Contract Ghosting

[clement]

Is it fairly uncommon for potential academic group employers to completely ghost after sending over a contract?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Academia is known to not negotiate much if at all.

Restrictive covenants are mandatory at the programs near me. It is non-negotiable by leadership. Working elsewhere and receiving payment elsewhere without the university receiving your paycheck first and cutting you a “fair percent” is a fireable offense.

This has nothing to do with age. It is take it or leave it, and the university leadership that made the decision aren’t in your email chain. Those you are responding with can’t change the policy, and those with power won’t change the policy for Freud himself.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

Also, by hounding them so much about it you're just showing that you're desperate for the job and they don't really have to negotiate, so what's your leverage exactly? You calling 4-5 admin/department people asking why they haven't given you an answer yet about what you wanted to change in the contract is just showing them they don't have to change the contract.

Tell them what you want changed, wait for them to come back to you (if they come back at all, as noted above some of these may be non-starters for big institutions) and look for other jobs.

 

[annoyedpsychiatrist]

if you have to work this hard to get the job, imagine how hard youll work while youre in the job.

 

[Celexa]

if you have to work this hard to get the job, imagine how hard youll work while youre in the job.

Yup. They never treat you better than before you get hired.....so however they act during the process is the best you can expect after you start working there.

I don't think what the OP is describing is in any way specific to academia, though. That type of institutional dysfunction occurs all over.

 

[clement]

Also, by hounding them so much about it you're just showing that you're desperate for the job and they don't really have to negotiate, so what's your leverage exactly? You calling 4-5 admin/department people asking why they haven't given you an answer yet about what you wanted to change in the contract is just showing them they don't have to change the contract.

Tell them what you want changed, wait for them to come back to you (if they come back at all, as noted above some of these may be non-starters for big institutions) and look for other jobs.

I thought about this exact point- not relaying “desperation.”

 

[TexasPhysician]

I thought about this exact point- not relaying “desperation…”

On the other, I was trying not to reveal too much about who the employer is and where the gig is…Gig is in an undesirable location (by neighboring cosmopolitan county standards). Gig is desperately advertising for locums coverage for the same er psych position they are offering in a loosely religious/academic affiliated county setting. They rely on attracting new grads, residents from a newish-ly formed residency program, and of course locums. Their health insurance offerings also suck (like one can only use their local network).

My point in asking isn’t so much about strategy or leveraging bargaining chips or the negotiability of academic/county…I only asked about weekend multipliers which is reasonable for er work (that’s prob when they really balked)…

I am mainly curious, on a professional level (especially since word of mouth matters to employers in a market where psychiatrists pick/choose)…whether it’s perfectly common/acceptable to shower a candidate with enthusiasm, send weekly emails stating, “you’ll be getting some answers hopefully by the end of next week,” and then completely vanishing and ignoring the applicant. I guess I see it as a reflection of insecurity and inability to negotiate… as stated.

The only reason I’m even contacting them to follow up is because I’ve let them know I have other offers and need to make a decision… after 4 weeks of being strung along. That…and they appreciably pro rate their bonus the later one starts in 2024. As you can imagine, the pay is really great and while a lot of county places won’t allow part time in my parts, this academic affiliation route allowed it and I have PSLF to get out of the way very soon.

But yes, like dating, the early interactions are key.. and institutional dysfunction red flags are a reflection of the gig itself likely (but maybe they erroneously think the same of an applicant pestering them?).

Institutions can be riddled with bureaucracy. The people you are talking to appear to be the “recruiters”. They aren’t the attorneys and/or decision makers. Those people could be on vacation, busier with other issues, awaiting a new budget, or various other reasons. After the “recruiters” have tried to delay awhile for the real decision makers to respond, they can get tired of repeatedly giving excuses. In the meantime, they will recruit for other “easier” psychiatrists to land while they await word on you.

Even though departments may “need” another psychiatrist, the decision makers don’t care. It’s about overall dollars and financial decisions. Spending money to negotiate for a psychiatrist isn’t high on the list of objectives. A deal that could save $1 per surgical pad or other random piece of equipment used often is more important to these people.

This isn’t unique to us. A friend of mine that works at the US postal service says it can take 6 months before an applicant hears back about the next steps in the application process.

