BackTalk—Interviewing: Beware Blogging Blunders

We've interviewed lots of job candidates recently, and we've seen plenty of the usual application missteps: cover letters with typos, impenetrable slang, and odd boilerplate salutations. We've waded through résumés so complicated they required de-construction just to eke out the applicant's education, experience, and skills. We've even had references submitted hand-written on scraps of paper and on the backs of business cards. But some new behaviors have begun to surface that truly startle us. They don't involve these traditional concerns; they revolve around the vast self-expression possible on the web.

These practices provide a picture window directly into a candidate's personality and ethos, revealing more than any candidate could possibly want us to know. By describing them we hope future applicants will avoid making blunders that hindered others. Here's the view from the other side of an interview.

Some of the bizarre information people now keep in their online vita (the URL of which they often submit as part of their formal application) is quite amazing. We've seen pictures of candidates with cartoon characters at amusement parks. We love amusement parks. But is this the kind of information on which we should be assessing your experience and potential for working in a library? Some online résumés contain complete, unexpurgated daily journals with TMI (too much information) about sex, drugs, and personal traumas. We've also been treated in online résumés to florid accounts of hobbies that go on far longer than the synopses of any library experience.

We're delighted that you're a well-rounded, real human being, but you can convey that in a well-written, error-free cover letter and a well-organized résumé more effectively than by telling us you square dance, collect butterflies, write fantasy sagas, or are a superhero in your off hours. TMI! Keep it on your time, please. We're out here trying to assess 70 résumés.

Our best advice about your cover letter and résumé is this: employing accuracy, clear organization and information, simple layout, and readable fonts will make you look professional. Make sure that you demonstrate how you meet the basic job requirements. If you don't, your application won't make it past the first review cycle. If your experience doesn't explicitly meet the requirements, describe in your letter how what you have done overcomes this.

Many people blog nowadays (blogging = web logging, posting a running commentary of your life on the web). Be aware that if you are doing it with your professional name, you are making a public record that is easily accessible. If you blog negatively about where you now work, for instance, you could soon discover just how pervasive, and unforgiving, a communication tool the web can be.

We now routinely do web searches on every candidate we plan to interview. There's a lot of information cached out there waiting to be read by prospective employers. Consider that blog you posted in casual online discussion, for instance. Did you mean for it to be read by the whole world? Of course not! Is it going to be? Maybe. If we're interviewing you and we can find it on the web, we're going to read it. Kind of a bummer if your blogging voice is unprofessional or inappropriate and you used your name or work e-mail address.

Dates and times are posted on most blogs, and when we read multiscreen blogs written midday in the work week, we wonder whose time they're done on, especially if they're coming from a work address. When we see that someone continually muses online during working hours about the meaning of life (or, say, the film they watched last night), we think they may not have enough to do—or they aren't doing it. What we find on the web may influence the questions we ask references: "Is this candidate highly productive? Does he or she make good use of time?" Do we want you to censor yourself by instilling a level of paranoia that stops you from communicating digitally? Decidedly not. The communication revolution occasioned by the web is a wonderful boon. But the web's power comes with responsibility.

If you are responsible in your web communication, it's a good bet that you will also be responsible in your job. And vice versa. So, if you must emote about your library, co-workers, bosses, etc., at the very least do it using an address that can't identify you. Electronic communication is such an important tool in today's working world that it only makes sense for us to consider how, and how well, candidates use it.

Better still, make the web work for you. Some of the most impressive interviews we've had in the past few years have been with candidates who "somehow" knew our library inside and out. The web makes it possible to do a tremendous amount of preparation for an interview: more than ever before you can study how a library is organized and operates day to day.

We suggest you research the people listed on your interview schedule; read postings and publications they've written so you know the issues that matter to them and can discuss them intelligently. Some libraries even post minutes of staff meetings on the web. What better view of how an institution functions. This is a good way to find out how things get done and what politics are at work. In fact, we're now surprised when candidates show up at the interview and don't know our organization thoroughly. We figure they're not really serious about the job or don't have the ability, skills, imagination, or initiative to use a powerful tool.

An in-depth perusal of a library's web site can also offer a store of questions to ask the search committee. It's difficult to believe, even at the end of a lengthy interview, that we've anticipated and answered every possible question, but we've sat through interviews in which candidates asked no questions. This is a real lost opportunity, since it is the time when the candidate can, and should, assert some control. We figure that someone who doesn't ask questions is either not up to speed on the issues or not serious about the position—or both.

To prepare, see if there are special collections or projects under way that match your skills or experience. Note what a library's priorities are by seeing what gets emphasized on the web site. You can showcase your talents if you take the time to discover that you have something very specific and valuable to offer. We look for open exchanges with candidates so that an informed decision can be made by everyone. On the other hand, just throwing out random questions that don't pertain to the job may show curiosity or, alternately, desperation. Instead, you should illustrate your insight into what a job is or could be: concentrate on the specific skills needed and highlight your strengths in relation it. Or tell us something that's new (something you might discover from the web site). Don't think that we are just looking to give you a challenge; we face plenty of them, and you will, too, if you get hired. Tell us what you can do that needs doing, however, and we'll prick up our ears. Round out your interview by following solid professional protocol, and you'll be a strong contender.

The library world is actually very small and even more so with the advent of the web. The usual "six degrees of separation" that applies in the world in general is more like three degrees in libraries. Just about everybody knows somebody who knows somebody who knows you. Adopting a consistent, professional style and competent presentation in all communications is becoming more important as the geographical separations between us shrink.

The digital age increases the audience and scope of mistakes made online. It can be a seller's world in the library market, but that doesn't guarantee job satisfaction. If you take the time and make the effort to sell your skills effectively, both in person and on the web, you'll be more likely to get the job you want. Good luck with your next interview: we'll be rooting for you!