ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


402 / C&RL News ■ April 2001

Reference Librarian: Required: 
Smiles when patrons approach. 
Speaks well. Listens better. Still 
smiles while answering the 10,000th 
bathroom-location question. Writes 
most sentences in the active voice. 
Shows instead of tells. Does not 
make fun of patrons. On handouts 
uses big type and few words. Hap­
pily works nights and weekends. 
Goes out to faculty offices on own 
initiative. Between patron questions, 
studies reference sources that he/she 
should have used to answer the last 
question but didn’t. Learns spelling 
and meaning of important words in 
area of assigned responsibility. The 
ideal candidate is bored by assign­
ing blame and does not find com­
fort in excusing bad service by cit­

ing policy. MLS. Desired-. Gets book 
orders in before the deadline. Does 
not have to be drafted but volunteers 
to teach user education sessions. Re­
members to remove uneaten lunches 
from staff refrigerator.

This is the person I want for reference. 
If I hire someone who claims to be able to 
search BIOSIS but can’t, I can teach that 
skill. If I hire someone who claims to love 
working nights but blows up when actu­
ally asked to do so, I can’t teach flexibility 
or professional commitment. At best, T can 
work with the employee to develop re­
sponses where he or she has ability, but 
no experience. Because nobody would 
approve ads that clearly state desired quali­
ties in a detailed manner, we need those 
short phrases to cover in a legal and af­

Scott DiMarco responds

Shortly after my article was published 
in the June 2000 issue, I received imme­
diate positive feedback from many es­
teemed colleagues. I thank them. I thank 
the writer of this essay for agreeing with 
many points and welcome her comments 
on the few differences of opinion. I am 
sure we all agree that when it comes to 
the recruitment process, sculpting a job 
advertisement is easier said than done.

I sympathize with the writer and her 
frustration about the process and would 
like to address just a few of the points 
mentioned. A common mistake is giving 
the job advertisement far too much 
credit, as it is just one part of a detailed 
process.

First, while we all feel for the unquali­
fied job seeker trying to catch a break, it 
doesn’t mean we can include an unquali­
fied applicant in our search. The time spent 
on such applications is wasted for both par­
ties. Also, certain standards and minimums 
must be enforced. For example, degree re­
quirements must be adhered to even if they 
seem “ego-threatening” to many.

The essay perpetuates the myth that 
one isn’t responsible for his or her ac­
tions in our society. Accepting late ap­
plications because the applicant has just 
started their search is irresponsible. Try 
telling government agencies or founda­
tions that your grant application should 
be considered late because you just heard 
about it.

How is this fair to those who followed 
the rules? Lawsuits and liability are far 
too common for us not to protect our­
selves.

A vague position description will only 
increase frustration within the search pro­
cess. I, for one, would much rather be 
presented with as many of the details con­
cerning the position as possible. How 
else could anyone make an educated 
decision?

I welcome feedback or comments 
from colleagues in regards to bettering 
the search process. After all, we are all 
in this together.—-Scoff R. DiMarco, 
Herkimer County Community College, 
dimarcosr@hccc.suny.edu

mailto:dimarcosr@bccc.suny.edu


C&RL News ■ April 2001 / 403

fordable manner many interpersonal and 
personal specifics. I was sorry to see that 
DiMarco did not provide us with an ideal 
advertisement incorporating his advice.

Some good advice
He does get some points right. His plea 
for job-specific job descriptions should be 
heeded. Job descriptions written by com­
mittee members who work in similar jobs 
or in the same unit stand a better chance 
of pulling in the best from the current pool 
of available workers.

A common variation is to expect more 
subject background from humanities or so­
cial sciences librarians than from science li­
brarians simply because the market can bear 
it. Few libraries can afford someone with a 
master’s or doctoral degree in physics, chem­
istry, or engineering. If a library administra­
tive office is surprised by something in a pro­
posed job description, it should not assume 
ignorance on the part of the authors. Auto­
matically editing out unique requirements is 
asking for frustration and failure.

DiMarco is right about specifying salary 
range. With today’s changing words for

people in charge or, more likely, not in 
charge, but responsible anyway, publicizing 
the salary range may be the most honest in­
dicator of the true authority of the position. 
A few people who are currently making more 
money may save themselves the effort of ap­
plying, although not necessarily.

In other cases, an administrator may feel 
the need to save interview costs by point­
ing out via the telephone that the pub­
lished salary limitations are real.

DiMarco makes important points about 
unique job descriptions and salary require­
ments. He is right that the phrases are vague. 
But the pressures of our environment cause 
most of what he dislikes, and until our em­
ployment and legal environments change, I 
urge you to save yourselves. Keep those 
vague phrases coming.

Notes
1. Scott R. DiMarco, “I Know That’s What 

It Said, But It’s Not What We Want: The 
Difficulty of Really Describing a Job,” C&RL 
News 61 (June 2000): 503-5.

2. Ibid., 503.
3. Ibid., 504. ■