 

[Celexa]

I thought about this exact point- not relaying “desperation…”

On the other, I was trying not to reveal too much about who the employer is and where the gig is…Gig is in an undesirable location (by neighboring cosmopolitan county standards). Gig is desperately advertising for locums coverage for the same er psych position they are offering in a loosely religious/academic affiliated county setting. They rely on attracting new grads, residents from a newish-ly formed residency program, and of course locums. Their health insurance offerings also suck (like one can only use their local network).

My point in asking isn’t so much about strategy or leveraging bargaining chips or the negotiability of academic/county…I only asked about weekend multipliers which is reasonable for er work (that’s prob when they really balked)…

I am mainly curious, on a professional level (especially since word of mouth matters to employers in a market where psychiatrists pick/choose)…whether it’s perfectly common/acceptable to shower a candidate with enthusiasm, send weekly emails stating, “you’ll be getting some answers hopefully by the end of next week,” and then completely vanishing and ignoring the applicant. I guess I see it as a reflection of insecurity and inability to negotiate… as stated.

The only reason I’m even contacting them to follow up is because I’ve let them know I have other offers and need to make a decision… after 4 weeks of being strung along. That…and they appreciably pro rate their bonus the later one starts in 2024. As you can imagine, the pay is really great and while a lot of county places won’t allow part time in my parts, this academic affiliation route allowed it and I have PSLF to get out of the way very soon.

But yes, like dating, the early interactions are key.. and institutional dysfunction red flags are a reflection of the gig itself likely (but maybe they erroneously think the same of an applicant pestering them?).

I love this blog for entertainment as well as useful advice about all sorts of workplace issues: Ask a Manager

Employers of all types ghosting applicants at all stages is very, very common.

 

[mistafab]

Sounds like you saved yourself a headache.

They did you a favor.

 

[Sushirolls]

I wouldn't worry about feeling this is desperation.
It's communication.
It shows interest, maturity, responsibility to want to know what's happening with a contract and move it along.
With that said, I usually give people 5-7 Business days to respond to my queries.

I was ghosted several times as a new grad:

• One place spoke with the med dir, "we want to interview you" then spoke with their in hospital HR/Recruitor, we want to interview you. All ensuing steps were silence, any further calls were unanswered.
• Middle of nowhere place had a posted salary. I interviewed, eventually get contract, it was 20K less than posted salary... I expressed no thanks.
• Truly middle of nowhere place [grizzly bears thriving] that has consistently high turnover didn't offer contract after interviews. Despite my expressed hobbies interests aligned with that area, and very realistically, had they offered and accepted I might still be there. i.e. I was higher on the list of "this person will be happy here, this person won't want to move."

Small private practice group heavy on ECT, picking up fame in a certain region. Said I'd be willing to interview, but only if X dollars or more is potential salary. Interview, travel time, etc things that I expensed myself, to eventually get offer - for 50K less. Thanks for wasting my time.

One place more recently I had interviewed at that is middle of nowhere, they were slow, not out of spite, but because it was such a small hospital that they truly had no admin, and things just took time. I understood that from the start and rolled with it. I opted not to take the job.

@mistafab Echo that. They did you a favor.

 

[clement]

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

I wouldn't worry about feeling this is desperation.
It's communication.
It shows interest, maturity, responsibility to want to know what's happening with a contract and move it along.
With that said, I usually give people 5-7 Business days to respond to my queries.

Asking what's going on with the contract doesn't look desperate. Asking every week what's going on with the contract, then asking 4-5 various admin, recruitment, or clinical staff over the course of a week what's going on with the contract that you are requesting modifications to does not give the impression that you are in a secure negotiating position.
Asking about the status of an application is also a bit different than asking about modifications to a contract you're requesting.

A more effective form of communication after the initial first non-response is "Would like to know the status of these proposed changes, I'd love to move forward with this but unfortunately I don't have an unlimited time to discuss possible positions and will need to move forward with other options if I don't hear back by X date. Hope to hear from you soon!" If someone isn't responding by then, you've got your answer.

 

[comp1]

There are a lot of downsides to academia. Salary is a big one and restrictive covenants are another. They're going to get a part of your outside work. It's standard. There are other ways to be employed and work with medical students and residents...ways that don't get part of your outside pay and aren't quite the pay cut.

