails to 
acknowledge that those very phrases he 
dislikes can provide a certain level of pre­
emptive protection to an employer. 
DiMarco is right when he points out that 
being stuck with people who don’t have 
needed skills causes wear and tear on the 
whole staff. These people will not weed 
themselves out of the pool; search com­
mittees must do it.

Let us suppose you are on a committee 
that has to decide between the following two 
candidates for a position as engineering li­
brarian. The first candidate has an advanced 
degree in engineering but was fired from a 
job because of his or her hostile communi­
cation style. Casting about for a new direc­
tion, this person goes to school to become a 
librarian and applies for your position. When 
references are called, they are unable to give 
examples of effective communication. The 
candidate spends two years studying engi­
neering before deciding against it as a ca­
reer.

This second candidate has demonstrated 
excellent people skills as a successful sales­
person at Radio Shack while in library school. 
The store manager cites examples that show 
the ease with which the candidate works with 
customers. You do not want to have to hire 
the first person simply because he or she has 
more engineering knowledge. You need 
those vague phrases about interpersonal skills 
or commitment to public service to save you.

Many of us would like to be clearer and 
more specific. We’d like to ask for what we 
really want. We’d like to hire those who 
would fit in well with others on our staff. 
But who could get the following ad ap­
proved?



402 / C&RL News ■ April 2001

Reference Librarian: Required: 
Smiles when patrons approach. 
Speaks well. Listens better. Still 
smiles while answering the 10,000th 
bathroom-location question. Writes 
most sentences in the active voice. 
Shows instead of tells. Does not 
make fun of patrons. On handouts 
uses big type and few words. Hap­
pily works nights and weekends. 
Goes out to faculty offices on own 
initiative. Between patron questions, 
studies reference sources that he/she 
should have used to answer the last 
question but didn’t. Learns spelling 
and meaning of important words in 
area of assigned responsibility. The 
ideal candidate is bored by assign­
ing blame and does not find com­
fort in excusing bad service by cit­

ing policy. MLS. Desired-. Gets book 
orders in before the deadline. Does 
not have to be drafted but volunteers 
to teach user education sessions. Re­
members to remove uneaten lunches 
from staff refrigerator.

This is the person I want for reference. 
If I hire someone who claims to be able to 
search BIOSIS but can’t, I can teach that 
skill. If I hire someone who claims to love 
working nights but blows up when actu­
ally asked to do so, I can’t teach flexibility 
or professional commitment. At best, T can 
work with the employee to develop re­
sponses where he or she has ability, but 
no experience. Because nobody would 
approve ads that clearly state desired quali­
ties in a detailed manner, we need those 
short phrases to cover in a legal and af­

Scott DiMarco responds

Shortly after my article was published 
in the June 2000 issue, I received imme­
diate positive feedback from many es­
teemed colleagues. I thank them. I thank 
the writer of this essay for agreeing with 
many points and welcome her comments 
on the few differences of opinion. I am 
sure we all agree that when it comes to 
the recruitment process, sculpting a job 
advertisement is easier said than done.

I sympathize with the writer and her 
frustration about the process and would 
like to address just a few of the points 
mentioned. A common mistake is giving 
the job advertisement far too much 
credit, as it is just one part of a detailed 
process.

First, while we all feel for the unquali­
fied job seeker trying to catch a break, it 
doesn’t mean we can include an unquali­
fied applicant in our search. The time spent 
on such applications is wasted for both par­
ties. Also, certain standards and minimums 
must be enforced. For example, degree re­
quirements must be adhered to even if they 
seem “ego-threatening” to many.

The essay perpetuates the myth that 
one isn’t responsible for his or her ac­
tions in our society. Accepting late ap­
plications because the applicant has just 
started their search is irresponsible. Try 
telling government agencies or founda­
tions that your grant application should 
be considered late because you just heard 
about it.

How is this fair to those who followed 
the rules? Lawsuits and liability are far 
too common for us not to protect our­
selves.

A vague position description will only 
increase frustration within the search pro­
cess. I, for one, would much rather be 
presented with as many of the details con­
cerning the position as possible. How 
else could anyone make an educated 
decision?

I welcome feedback or comments 
from colleagues in regards to bettering 
the search process. After all, we are all 
in this together.—-Scoff R. DiMarco, 
Herkimer County Community College, 
dimarcosr@hccc.suny.edu

mailto:dimarcosr@bccc.suny.edu