Applying for a job: what to do, and what not to do

Firstly, apologies for the massive gap between this post and the last one. I don't have any real excuse except that, well, there's not been much to blog about until now. May mostly consisted of me being on holiday, and whilst June was much busier library-wise, I haven't really been able to talk about it until now.

This is becasue a large chunk of June was taken up with advertising, shortlisting, and interviewing for the post of Library Information Administrator for the Research Repository (known in other circles with less long-winded titles as "Repository Administrators").

Now, I have been involved in the interview process before. Indeed, when we last advertised for a Repository Administrator back in 2010, I designed and assessed the test for it (at UWE, interviews for posts at this grade tend to involve an interview and a test, once you get past the application stage). I've also sat on interview panels for posts in other areas of the university in the past. But this is the first time I've played a part in the entire process, right through from designing the application questions to being on the interview panel.

So, what can I tell you about the process that's helpful if you're thinking of applying for a job? Well, for starters we had over 50 applicants, so that's a lot of job application forms to get through. And we were lucky (or perhaps unlucky, depending upon your view) that almost none of those applications were joke ones. Almost everybody was serious, and had experience that they could apply to the post being advertised. So we really did have to consider 50+ applications. So, considering that, what were the common mistakes people made when applying?

• Simply repeating the job description/ person spec in their application. We wrote it, we know what it says. Good applicants used their understanding of the job and their skills to explain why they would be good at the job, and why they wanted the job.
• Only giving one word-answers in order to demonstrate skills and assuming this meant we knew what they were talking about. If we ask for experience learning a new piece of software, "SPSS" doesn't tell us anything. Except that you can't write in sentences.
• Conversely, giving us one-page answers to demonstrate every skill on the person specification. You don't need to do a brain-dump of everything you've ever learnt - with this many applications, we haven't got time to read it and pick out the salient points. Focus in on the particular skill you want to promote, give us a short one or two-paragraph answer with examples, and demonstrate how you have acquired that skill.
• Using a load of acronyms and then failing to explain what they mean. The library world especially is terrible for acronyms, and whilst most of us might understand the obvious ones (OA, CPD, VLE etc) don't assume this is the case. I know I'm guilty of it, but if I'm applying for a job outside of UWE (or even within it) I won't assume everybody knows what RBI stands for.
• Not being concise when telling us about their current post. It's great to know approximately what somebody currently does, especially if it's relevant, but we don't need a full job description. Anything particularly relevant should be referred to when you promote your specific skills to us.
• Now, this may be UWE-specific, but the UWE application form asks you a number of questions relevant to the person spec that you need to respond to. It then has a section where you can supply additional information. There's nothing wrong with using the additional info box, but don't need to repeat what you've already said. Good things to include in here are things like why you want the job and what you understand about the job and its context. A couple of short paragraphs should suffice.
• Supplying unnecessary CVs. Don't supply your CV unless it is a requirement, or you honestly believe there are a number of things on your CV that you haven't been able to include anywhere on the application form. The UWE application form is pretty extensive as it is, and not once did I then read a CV that changed my mind one way or the other. It's not wrong to include a CV, but it's extra work for the shortlisters that they don't really need.

So, you've taken all that advice on board and been offered an interview. Giving advice on what to do during interviews is harder - mostly because, generally, the people who make it to this stage have done a pretty good job and therefore make fewer obvious mistakes. A couple of points worth thinking about though:

• Know a bit of background about the job and the organisation/ company. I guarantee you at least one other candidate will have done some research, so if you know nothing, it'll become obvious pretty quickly.
• Don't assume you're in with a good chance just because you have experience (either by doing a similar role before, or because you're an internal candidate). Everybody we interviewed had experience. The stand-out applicants were the ones that had experience, enthusiasm, and up-to-date knowledge not just of the job, but also of the area surrounding the job (in this case, open access more generally).
• If you have already answered a question and don't really have anything else to say, keep your mouth shut. This one comes from personal experience when attending interviews as well as being on interview panels. Good interviewers will leave a pause, so if you do think of something worth saying, you'll have time to do so. If you don't think of anything additional, then a brief, concise answer is better than a general ramble with no end-point in sight. Equally, if you haven't gotten anywhere close to the question the interviewer is trying to ask (and remember, they're human too - they can word questions incorrectly or incomprehensibly sometimes), they will do their best to rephrase the question to help you. With a good interviewer, you might not even realise it's meant to be the same question.