 

[clement]

Asking what's going on with the contract doesn't look desperate. Asking every week what's going on with the contract, then asking 4-5 various admin, recruitment, or clinical staff over the course of a week what's going on with the contract that you are requesting modifications to does not give the impression that you are in a secure negotiating position.
Asking about the status of an application is also a bit different than asking about modifications to a contract you're requesting.

A more effective form of communication after the initial first non-response is "Would like to know the status of these proposed changes, I'd love to move forward with this but unfortunately I don't have an unlimited time to discuss possible positions and will need to move forward with other options if I don't hear back by X date. Hope to hear from you soon!" If someone isn't responding by then, you've got your answer.

I definitely did not ask every week. They contacted me weekly for a while saying I’d hear back. I then gave these fools 3 more weeks than I ordinarily would have and asked 3-4 of them in the span of a week. I get that ghosting in the community at large may not be uncommon, but I’d never encountered it in a professional academic setting (and thus trusted them). Clearly “professional” and “academic” is nothing more than an exterior shell at this point.

 

[clement]

There are a lot of downsides to academia. Salary is a big one and restrictive covenants are another. They're going to get a part of your outside work. It's standard. There are other ways to be employed and work with medical students and residents...ways that don't get part of your outside pay and aren't quite the pay cut.

Good points.

 

[clement]

Asking what's going on with the contract doesn't look desperate. Asking every week what's going on with the contract, then asking 4-5 various admin, recruitment, or clinical staff over the course of a week what's going on with the contract that you are requesting modifications to does not give the impression that you are in a secure negotiating position.
Asking about the status of an application is also a bit different than asking about modifications to a contract you're requesting.

A more effective form of communication after the initial first non-response is "Would like to know the status of these proposed changes, I'd love to move forward with this but unfortunately I don't have an unlimited time to discuss possible positions and will need to move forward with other options if I don't hear back by X date. Hope to hear from you soon!" If someone isn't responding by then, you've got your answer.

Yes exactly what I wrote re status update.

 

[Stagg737]

I definitely did not ask every week. They contacted me weekly for a while saying I’d hear back. I then gave these fools 3 more weeks than I ordinarily would have and asked 3-4 of them in the span of a week. I get that ghosting in the community at large may not be uncommon, but I’d never encountered it in a professional academic setting (and thus trusted them). Clearly “professional” and “academic” is nothing more than an exterior shell at this point.

Not trying to get you doxxed or anything, but if you're cutting ties mind sharing where this was? Might be helpful for other potential job seekers here, especially iirc that you're in CA which is such a popular location. Totally understand if you don't want to though.

 

[ObsequiousAplomb]

In my opinion, ghosting applicants is unprofessional. As much as I hate the term unprofessional, it really does apply to an employer in this field who can't even have one person send a succinct email like "we're going with someone else for this position," or "we've decided not to offer a position to you at this time," or "we'll keep your application on file for future positions." Literally any response, really.

Ghosting in dating is mostly done so that one can move on to the next available candidate. There are really only so many psychiatrists in a given area. Ghosting isn't a good dating strategy when there are only a handful of options.

 

[comp1]

I also detest and actively avoid the term "unprofessional" in any personal/individual context. However, I do think it can be very appropriate for systems issues and this indeed appears to be a systems issue with where the OP applied.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Kind of like dating. The easier date to end the evening with. Yes they did me a favor but also wasted 4 weeks that I could be credentialing elsewhere. Actually during the process they told me their chair has, “No appetite for complications” which was a huge turnoff. So I ended my screw you guys feedback on the recruitment process email with that same line. They definitely don’t have psychiatrists clawing at their doggy doors. I get that bottom line dollars matter but word of mouth is lost dollars too. This is especially true when an affiliated residency program is new. You can’t “build a program” (this is the recruitment line they touted) with the mid-senior people you desire when you clearly don’t have your act together.

Except that the people that want to build the program have no say in the hiring process moving forward. That’s a pencil pusher somewhere.

 

[Celexa]

Except that the people that want to build the program have no say in the hiring process moving forward. That’s a pencil pusher somewhere.

Well, yes and no. The pencil pushers don't put a block on the front line people's email accounts. My academic contract got held up for literal months in the hospital legal dept--but during that time the division chief and dept faculty support were all reachable and periodically told me "sorry, it's still with legal". To be ghosted COMPLETELY by all involved I would call unprofessional.

