by K.B » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:23 am
Selection depending on the skills required and candidate's track record is not technically 'prejudice'. You have probably mistaken what they are expecting. If the industry require social, team player and reject a person with a long academic track record doesn't mean that they coin the academic person as antisocial and incapable of teamwork. Having seen a bit of both academic and industrial working atmosphere, I could see a few differences in them and the mindset of people who work there.
Again, I should thank the forum to give me some insights. I had the privilege of working with my PhD supervisor's PhD supervisor during my second year of my doctoral studies. He spent quite a lot of time for both scientific and career oriented discussions. During those sessions, I should say he changed my view point on industry. I was thinking I am pretty much an academic person and sort of hated to work in industry, most of the academic people I met had the similar impression. He gave some insights on how things work in industry, and also suggested me to perform some experiments, which will make my profile a little interesting and facilitate me to step into industrial sector. He recommended to perform some animal experiments and utilize some animal surgery skills I acquired earlier.
After getting into industry, I was pretty much amazed how they could pick people with such a striking similarities to each other (as in their attitude towards work) though their expertise are so different to each other and a diverse background. I could understand why they prefer people with certain personality traits. Having an extended academic track record means they are more focused on a specific topic, but if they wanted to be in industry why they did not take efforts earlier? If they have taken, and couldn't succeed, there might be a reason.
While talking to some of my academic peers, who were either interested or they were interested but couldn't make into industry, I could sense that though they are very talented and experts in their fields, they sort of lack something. Recently, one of my friend who had very good publications and expertise that the job profile (and he shared what his, then his, future supervisor expected), I could sense it's quite possible for him to make it to. But when we were talking about how the interview went, his answers to certain questions made me to even think that he is not serious about the industry, or put it in the other way, he was sounding more like a very good academic person, and that's it. It took a while for me to convey and for him to get how exact he could have answered those questions. He has very good social skills, but that wasn't typically how an industrial person might have answered or behaved.
How to get around this expectation? Well, industry wants someone who takes no time to get into the matrix and achieve the set targets. If you're the one, they hire you, if not you still have academic position. If you want to be in the industry, acquire the skills.
All the above statements I have given are just from my personal experience, and having worked in one single company and having collaborated with three other industries, but always worked in the research sector. I could sense that the company philosophy differs to each other and people from different company are conditioned to see things from a certain view point. So, this might not be the whole case, there are experts here who could shed more light on this.