One final point that might help with the nerves (and this doesn't come from previous interviewing experience, but from some wise words my mum told me a long time ago): remember, you're judging them as much as they're judging you. You might find the job doesn't sound like what you thought it was going to be, or you don't like the atmosphere, or the attitude of the people you're going to be working with. It might just not feel 'right'. And that's fine; far better for everybody that you find out now than a month into the job. You'll probably find that if you do feel this way you won't get offered the job anyway - it's happened to me in the past and, looking back, I'm incredibly grateful that it did.

Now hopefully that'll advice will help both you and me out if/ when you or I apply for jobs in the future. If I take it on board, apply for jobs and don't get them, I'll let you know so you can ignore the advice above!

So that was Open Access Week...

...and I'm totally exhausted!

We ran a whole range of events this week, from drop-in sessions at all of our four campuses, to a lunchtime event on open access, to running a competition for the person who adds the most full text items to the repository in a week, to posting an interview a day on the UWE Research Repository blog.

It was hard work, and I'm glad it's over, but there were also some pretty positive outcomes so I think it was worthwhile.

We've had 85 deposits to the repository, 52 (approx. 60%) with full text attached - a significant amount more than in a normal week. My pessimistic side says this has something to do with academics being told to add their publications as part of a REF review that's happening over the next couple of months - but I'm going to choose to believe that some of it, at least, is down to our promotion!

As a result of the lunchtime event, we've been invited to go a couple of departmental meetings (which are rapidly becoming faculty-wide meetings) to give talks on open access, which is great news for us. Jackie Wickham from the Repositories Support Project came along to our event as a guest speaker, and she's written a great blog post summing up the key points, and providing a link to her slides.

Although the drop-in sessions weren't especially well attended, there was one very positive outcome - I've now been given a film to upload to the repository by a researcher in Creative Arts. It will be our first movie in the repository, so I'm keen to get it on there - but that's just one of the many jobs for next week...

For now, I'm off to not think about repositories or open access for (most of) the weekend!

23 Things for Professional Development: Thing #21

If I'm honest, I feel like I've completed something very similar to this Thing (promoting yourself in job applications and at interviews) in the recent past. I've been in the same job for nearly two years now, but as part of my Chartership portfolio I sat down and made a list of my activities and interests. Most of these were work-related, but there were some personal ones in there too. This was in order to put together the four-page CV that needed to appear in the portfolio. As a result of this, I also went about updating my 'standard' 2-page CV. I do tend to modify it when applying for jobs (or I did, when I was looking), but the basics remain the same.

I guess the most satisfying thing for me when I did this was discovering just how wide a range of professional skills I had actually acquired since I got my Information and Library Studies MSc - from advocacy skills to website maintenance to stock selection to classification skills to staff management. I don't use them all in my current job, but I do use a lot of them - and it's great to know that if I want to do something a little different in the future I have all that experience to draw on.

It's been a while since I looked at, or applied for jobs - but in the past I've spent a lot of time applying and interviewing for posts. I think initially I wasn't great at the interview stage and it let me down, but I've learnt to sell myself. Some of the advice I'd give when applying/ interviewing for jobs is:

When completing the application form, make sure you address the criteria on the person specification and job description. Just as Maria says on the cpd23 post, essential really does mean essential - and desirable means important too. If necessary, go through the specification points one by one and address each one. Sometimes I've found that one of my experiences covers more than one criteria, but I have spoken to panellists in the past who have said they really like people who make it clear exactly which criteria they are addressing. Also try to talk about the job itself and why it interests you - if your application sounds generic it can put the panellists off (I recruited for a post a year or so ago and this happened. The person who didn't mention any specifics of the job, just talked about their general interest in libraries, didn't get an interview).

If you are lucky enough to get an interview, try to pre-empt some of the questions. You probably won't guess them all but you'll be much better prepared. It will also force you to take a look at the organisation's website and learn a bit more about them. When you get to the interview, be proud of your past achievements, be clear when explaining them, and be honest. Use your achievements as examples to answer the questions you are asked if at all possible. If you find you're really not getting on with the interviewers, be glad you've discovered this at the interview stage - you'd be unlikely to enjoy working with somebody who you clash with instantly. Believe it or not, I have actually been to interviews where I've enjoyed myself. Sometimes I've been  unlucky and someone has just happened to have more experience than me, but more often than not the interviews I've enjoyed are the ones that have resulted in job offers.