Recently came upon an interesting job opening for the Academic Director of the Centre for Corporate Reputation at the Said Business School at Oxford University. It was in the Economist (01.03.08). The reason the issue is several weeks old is that I saved the posting from my recent travels toEurope. Among the many qualities that Oxford is looking for (energetic, visionary, inspirational, leadership, networker, research management and scholar, international reputation, and prodigious publisher in prestigious publications) is having a “good media presence.” I found it interesting that the school is only requiring that the candidate be “good” with the media when media-bility would be so important to building a reputation for the Centre and attracting top-notch faculty and students. I also was struck by the fact that there was no mention of having to be familiar with emerging or social media. Seems that academia is missing the boat by not even mentioning that they would mildly prefer someone with at least “passing” or “decent” familiarity with the rapidly evolving world of online reputation management. Nothing could be hotter. Why not ask for a blogger? I know. I know. Not going to happen. And I was also musing about why the job description did not mention that the preferred individual should be “great” or “electric” in the classroom (maybe they never teach students but I presume they have to be in the classroom at some point) or a talent magnet (how best to keep top talent and attract them). It seems to me that all of these other factors might have been mentioned in the criteria for this prestigious position. Maybe it would be nice to haves while the ones listed are must haves. But of all the factors that should have been noted, online presence or expertise should have been at least a footnote.