Should websites be 'purely professional'?

In our ongoing discussion of whether job-candidates should have professional websites, a reader ('designer') wrote:

My issue is that people's webpages are often quite unprofessional. They often have a lot of nonsense on them. Some people, for example, post a lot of pictures of themselves milling about at conferences with famous philosophers. Or they post pictures of themselves on holidays in exotic places. Of course, one can post what one wants to, but it is no longer a professional webpage.

Several readers responded to this comment. Francois wrote:

I have a photo of my cat on my website, just so the impression I give off is a *little* lighthearted rather than totally stodgy. Is this objectionably unprofessional?

Then 'R' wrote:

For what it's worth, to me it still seems quite unfair, if not a bit mean, to judge people for having a personal website. Most of us are not professional designers and at least during graduate school cannot afford to pay a professional designer for our website, but as the OP indicates there is some pressure to have a personal website. I would (still) recommend to cranky and designer that they avoid personal websites rather than holding it against candidates that they have one.

Finally, an anonymous postdoc wrote:

It's less off-putting than standard personal websites, which always gives me a narcissistic vibe. However, I come from a less individualistic and assertive culture than the US, so I might be unrepresentative of how most academics think...

I try hard to stop a personal website being a negative in assessing candidates, but it's definitely not a positive for me. I'm sure that, for others, it's the other way around.

This conversation raises a bunch of important issues in my mind. First, do personal/professional websites come off poorly or narcissistic to most people? I have no idea, and I'm really curious to hear what readers think. I will say that I've come across some that came across that way to me, but that most of the websites that I've come across don't bother me at all. Am I an outlier? Second, given that different people can respond very differently to websites (some very negatively like 'designer', some more positively), what should candidates do? Here are a few quick thoughts...

My father once told me long ago a child, "You'll never make everyone happy." This is of course just a version of the common saying, "You can't please everyone." There's real wisdom in it, I think. It's often stunning to me the things that some people will take issue with, and just how wildly divergent people's judgments can be on just about every issue imaginable--including on search committees. My experience is that if you ever sit on a search committee, chances are you'll find yourself in a position where you have very strong feelings about aspects of a particular candidate, and someone on the search committee will feel exactly the opposite. How are these disagreements resolved? Answer: through a vote. That person may feel strongly. However, if they are outvoted by others on the committee, then that's just how it goes. What does this mean for job candidates? It means you can't please everyone. So then what should you do? Well, let's turn to some examples.

Francois wrote that he has a picture of his cat on his website. This might rub 'designer' the wrong way. But guess what? There are a lot a people who love cats in this world. Funny cat videos are, for example, are evidently one of the more popular things on YouTube. So, you may very well have a cat lover on a search committee, and they may look at your website. Will having a picture of your cat on there make the difference in terms of whether you are interviewed or hired? Probably not - but it may well give them a warm feeling inside about you, and if you have a campus visit, who knows? Maybe they'll mention your cat, and you'll have funny conversation about your cats. That can't hurt, right? In my experience, campus visits are equal parts getting a handle of a person's professional competencies, but also how well members of the department 'gel' on a personal level. If you have a good rapport, that has to help, I think--and that's where personal things in common can help. Or, to take another example, I know someone who posts videos of her past bands' music on her professional website. I spent most of my adult life (including during graduate school) as a semi-professional musician, playing and recording in various bands. Suppose I come across a candidate that I really like--as a teacher and researcher, etc.--and I come across their website, finding out there that they're into music and played cool stuff. Could that make a positive difference with me on a subconscious level? Surely, and again, it could lead to a conversation later on a campus visit. That conversation might even be directly relevant to work. I might find out that they're interested in creating a course on philosophy and music, or whatnot. Finally, there's a lot of empirical research that people tend to make decisions on affective/emotional grounds, and that people tend to implicitly prefer people 'like them' (for better or, in some obvious cases, worse).

The point then is this: when it comes to search committees, there are people like 'designer' out there--who find stuff like this on websites annoying or 'unprofessional'--and then there are cat lovers or musicians like me who find personal stuff like this potentially interesting. Given that you never know who will be on a search committee, what should you do? Well, again, you can't please everyone. So, what should you do? One of the more common job-market strategies (or so I've gathered over the years) is to 'play it conservative', trying to avoid doing anything that could look remotely 'less than professional.' But I think there are real risks to such a strategy: playing things conservatively runs a risk of making you look anodyne, that is, it runs the risk of you failing to stand out in any way whatsoever. There's another risk, too: you could end up hired by a department of stodgy people who expect you to repress everything personal about yourself in the workplace--which can really stink if you're the kind of person who doesn't like to repress those features of yourself. The more ideal thing, if you're this kind of person, is to find yourself hired by a department that welcomes people like you. So, since you can't please everyone, what should you do? I don't think there's a simple answer. Remember, your task as a job candidate is not to impress as many search committees as possible. Your task is to impress enough voting members of one search committee enough that they want to hire you. Some search committees may be dominated by people like 'designer.' But other search committees might have cat people and musicians. So, I say, decide what kind of candidate you want to be--conservative or cat-person/musician--and roll with it. The job market's a crapshoot anyway. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[A Mouse]

