Last week, one of my postdocs asked me for tips on applying for faculty positions. They had strong publications, excellent teaching evaluations, and solid grant-writing experience. But after their first interview, they came back confused. “I presented my research so clearly,” they said. “Why didn’t it go perfectly?” The problem wasn’t their research. It was outstanding. But they treated the interview more like a research presentation than a job interview.
Here’s what’s changed in academic hiring: with fewer tenure-track positions and more qualified candidates than ever, search committees can afford to be selective about fit. They’re not just evaluating your CV (they already know you’re qualified). They’re asking three questions: Can this person secure funding? Will they be a good colleague? Can they contribute from day one?
Most candidates miss this entirely. They think it’s all about their awesome research. They prepare research portfolio answers when they should be preparing relationship-building strategies. The cost of getting this wrong? If you’re a part-time PhD student in your 50s, each failed interview represents months or years you can’t afford to waste. If you’re a postdoc researcher already, it delays launching your research program and puts you behind peers who figured this out faster. Financially, it means continued postdoc salaries instead of faculty compensation. Emotionally, it’s the exhaustion of repeated rejection when you can’t identify what went wrong.
The traditional advice (“just be yourself” or “let your research speak for itself”) fails because it ignores the social complexity of faculty hiring. Departments aren’t hiring research machines. And, really, we got AI for a lot of that now. They’re hiring colleagues who will shape their culture for decades to come.
So today, I’m sharing 7 specific tactics that separate candidates who get offers from those who don’t, based on 15 years of faculty hiring experience.
Here’s how to make each of these work for you:
Likability matters more than your credentials
The committee already knows you’re qualified. Hey, your CV got you in the room, Einstein.
Now they’re asking a different question: “Do we want to work with this person for the next 20 years?” Enter with genuine excitement and positive energy. Make them like you. This sounds obvious, but most candidates walk in acting like they’re defending a dissertation instead of starting a new relationship. And, yes, it’s more like dating than defending.
Read the temperature in the room. If the committee is formal and reserved, match their tone. If they’re casual and conversational, relax into that dynamic. Some committees want to see if you can handle pressure. Others want to see if you’ll fit their collaborative culture. Your job is to identify what they’re seeking and adjust your delivery accordingly. It takes practice.
Don’t try to dominate the conversation. The candidate who talks for 10 minutes straight on every question isn’t showing expertise . They’re showing they can’t read social cues. And I meet at least one every other time we’re hiring.
Answer each question with one clear solution
When asked how you’d approach teaching a difficult course or handling a methodological challenge, give one thoughtful answer. And keep it crispy.
Not three possibilities. Not a comprehensive overview of every option. One clear, confident response that shows you’ve thought about this before and can make decisions under pressure.
If they want more options, don’t worry, they’ll ask follow-up questions. That’s actually good. It means they’re engaged and want to explore your thinking. Kudos. But if you start with multiple answers, you signal uncertainty or an inability to prioritize. Committees want to see project management skills embedded in how you structure your responses, too.
Show you’re comfortable thinking on your feet. Pause for a moment if you need to collect your thoughts. A three-second pause followed by a clear answer beats a rushed, meandering response any day.
Discuss funding without overcommitting to collaborations
You need to know the basics about major funding opportunities in your field. Research them first.
If you’re in Canada, that means understanding NSERC’s Discovery Grant and how it works for new faculty. If you’re in the US, know the NSF or NIH mechanisms relevant to your discipline (or whatever has replaced that type of funding in the current administration). You don’t need a detailed proposal ready, but you should mention a general direction: “I plan to apply for NSERC Discovery Grant funding focused on X research area.” That should be good enough.
At the outset, position yourself as applying for grants individually. Once you’re established and tenured, you can explore collaborative funding. But in the interview, don’t promise too much. Don’t say you’ll definitely collaborate with Professor Guerrero Jr. on their big Blue Jays grant. You don’t know Professor Guerrero Jr. yet, and overcommitting makes you look naive. And they probably have their own little goals for a research homerun.