 

[clement]

In my opinion, ghosting applicants is unprofessional. As much as I hate the term unprofessional, it really does apply to an employer in this field who can't even have one person send a succinct email like "we're going with someone else for this position," or "we've decided not to offer a position to you at this time," or "we'll keep your application on file for future positions." Literally any response, really.

Ghosting in dating is mostly done so that one can move on to the next available candidate. There are really only so many psychiatrists in a given area. Ghosting isn't a good dating strategy when there are only a handful of options.

Having interfaced with the world of labor and employment a bit, I suspect they don’t like to put this type of thing in writing… ghosting is preferable.

 

[TexasPhysician]

Well, yes and no. The pencil pushers don't put a block on the front line people's email accounts. My academic contract got held up for literal months in the hospital legal dept--but during that time the division chief and dept faculty support were all reachable and periodically told me "sorry, it's still with legal". To be ghosted COMPLETELY by all involved I would call unprofessional.

That’s true. They could certainly provide a brief snippet excuse, even if it’s a lie.

I’ve seen an academic center be initially approved to hire a new psychiatrist. They interviewed and found someone. Waiting on approval from legal and then the entire academic center had a mandatory hiring freeze. No timeline provided on hiring. Now it’s either lie to delay the psychiatrist from leaving for another job, don’t answer and hope they wait, or tell the truth and they are gone. I’m not excusing the behavior. I’m just giving more insight into the process. It can be crazy.

I’d personally start moving on.

 

[PsyDr]

if you have to work this hard to get the job, imagine how hard youll work while youre in the job.

This is probably the wisest job advice I have ever heard.

 

[dl2dp2]

Is it fairly uncommon for potential academic group employers to completely ghost after sending over a contract?

I wonder if us mid-senior career folk are at a career disadvantage because we know what to question in employment contracts… and it makes some potential employers insecure. Or maybe the majority candidates sign without reviewing contract nitty gritty so they don’t want “headaches.”

Oh hey, restrictive covenants on part time? No thanks
Oh hey, what’s your actual compensation formula? Bonus formula?
Can you please put my title and job location in the offer letter as opposed to something like, “you’re generally being hired as a psychiatrist and from time to time we could change your responsibilities” (I hate those deliberately nebulous types of academic contracts). If I’m outpatient, state it.
How many full time physicians do you have and roughly how many pts do they see in a single shift? “Oh we get 1000 visits per month.”

So I asked these types of questions and they promised to answer every week… until 4 went by. I then asked for a site visit and they said the chief of psychiatry wants to know if I’ve signed my contract first. Basically saying don’t waste our time visiting if you haven’t signed.

When I tried to f/u, literally none of the 4-5 admin, recruitment, or clinical staff will answer the phone or respond to any form of communication in well over a week (they’re not away for the holidays).

Academia is known to not negotiate much if at all.

Restrictive covenants are mandatory at the programs near me. It is non-negotiable by leadership. Working elsewhere and receiving payment elsewhere without the university receiving your paycheck first and cutting you a “fair percent” is a fireable offense.

This has nothing to do with age. It is take it or leave it, and the university leadership that made the decision aren’t in your email chain. Those you are responding with can’t change the policy, and those with power won’t change the policy for Freud himself.

A certain large academic medical center in Texas:
1. has an exclusive restrictive covenant
2. has an opaque, but everyone intimated as being low, salary formula

They also ghosted me.

I think you are SOL. I got a curt E-mail several months later. This is probably their standard protocol. It's not everywhere but it's common. Don't take it personally. It's their loss not yours.

 

[clement]

🤔

 

[clement]

A certain large academic medical center in Texas:
1. has an exclusive restrictive covenant
2. has a salary formula

I think you are SOL. I got a curt E-mail several months later. This is probably their standard protocol. It's not everywhere but it's common. Don't take it personally. It's their loss not yours.

They stressed than being under 1 FTE should make the restrictive covenant a non issue- if requested. The vast majority of people I know with such contract clauses in my area will side hustle anyway, but I figured I’d be transparent.

 

[dl2dp2]

They stressed than being under 1 FTE should make the restrictive covenant a non issue- if requested. The vast majority of people I know with such contract clauses in my state will side hustle anyway, but I figured I’d be transparent.

