CDZ Help me review a hiring decision

[D Truth]

So, I was part of a evaluation for potential new hires.
HR has sort of indicated that they value #1 Credit Score (which I'm not allowed to know apparently... 'course then again I don't care), #2 Education, #3 Diversity, #4 My assessment on Ability. The job was an entry'ish level job working with information technology, process management and some light engineering. Basically some secretarial work, and some project management. Really just needed some organized person to know how to delegate tasks to the right people and step in if required.

Great, just flippin' great. It's not even "their" criteria, it's just the stupid hiring agency they use.
Personally I don't care about diversity, education or a bullshit credit score... I just want someone who can do the job, and keep the department on track.
Still, I'm not going to base my 'commendations on this stupid message board, I just thought it an interesting opportunity for discussion. (spoiler: The decision was already made in December).

Person A - I have no idea on the credit score, Bachelors degree (applicable to job), fresh out of college. Apparently worked in fast food when he was in high school, no reply on my background check. Not what 'merica defines as a minority, though of all the people I've interviewed this kid was exceptionally a dipshit. When I interviewed him just didn't seem to know what he was talking about though kept bringing up some crap about football. Basically demanded what amounted to a management position, yet had clearly no experience or any idea how to do anything.

Person B - High School graduate, I'd guess 700'ish credit score (talked 'little about the mortgage, the bills for kids)... seemed pretty organized? Probably will retire in about 5 years. A lot of work experience in various fields, former managers "off record" said she was awesome, only that she had to take time off irregularly. She was a "minority", because she was a "she" and the last name... Double whammy to the diversity czars. Hell, I even liked her, seemed like a nice person to have in the office. More importantly, she knew what the hell she was talking about. The anecdotes she shared indicated she knew which kind of work went to the people on hand. Only "problem", she cut herself waaay short in her salary demand... almost wanted to tell her to ask for more.

Person C - No idea about credit score can only assume "not good"(she kept saying she was behind on payments). Associates (surprisingly applicable) and attending the university. Had a *ahem*, verifiable work experience... though absolutely not related to the job. Nothing like calling a "gentleman's" club to discuss work experience. Was completely clueless about the job though expressed an interest in "willing to learn". Well, she was a "she" so that would make the diversity czar happy. Refused to engage in discussion about salary, just "I'm sure you will pay me what I'm worth". My personal opinion was a vision of a train wreck of an employee.

Person D - Pretty much blurted out they had no credit score, like literally no credit score. Now I have to interject here, the only reason this guy made it to the interview phase was because I happened to be bored one afternoon and looked through the candidate profiles that came in on the old system (before the retard hiring agency). And I think he was asian or russian or something! So HR apparently humored me. This kid never even finished high school instead started building systems directly related to the job. Crazy thing is that he didn't even want the salary position, just wanted a 1099! Checked with the previous contracts he worked...seriously, I was impressed. For Christ sake we had a chance to hire the next Steve Jobs! (spoiler, not hired).

Person E - No idea of credit. Bachelors from the local university (not applicable). Minority (HR made this clear), obviously the diversity czar would be happy. Multiple job experience in retail, fast food, and labor. Mangers who replied only stated "worked here for one pay period", seriously same reply every time. At the interview he didn't know how to even begin to express the details of the job. Just demanded the salary.com minimum for the job, ye went right to that. Otherwise he also kept stating "you know what I am sayin'?" every question... and no, I did not know what he was saying because he wouldn't even answer the goddamed questions.

(There were more candidates, a whole blur of them)

So, clean debate. Who represented the best hire?.

 

[Gracie]

None of the above.

 

[emilynghiem]

At least Person D has some experience with IT.
The rest you can teach or do yourself.

 

[DarkFury]

I would go with "B" planning in say 21/2 years to have "B" train their replacement. "A" 21/2 years down the road would be the trainee choice once you get them to shut up about football.

 

[Boss]

Gut instinct with nothing else to go on, I would probably say Candidate B. However, your descriptions sound 1) Like you were very negative and skeptical of the requested criteria to start with and 2) Weren't really impressed with any of the applicants.

Things like credit score, education and diversity are important... they're not bullshit. Work experience, especially with IT is the biggest bullshit of all because every IT system is different. Yes, you want someone who knows what they are doing but sometimes actual work experience at a particular or specific role is detrimental because of the "old dogs/new tricks" thing. I hired a guy once who had stellar experience and all I heard for the next 3 months (before I fired him) was how things were done where he used to work. One day, I up and told him... If they had been done the right way, you'd still have a job there, wouldn't you?

Credit score lets you know the person is responsible. They take care of things that are expected of them and place importance on that. Education is much the same thing, it lets you know they are dedicated and work toward goals and objectives without having to be pushed. Diversity is least important but it can be a determining factor if all else is equal. Because of AA laws, larger companies must undergo periodic evaluations on diversity in hiring, so whether you personally agree or think that is important, it is important to the company if they list it as a criteria.

