Blatant Berry: The Risks of the Short List

A mighty upset colleague called to take us to task for reporting that she was one of three finalists for a major library directorship. It was OK, she opined, for LJ to report who got a job, but it was an invasion of their privacy for us to report the names of those who didn't. I couldn't help but be sympathetic. The LJ editors have frequently debated whether or not to report lists of final candidates for major positions. We realize, of course, that there is the potential to embarrass and possibly do harm to the working relationship of a candidate whose current employer isn't aware that he or she has applied to another institution.

Although it is clearly arguable, we believe there are valid reasons to report these short lists when the information is public. It is important news for the profession to know who lands the major jobs, but it is equally important for others to know which candidates survive the often rigorous screening process to make it to the “short list” of finalists. Not only does the reporting produce a list of library leaders who have the credentials and talent to go the distance, it presents a source for search firms and other employers seeking people with the proper credentials and skills for jobs at the same level.

Announcing who made it to the final cut provides insights into the hiring library, the effectiveness of any search firm or consultants involved, and some perspective on how these top-level searches operate. Most important to us, the information is news. In fact, we often get it from the local media. People like to know what other people are doing.

For the hiring institution, publicizing the names of final candidates gives the staff and the citizenry a look at the search process and the kind of leader their library seeks. It opens the process to public and staff scrutiny and allows both constituencies to comment and complain if they don't like the nature of the choices. It leads to more open management of the library and a stronger relationship with staff and the community. Indeed, many libraries include public presentations by the finalists for those reasons.

Still, it is difficult for candidates who have not informed current employers about their job search to have their unsuccessful candidacy suddenly made public to bosses, coworkers, and trustees or other officials. Such is the risk when one seeks or is asked to seek a position at the top level in our field. The best strategy to minimize that risk and protect your existing working relationship is to be honest and let your board and/or boss know you are a candidate. Explain that it is a crucial part of professional development to apply for important jobs, if only to get experience in the methods of the search and publicize your leadership status. Tell current employers if you are asked to consider a new position, even if you are unsure that you want it. Every job search is a two-way negotiation. Both candidates and employers assess the position and each other to see if a good working relationship is possible. Each has questions, and neither can decide about the other without going through the procedure.

It is wrong to assume that individuals are unhappy with their current position because they are a candidate elsewhere. Many who get the offer turn it down. Many who don't get the offer didn't want the job either. A candidate should let his or her employer know when the other job was unacceptable, whether or not it was offered. That is good news to employers who want that person to stay on. There are plenty of ways to show your board and staff that the working relationship is healthy and ought to continue. Having applied and nearly been successful elsewhere is likely to make a librarian more attractive in a current job.

Whether or not a candidate gets an offer for a position does not signal success or failure in the search process. It is merely the outcome. Success is making it to the final short list. And success is always good news.