Right, this is the interesting part. I've found now after many years of talking to people that an academic job's restrictive covenant is rarely enforced. If you are really obvious about it and the leadership hates you, they might fire you. But if you discreetly see patients on the side, nobody knows and nobody cares. If people don't like you and you jibber jabber and the word gets to the wrong ears you'd get fired. But maybe you'd make so much money on the side that you won't care. Nobody will sue you to recover "transparency" haircut. The cost of litigation alone would make the recovery a wash.

Some institutes don't have contracts and jobs are just given out by a handshake, and at best a short offer letter. Initially, I thought that was super improper. In hindsight, it's actually a feature, not a bug.

Honestly, contracts are worthless in our industry. Will you litigate to force a specific performance? Will the hospital? The answer is no. If things that were promised weren't delivered, you'll just find a new job. You can't expect that just having the contract in hand your line manager wouldn't try to dump a bunch of RVUs on you and not pay you. And the more fuss you make the more likely they'll try to screw you.

My advice: find another PSLF-eligible job, get your loan paid, and get outta academia. Academia is a very deep hole of too many unwritten rules, and unless you know you are the right fit you aren't the right fit.

 

[Celexa]

They stressed than being under 1 FTE should make the restrictive covenant a non issue- if requested. The vast majority of people I know with such contract clauses in my state will side hustle anyway, but I figured I’d be transparent.

Yeah a non-issue until the same higher ups want it to be, or there's regime change. "oh, it's fine, we've never enforced it!".

I was fortunate that my department blinked first on this exact issue. Just to provide a counter example. I am fully aware of academic depts behaving exactly as you described, but it's not universal. Granted I was negotiating from the inside (as a fellow) so ghosting me would have been, admittedly, waaaaay more difficult for them....

I know of an academic dept that lost double digit numbers of faculty and residents (who considered jobs in both places) to a nearby institution which eventually resulted in them lifting their salary from laughably bottom tier even for academics to on par with the other academic depts in the region. Was it absurd that it took losing the 11th or 12th person to get to that point? Yes. But did they eventually learn? Also yes. Are the contracts there still over restrictive? Indeed yes! But that's what happens when you try and teach an old dog new tricks.... Change is slow.

 

[clement]

😐

 

[PsyDr]

I’m not sure why this rubbed more abrasively than other recruitment fails I’ve come across over the years. I think it was primarily giving them the “academic/professional benefit of the doubt” not to waste weeks of time only to ghost…To be clear, I quit a toxic job months ago and am not getting paid to sit around- other than tinkering with private practice skeletal elements. The last thing I heard before the crickets started chirping is that they (the academic group) had just held a meeting with this county/academic/residency chair. Yes, they could have simply said, “Sorry, he still hasn’t worked up an appetite for complications- including your request to put the title, job responsibilities, and job location in the offer letter.” You know, common decency type of stuff.

It’s like dating in your 20s. No one says what they mean, and whoever wants it more, has the most power.

We never grow up. It’s just slightly more complicated versions of the same thing.

 

[Sushirolls]

Right, this is the interesting part. I've found now after many years of talking to people that an academic job's restrictive covenant is rarely enforced. If you are really obvious about it and the leadership hates you, they might fire you. But if you discreetly see patients on the side, nobody knows and nobody cares. If people don't like you and you jibber jabber and the word gets to the wrong ears you'd get fired. But maybe you'd make so much money on the side that you won't care. Nobody will sue you to recover "transparency" haircut. The cost of litigation alone would make the recovery a wash.

Some institutes don't have contracts and jobs are just given out by a handshake, and at best a short offer letter. Initially, I thought that was super improper. In hindsight, it's actually a feature, not a bug.

Honestly, contracts are worthless in our industry. Will you litigate to force a specific performance? Will the hospital? The answer is no. If things that were promised weren't delivered, you'll just find a new job. You can't expect that just having the contract in hand your line manager wouldn't try to dump a bunch of RVUs on you and not pay you. And the more fuss you make the more likely they'll try to screw you.

My advice: find another PSLF-eligible job, get your loan paid, and get outta academia. Academia is a very deep hole of too many unwritten rules, and unless you know you are the right fit you aren't the right fit.

Uh, hospitals do litigate. They keep lawyers in house, and when they have their work capacity exceeded, they retain out of house legal services.
They will litigate even when it doesn't financially make sense.