Location and Career or Location or Career?

I just finished reading a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education about recruiting. They suggest that even in a tight labor market that the person recruiting also ask themselves whether they can live in the city in which the job is located. I understand what they are trying to say particularly in this situation, where it would turn out that there was a vast gulf between the candidate and the setting.

It reminded me of my first recruit. I went further than this applicant did. All the way to Australia, and to an interview for a position that I would be offered and decline. I joined Bell Labs instead and moved to Naperville Illinois. Even though it was 6500 miles closer, it was a choice I made based on career not location. Although I did learn to love Naperville, thanks to the friends I made there, and I think I would have learned to love that part of Australia too.

Immediately after graduate school I found it impossible to optimize for both career and location. Based on that I optimized for career. I am curious how many people got both immediately? I think that the first few years post-graduate school are the time when a career is really defined. I am sure that I was a risk for Bell Labs, I had a Ph.D. but that is only a partial training for what comes next whether it be industrial or academic. Four years later I recruited again, and I was able to secure a position that combined career and location. I believe that it was due to my being able to establish my career that I found it easier.

So, while I understand where the author is coming from, I think it’s important to consider the possibility that it may be a trade-off. And of course, also the possibility that the first place you end-up post graduate school is not the place that you will ultimately end-up in. You can always recruit again. I’ve done that three times, and while I may be unusual by comparison with other colleagues, I think that there are significant rewards that come with having multiple employment experiences. I can compare industrial research labs, and compare that experience with academia. And then there are all the amazing colleagues I’ve been able to work with as a result of being in so many different places, and all the access and exposure to different fields within Computer Science.

The Case for Building on Your Strengths

I just saw Jim Coplien’s blog post on building on your strengths. In addition to recommending that you do that, he also highlighted the role of creating a team around you of people who complement your weaknesses. I mostly like the article. I think it is good and important to pay attention to your strengths. I think it’s a great idea to build a team of people who do have skills you lack.

I also think it can be rewarding to try and work on your weaknesses, particularly as you see improvements. Or to tackle things that are systemic weaknesses, put yourself in situations that challenge things that are hard to change but never-the-less are not as helpful as you would like in a career. The reward is different, either to see those improvements or just to know that you can. Perhaps I’m alone, but it’s one way I tackle my weaknesses.

And while perhaps the University can appear to be an individualistic culture, I find myself most impressed by leaders in academia who know how to create a team that is recognized and valued for their contributions.