Position yourself as a curious learner who’s open to collaboration
Sound interested in various forms of collaboration without claiming expertise in areas outside your specialty. Coming across as a lifelong learner is the best thing you can do. Even if you secretly think you’re some kind of Ohtani, keep that ego in the closet during the interview.
Say things like: “I’m curious about Professor Scherzer’s work with Dr. Yesavage on pitch calculation, I’d love to learn more about how that might connect with my research on batting average statistics.” This shows openness without pretending you already understand their entire research ballgame.
Do basic research on committee members before the interview. Know Yamamoto from Freeman. You don’t need to read all their papers, but understand their general research areas. Identify where your work could naturally overlap. A little bit of preparation here lets you ask informed questions and make genuine connections during your interview. Super valuable.
Avoid appearing too narrowly focused. If you only talk about human-computer interaction and dismiss other computer science subfields, you signal you won’t be a collaborative colleague. You’re a lone wolf, but the committee is looking for someone to howl at the moon with them. Show intellectual curiosity beyond your immediate research niche.
How to Write Better Research Papers
Tired of rejection and obscurity? This course delivers the insider secrets you need to get published and cited in social sciences and at the most competitive HCI venue: CHI.
Ask targeted questions that show genuine preparation
Your questions should demonstrate you’ve thought about practical realities of starting a research program.
Ask about lab space and the process for setting it up. That’s always a winner. Inquire about support mechanisms for grant applications . Do they have research development staff who review proposals? What’s the timeline for accessing startup funds and how can you spend them? These questions show you’re already thinking like a faculty member that is ready to push the boat forward. Don’t be just a candidate trying to get through the interview.
Ask about teaching expectations and how they balance with research time, especially in your first year. This demonstrates strategic thinking. You’re already planning how to maximize impact in both domains from day one.
Prepare questions that show awareness of the institution’s structure. If it’s a new program, ask about growth plans and how your position fits into that vision. And also, how does grad supervision work?
Use formal titles until explicitly told otherwise
Address committee members as “Doctor” or “Professor” at the start of the interview (or if you have the exquisite pleasure of interviewing in Germany, you can just waffle out the whole “Herr Professor Doktor Herzensbrecher-Schleifenheimer”). That’s just common practice. And in some countries, we really dig those titles (because we worked hard for them, you know).
Some committee members will immediately say “Please, call me Lennart.” Others will keep things formal throughout. Let them set the tone. Starting formal and being invited to be casual is much better than starting casual and realizing you’ve misjudged the culture. And to quote Oscar Wilde here: “the only way to atone for being occasionally a little overdressed is by being always absolutely overeducated.”
If you’re unsure about someone’s title or preference, it’s completely acceptable to ask: “How would you prefer I address you?” This shows respect and awareness. And maybe even a little bit of a vulnerable opening. Either way, it’s not weakness.
Remember you’re evaluating them too
This isn’t just them hiring you. It’s you choosing them.
You’re deciding if this is where you want to spend the next decade or more of your career. We don’t get a lot of decades in our life. So, let’s be conscious about this choice. Pay attention to how committee members interact with each other. Do they seem collegial? Are there obvious tensions? How do they describe the department culture? Feel out the vibe.
Notice what questions they ask. Are they genuinely curious about your research, or just checking boxes? Do they seem excited about the possibility of you joining, or just going through the motions? Do you feel at home in the discussions?
Focusing your mindset around your evaluation also helps you stay calm. When you’re not desperate for any offer, you interview better. Abundance thinking is always better than scarcity thinking. You’re more authentic, less performative, and more likely to have natural conversations that reveal genuine fit on both sides.
Take notes after the interview about what felt right and what raised concerns. If you get multiple offers, these observations will help you make the best decision for your career trajectory.
The difference between candidates who get offers and those who don’t often comes down to mastering these specific skills. Approach each interview knowing you’re evaluating them as much as they’re evaluating you. This mindset shift alone will make you more authentic and ultimately more successful.
P.S.: Curious to explore how we can tackle your research struggles together? I've got three suggestions that could be a great fit: A seven-day email course that teaches you the basics of research methods. Or the recordings of our AI research tools webinar and PhD student fast track webinar.
