Don't Hide Your Light

I recently received an inquiry from a large public university asking how to attract qualified minority candidates into a search pool.

           It’s a question I, and, I am guessing, many recruiters, have struggled with. Diligently presenting opportunities to the entire professional community through an extensive and inclusive advertising outreach is one method I employ. Another is making direct contact with individuals who have credibility in networks that include people who belong to protected classes, and “borrowing” their influence to be sure that no one is missed who might serve my client’s needs. But, without question, it is often difficult to assemble a candidate pool that reflects the rich diversity of American culture.

           One factor that might influence the interest of minority prospects in a given position is trust. 

           Many years ago, early in my career in human services, I spent some time administering a test called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to patients in a healthcare setting. One of the things I noticed was, among some minority individuals, the paranoia scale was very high, sometimes into the diagnosable range. My supervisor, a PhD psychologist, reassured me with a simple statement. “They have a right to be suspicious. It doesn’t mean they’re sick; it means they’re smart.” The most sincere effort to interest and attract qualified minority candidates may run aground on the rock of long-standing and well-founded suspicion. Recruiters and their clients have a long row to hoe to prove their motivation for, and commitment to, real parity in the hiring process.

           There might be another factor, however, that individuals considering applying for a position should examine. Do you talk yourself out of submitting your candidacy because of the nature to the employing organization? This is a question that might apply to a member of a protected class, but might also be relevant to any professional in circumstances where she or he perceives a significant distinction between personal history and the nature of the institution.

           Let me give you an example. Suppose an Ivy League university advertises a position for a major gift officer for its law school, to elicit donations from graduates of the institution. One potential candidate is the child of an alumnus of the law school and a graduate of the same university’s college of education. A legacy student, he received his baccalaureate degree in business from the same institution, and since graduation has been active in the alumni association while pursuing a career in higher education fundraising. He has achieved the position of director of the annual fund in an elite, east coast private college. 

There is a good chance this candidate will be strongly considered; the congruence is obvious.

           The second potential candidate has a very different background. She is the offspring of a two high school graduates, a mechanic and a waitress. Having earned a volleyball scholarship, she graduated from a large public university in the mid-west, where she majored in education. At another public institution, she earned a master’s degree in business, while coaching girls’ sports at a local high school. She has directed the annual fund program in a regional private university for several years. 

With a background this distinct from the nature of the hiring institution, is there any reason she should throw her hat into the ring?

           Of course there is! But our second candidate may not see an obvious congruence, and may choose not to apply, because she believes she has no chance of success.

           When you are interested in, and qualified for, an opportunity, but you find yourself becoming convinced you aren’t “what they are looking for,” or that some factors like where you went to school, or, indeed, your race, gender, age, or other characteristics, will exclude you from consideration, you need to take a deep breath, and do a firm and complete reality check.

           Your life experience can bring a rich and unique perspective to the service of an employing organization. Your task is to discover for yourself, and explain to the hiring organization, how you are specifically suited to meet their needs.  You need to explore how the very differences you may initially see as disqualifying become strengths when applied to the challenges an employer may face. In order to do so, you may need to look beyond simple similarities, and really think about how difference becomes an asset.

           Our second candidate may not have the background to effectively solicit gifts from potential donors with a family tradition of education at the subject university, and she would be foolish to try to present that as her strength. Instead, she can relate to women, those who are the first in their families to obtain a college education, athletes, people who came from outside the geographic sphere of the Ivy League institution, scholarship students, alumni who believe in education as a way to achieve upward mobility, and individuals who had to work while studying for a degree.  Her potential to attract support for the institution is much broader than that of the first, and more obvious, candidate, and that is what she should “sell” in her application.

           For every position in which you are interested, conduct an inventory of the unique assets your differences provide. Think carefully about how your life experience has prepared you to meet an employer’s needs and to surmount the challenges they face. Acknowledge for yourself, and then convey to the employer, how the unique light that shines from you can illuminate their future.