I've been involved with lots of searches as both an applicant and on search committees. And the more I do this it just seems like the choices that are made are just sort of arbitrary. It seems that, most of the time, the decisions are being made on the basis of factors that have nothing to do with the statements in the ad. This probably is the case -- all finalists are equally able to the job so it comes down to who they like best. But, geez, then, it really just becomes a popularity contest that has nothing to do with your qualifications or accomplishments or anything you have any control over. It like whoever can most quickly realize what the environment is and change their personality to fit that who will come out on top.

I am a public librarian, so I can only comment on public libraries. Yes, it can be arbitrary. When people ask, I tell them that a really good employer who values good hiring ethics will craft their job ad into an invitation, encouraging those who will benefit their organization to apply. These are the type of employers who seem to be less arbitrary.

To me, there are two types of employers in library land. The "we want" people and the "we need" people. The "we want" people might not be totally focused on the institution itself, and often times already have an idea as to who/or the type of person they may hire. The "we need" people are cutting-edge employers; they have made an inventory of what their organization needs to take it to the next level, and they might have even made a list of the skills/traits that this person may possess.

I cannot comment on the difficulty specifically, but can add some insight.

I worked as a student worker in an academic science library. After graduation, I continue on as a paraprofessional. Eventually, I enrolled in library school while still working there. By the time I got my degree, I had 10 years of history with this library. It just happened they had a science librarian position opened and I was offered an interview. I also had another interview at a second organization about 40 miles away. Before I could interview with my original organization, I did accept the job with the new organization. It seemed like the best choice for my professional development. It seems like there would be situation that could occur, especially since the paraprofessional that hired me still worked in the library. I decided the fresh start would be best. What was nice is I left on good terms and would consider coming back if the right situation called for it.

---

Brian C. Gray
Head of Reference & Engineering Librarian
Kelvin Smith Library
Case Western Reserve University
http://blog.case.edu/bcg8
bcg8@case.edu

I also have been on many search committees. The ad is meant to find the people who have the skills the position requires, but the in-person interview really is about personality and getting to know the candidate. There seems to be a movement towards hiring the person who has desirable traits rather than just the required skill sets. I'm all for this, as I've seen the repercussions of hiring people you weren't really comfortable with but looked fine on paper.

I do think the surplus of new librarians is an issue. I got my MLS in 2002 and at the time there were a lot of openings to apply for. Now, not so much. Part of the problem in my view is the libraries themselves encouraging people to get degrees. At my last public library this was the case. The director encouraged anyone interested to enter library school and even offered tuition reimbursement, with no thought to where these people were going to work when they graduated. For example, two library assistants got their MLS degrees last May. One left the system for a Librarian position. The other is still in her LA position. When I left, they took my full time Librarian position and made it two part time LA positions instead. Meanwhile, they've got at least 5 staff that I know of pursuing their MLS!

Isn't the real problem not the shortage of new librarians, but the shortage of experienced ones? It will always be easy to find new librarians. The problem in the next fifteen years will be finding experienced middle managers for the dept head and dean positions.
We've flattened our organizations so much that those traditional assistant dept head/assistant dean positions no longer exist.

The other thing to think about -- especially for new librarians -- is this. Lets assume the typical librarian was born in 1960 and started their library career at age 25 -- 1985. Assuming that they stay until the full social security retirement age of 67 -- that will be 2027. This means that newer librarians -- say they're 25 now in 2008 can expect to be in their mid-forties or later until slots open up.
The numbers for a librarian who started, say in 1990 at age 25 are also dismal -- they'll be in their 60s.

That brief "burp" of openings we saw in the early 90s was probably due to people who entered the profession in the late 1950s and 1960s -- say people born just before World War II retiring.

We're created a huge demographic hill/obstacle in front of newer librarians -- many of whom may never have the chance to work in management positions and will, effectively, be in entry level positions for their whole careers. Of course, the talented and hard working will always beat this, but it should serve as a warning. Being an average librarian is going to get you nowhere. Never a better time to be a librarian -- never a time when you will be expected to work harder. If you're not putting in at least a 55 to 60 hour week -- counting both work and your reading/research you're not doing enough and will be a prime candidate when management decides that they can save money by downsizing the library and hiring 20-somethings for 1/3 of the pay.

I think this scenario is a little over simplified for most organizations. Go to any of the conferences where they have session on multigenerational staffs and people are standing in the hallway. Most libraries have 3 or 4 generations working under one roof. Your "typical librarian" does not make up all the staff in libraries.

The problem with the mid-level management jobs is there is an entire level of people below that rank that do NOT want to move up. It is the nature of our profession with so many people entering librarianship as second, 3rd, etc. careers. There are a large group of people that are not looking for the stress of promotions.

---

Brian C. Gray
Head of Reference & Engineering Librarian
Kelvin Smith Library
Case Western Reserve University
http://blog.case.edu/bcg8
bcg8@case.edu

To call hiring processes "Popularity contests" is probably a bit overdone, although it often feels that way. Having been on both sides of this process, and knowing that people are very sensitive about not getting a job (which they may desperately need), I can only say that there are various factors that effect decisions. It can how quickly someone responds to questions, or whether they sidetrack themselves in mid-answer, or if they cross their legs during the interview. And, yes, it can come down to whether the interviewer liked one person better----but only the interviewer knows what is needed in a position. And sometimes the interviewer isn't 100% sure they have made the best choice. But they have to live with the decision--or worse fire someone and start over.