Incidentally, on the cat video and cat picture thing ... I recall the CIA discovered that even ISIS was watching cat videos when they were not murdering people ruthlessly.
So I would watch what you infer about the character of one who posts cat pictures and cat videos. Even if your inferences are made under the influence of a sub-conscious bias

[Marcus Arvan]

A Mouse: ha, well I definitely wouldn't infer anything from a cat video alone, you know? One kind of needs to evaluate everything in full context! ;)

[Prof L]

Like 'designer', overly personalized websites can rub me the wrong way—it's certainly a defeasible impression, and I would try not to hold it against someone, but there is that initial negative reaction. I suppose it's because I think the candidate is trying to look 'cool' and this is a job application, not a popularity contest. Why put that stuff on there? On the other hand, I also think no web-presence at all is some defeasible indication that this person is a bit clueless, not professionalized enough. So I think there is a strong medium ground here: a simple, professional website with just the basics, which should take about 2 hours and $0 to construct out of a template on wix or weebly or something similar. Or, make sure your philpeople profile or academia.edu page is up to date, with an uploaded CV. Of course, you may annoy some people merely by having a web presence, or some may look at your website and think "where are the cat pictures? BORING" but generally, I don't think doing the above will hurt you in the eyes of most search committees.

[Mike]

"One of the more common job-market strategies (or so I've gathered over the years) is to 'play it conservative', trying to avoid doing anything that could look remotely 'less than professional.' But I think there are real risks to such a strategy: playing things conservatively runs a risk of making you look anodyne, that is, it runs the risk of you failing to stand out in any way whatsoever. There's another risk, too: you could end up hired by a department of stodgy people who expect you to repress everything personal about yourself in the workplace--which can really stink if you're the kind of person who doesn't like to repress those features of yourself. The more ideal thing, if you're this kind of person, is to find yourself hired by a department that welcomes people like you. So, since you can't please everyone, what should you do? I don't think there's a simple answer."

I agree, but here's what I think is the positive alternative: Don't play it conservative, play to your strengths. You want to put the best version of yourself out there. That may turn off some people, but it's much more likely to stand out and grab the attention of those with whom you're a better fit.

[Trevor Hedberg]

It's certainly true that some academic websites are not well-designed, but as Prof L alludes to, it's now very easy to make a site with Wordpress, Weebly, Google sites, etc., without any knowledge of html code that looks reasonably presentable and modern, and it can be done with only a few hours of work. These sites do tend to appear formulaic -- it is often obvious that the person who designed it used a generic template -- but that's far better than having a crude html site that looks like it was made in 1998 or having no website at all. The important thing is to have relevant professional information on your site in a format that's presentable and easy-to-navigate so that people interested in you and your work can learn more about those subjects.

As for the more specific issue of personal touches like pictures of pets, I think there will be a lot of person-to-person variance on whether that creates a positive impression or a negative one, but I'd generally lean toward the objective of doing things that make your work stand out rather than making your website stand out for other reasons. The ideal scenario would be that a person got interested in your website because they thought you had a cool research project you were working on or a unique approach to pedagogy rather than a nice picture of your dog.

[Assistant Professor]

This is an interesting thread because I think these same questions/choices re: website content will come up again if/when you do interviews, at least in the pre-pandemic on-campus interview method. Do you talk about your hobbies? Do you talk about your pets? Do you talk about who you do (or don't) share your household with? Do you wear that outfit that shows more personal style? These questions plague the job process, not just one's website presentation. (And I don't have social media accounts but I bet those who are on social media have to think about this too, if you don't make those accounts private.)

I think it is okay to decide to remain more reserved: stick to the basics, be polished and engaging without giving away too much of yourself, if that is your comfort level. Some people may perceive different risks in sharing certain personal information that others in the profession have no problem publicizing (i.e. male-identifying philosophers might not feel the same concerns about mentioning they like to hike with their kids as female-identifying philosophers would in a breezy bio; pre-tenure vs. post-tenure probably changes things too).

It is also okay to decide to share some personal details about hobbies, or pets, or activism, or family, if those things are important to you. In my mind the most compelling reasons for doing those things would be either it is important to you to make a statement that one can be a professional philosopher and X, and/or because you want to make sure you work in a setting that will support you as a professional philosopher and X. Merely having a quirky or idiosyncratic gimmick doesn't seem to be a good reason for inclusion on a professional website.

But like I said at the outset: whether or not you are asking these questions about your website, it is worth thinking about how you want to handle them in interviews, especially during extended processes that involve more informal time when non-work stuff inevitably enters the conversation.

[David Thorstad]

I have to say I agree with Marcus. The only reason my website doesn't have pictures of my dog is that I haven't managed to stay in one place long enough to get a dog. I understand the need to avoid bad design and sappy over-personalization, but I'd like to think that I can be a professional and a person who likes dogs at the same time.