These are my personal observations as someone who has done a lot of hiring over the years and I stress that it is, by no means, an endorsement. I would have to personally interview the candidates to make an informed evaluation. But gut instinct, based on your presentation, I would say Candidate B was the best hire in this case.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'd hire the stripper.

guys would come running for new assignments and if she couldn't do her job, someone else would.


besides, the job you describe doesn't have any real needs.

voted B as the person I thought got hired

 

[Missourian]

I would have recommended D. I'm willing to take a chance on anyone who impresses me. B was the safe choice, but I suspect she was likely to old to get hired on.

Karma would dictate E was hired, lasted a month, and A replaced him.

My guess is C got the job.

 

[gtopa1]

"A"....you seem strong enough to get the twit to toe the line.

I voted for "B" because she is awesome but it is an entry level job. "A" could use entry level experience to get an idea of what work really involves. The Qual means a lot really; they know their stuff.

Greg

 

[320 Years of History]

If the position being filled is "entry level-ish" in the sense that it has unlimited career growth opportunity in the company, and I were seeking someone having the ability to do the current work as well as the potential to ascend to the beginnings of senior management, I wouldn't have given an offer to any of them.

If the position is one that has a clear limit as goes career growth and is instead one for which the person may receive periodic pay raises, and offers at be the opportunity for its holder to ascend only to low or mid-level, non critical business management having only a local office or regional span of control/authority, I'd have offered the job to candidate B.

 

[Rouge Rover]

Who did you recommend? I would've recommended A, the rest of them all have something I would have disqualified them for.

 

[JoeB131]

As someone who has written a LOT of resumes for people, my thoughts.

My experience is that IT jobs don't last all that long. I generally dread writing IT resumes because they are like construction workers, constantly changing jobs.

You don't give any idea what the job pays, so that would actually have an effect on candidate.

Honestly, it sounds like whoever did the initial screening didn't do a very good job. Most positions have hundreds of resumes, and these were the best 5 you could find.

Candidate A sounds like a typical college graduate. He gets his degree and he thinks the world is his oyster, because that's what they've been telling him the last four years while putting him thousands of dollars in debt.

Candidate B sounds like she's the most qualified, but she's also the most likely to move on to a better job if your company doesn't pay well.

Candidate C it sounds like you are applying your morality to a girl who did a degrading job to pay for college, not that you really evaluated her merit.

Candidate D sounded like he had potential, although I wonder how you can't tell the difference between a Russian and an Asian.

Candidate E, sounds pretty awful.

 

[Disir]

Hmmm...what grade did D drop out of and can his high school attendance be verified? If he just wants a 1099 then he is making money elsewhere and just trying to hide it. No credit score indicates paying for everything in cash. By itself, there is nothing wrong with it. A lot of folks do that--if you don't have the cash for it don't buy it. Other times it may be making sure there is no paper trail except the one deliberately created.

Person A is not just going to be miserable but he is going to make your entire crew miserable.

Person E is a non starter.

Person C may be pretty good if given a shot. Primarily because she wants out and is willing to do whatever is necessary to get out of working at a gentleman's club--including putting herself through school. But, if we have to go off your gut instinct then clearly not.

Person B. Person B has responsibilities and is willing to work. I am uncertain as to what irregular time off actually means. Are we talking kid is sick and leave to pick him up from school? Are we talking calls off for a week at a time? If you can find out why she is taking that time off without breaking any laws by asking her directly that would be great. If you can get an idea from the "Off the record managers" that would be awesome. If she cannot afford to have someone watch the kids or is managing everything solo then paying her more than what she is asking might resolve that issue. Either way, I would take that knowledge and be very specific about where that time off will be taken from.....such as vacation time or sick leave and when it is gone, it is gone. I would spend a good amount of time documenting every absence or time taken off. I might even have her sign off on those absences so that you don't win a lawsuit if push comes to shove. If her absences screw your crew then I wouldn't touch it. But, I would hire her because it would buy me time.

I don't go off of a credit score. There are too many reasons that can take a dive and right now with identity theft it's pretty sketchy deal. It may take months to correct that score and, sometimes, years. If something goes wrong and someone cannot make student loan payments and then picks it back up it will stay on their record for 10 years.

 

[Moonglow]

Hire a veteran or a middle aged person that understands credit..Why only go after those that are still wet behind the ears?

 

[saveliberty]

C or B, not necessarily in that order.

 

[320 Years of History]

....
Honestly, it sounds like whoever did the initial screening didn't do a very good job. Most positions have hundreds of resumes, and these were the best 5 you could find.

....

That is what stood out for me as well. Might it be the descriptions that we were given? Might it be that they really were the best applicants received? Might it be there were others who were better? Could be all of those things and more. It may even be that we are being asked to choose from among the worst of applicants the company considered, thus finding ourselves choosing the best of the worst.....the point of our being asked to do so is beyond me if that is indeed what is in play.

 

[Rouge Rover]

No one else has voted for A? It seems to me that for an entry level position like that 'A' is perfect for it.

 

[320 Years of History]

No one else has voted for A? It seems to me that for an entry level position like that 'A' is perfect for it.

Well, upon reading "of all the people I've interviewed this kid was exceptionally a dipshit," I knew right then and there that I wouldn't choose a person who struck me as a "dipsh*t." So I stopped reading and went on to the next person.

My firm routinely hires young folks straight out of college. Those folks for whatever skill s they have, need to at least present themselves as being something more "worthy" than "dipsh*t." Strong communication skills, strong analytical/judgement skills, strong critical thinking skills, strong attention to detail, highly and well organized, something....If they are so weak in enough dimensions that I'd think of them as a "dipsh*t," I'm not going to give them an offer.

Someone else may, but I would not, and if they did accept an offer from one of my colleagues, were I to know/remember them from their interview with me, there's no way I'd admit them onto one of my project teams until they'd proven themselves on someone else's project. It's not that I'm unwilling to have my managers develop junior staff, it's that few of my projects have the bandwidth to do so for a "dipshit."

 

[Boss]

No one else has voted for A? It seems to me that for an entry level position like that 'A' is perfect for it.

Well I based my evaluation on the fact he was a dipshit in the interview who was demanding a manager's job but didn't know what the hell he was talking about or how to do anything. And let's also understand, an "entry-level" IT job is much different than an "entry-level" hamburger flipper. Most "entry-level" jobs don't require college education, much less credit scores and such. So this is a job that is a little better than the average "entry-level" job, from my understanding.

Candidate B seemed the most solid. The only flag was she had to take time off irregularly. That can be explained and doesn't mean it would be a recurring problem. People do have emergencies and things that they have to take time off for legitimately from time to time.

When I was hiring, I always had a 90-day probationary period where it was understood that this sort of thing would be looked at and scrutinized vigorously. That should give enough time for some legitimate problem to surface if there is one. I really made my determination based on her experience and know-how. A confident attitude and good sense of what is going on is a vital asset in my opinion.

 

[Rouge Rover]

No one else has voted for A? It seems to me that for an entry level position like that 'A' is perfect for it.

Well I based my evaluation on the fact he was a dipshit in the interview who was demanding a manager's job but didn't know what the hell he was talking about or how to do anything. And let's also understand, an "entry-level" IT job is much different than an "entry-level" hamburger flipper. Most "entry-level" jobs don't require college education, much less credit scores and such. So this is a job that is a little better than the average "entry-level" job, from my understanding.

Candidate B seemed the most solid. The only flag was she had to take time off irregularly. That can be explained and doesn't mean it would be a recurring problem. People do have emergencies and things that they have to take time off for legitimately from time to time.

When I was hiring, I always had a 90-day probationary period where it was understood that this sort of thing would be looked at and scrutinized vigorously. That should give enough time for some legitimate problem to surface if there is one. I really made my determination based on her experience and know-how. A confident attitude and good sense of what is going on is a vital asset in my opinion.

The fact he wanted a management position is a plus for me. He won't get it right away but he wants it and I think that's good.

 

[320 Years of History]

No one else has voted for A? It seems to me that for an entry level position like that 'A' is perfect for it.

Well I based my evaluation on the fact he was a dipshit in the interview who was demanding a manager's job but didn't know what the hell he was talking about or how to do anything. And let's also understand, an "entry-level" IT job is much different than an "entry-level" hamburger flipper. Most "entry-level" jobs don't require college education, much less credit scores and such. So this is a job that is a little better than the average "entry-level" job, from my understanding.

Candidate B seemed the most solid. The only flag was she had to take time off irregularly. That can be explained and doesn't mean it would be a recurring problem. People do have emergencies and things that they have to take time off for legitimately from time to time.

When I was hiring, I always had a 90-day probationary period where it was understood that this sort of thing would be looked at and scrutinized vigorously. That should give enough time for some legitimate problem to surface if there is one. I really made my determination based on her experience and know-how. A confident attitude and good sense of what is going on is a vital asset in my opinion.

Makes sense to me.

Blue:
I didn't make it past "dipsh*t." with that one, but given that it was followed by "didn't know what he was talking about," and thus also didn't have the sense to know he didn't and thereby keep quiet or just say he didn't know XY or Z is yet another key detractor for that individual. At least to me it is. In my industry, people can put up with one not knowing/understanding something. They have no tolerance for one's not knowing and prattling on about it anyway, or not understanding and while in that state also not asking for input so they can come to understand.

For me and my colleagues, that all falls under two broad categories: communication skills and integrity. Whereas one can be taught on the job how to better and more effectively communicate, one must come to the job with unimpeachable integrity.

Red:
I didn't know that. All the entry level jobs for which I interview folks do require college degrees; moreover, it's typical that candidates graduated with honors to even get invited to interview with us, although there are rare exceptions to that. The firm does have jobs for which a degree isn't necessary, but we don't think of them as "entry level" so much as "low level." For us, "entry level" refers to client-facing, partner-track positions, or ones that lead to internal upper-middle/senior management positions. In short, positions that meet our "definition" of "career track" jobs for which the firm will invest considerable resources in developing the holders of them.