CDZ Help me review a hiring decision

[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.

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.

That is a good sign. One good sign amidst a plethora of red lights isn't going to make the difference for me.

 

[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.

That is a good sign. One good sign amidst a plethora of red lights isn't going to make the difference for me.

I think B is ruled out because she's overqualified. C is ruled out for being a scatterbrain and underqualified. D is a maverick, I wouldn't hire him for that position and E can't be relied upon to stay. A is the guy.

 

[Boss]

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.

Again, my point is, there is a wide range of "entry-level" jobs. Some people read "entry-level" and they think... no skills or experience required. Emptying bed pans at the nursing home... flipping burgers... mopping floors... washing dishes... loading trucks... low-level jobs. While, as you indicate, many companies consider "entry-level" to be the starting position of a career.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think B is ruled out because she's overqualified. C is ruled out for being a scatterbrain and underqualified. D is a maverick, I wouldn't hire him for that position and E can't be relied upon to stay. A is the guy.

And therein lies the heart and soul of my initial remarks back at post #9: having to choose the best of the worst based one having to make certain assumptions about the position on offer. Frankly, I think the person (was it you?) who wrote of their astonishment that the described applicants were the supposed best the company had from which to choose offered the best reflection I've seen on the matter. LOL

B is likely overqualified, but if her seniority accurately portends her leaving the position in a lustrum or so, I'd be okay with that as she's likely just seeking to add some supplemental time and income for the sake of her SSI benefits. I can understand that for I am ready (financially and mentally/life stage) to retire now, but not having reached 62, and liking my work and work life balance, I will keep working until 62, largely to keep my "stop work" years from averaging into SSI as zeros, so long as nothing comes about to change my attitude about my work. There's no way I will wait until I'm 67 to stop working.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think B is ruled out because she's overqualified. C is ruled out for being a scatterbrain and underqualified. D is a maverick, I wouldn't hire him for that position and E can't be relied upon to stay. A is the guy.

And therein lies the heart and soul of my initial remarks back at post #9: having to choose the best of the worst based one having to make certain assumptions about the position on offer. Frankly, I think the person (was it you?) who wrote of their astonishment that the described applicants were the supposed best the company had from which to choose offered the best reflection I've seen on the matter. LOL

B is likely overqualified, but if her seniority accurately portends her leaving the position in a lustrum or so, I'd be okay with that as she's likely just seeking to add some supplemental time and income for the sake of her SSI benefits. I can understand that for I am ready (financially and mentally/life stage) to retire now, but not having reached 62, and liking my work and work life balance, I will keep working until 62, largely to keep my "stop work" years from averaging into SSI as zeros, so long as nothing comes about to change my attitude about my work. There's no way I will wait until I'm 67 to stop working.

Then why choose B?

He indicated that individual is likely to retire within 5 years. As a position that should lead to a career it is obvious that is simply impossible in her case. D, to me, represents a batter candidate with previous work that was above expectations. The fact he simply wanted a 1099 is something to look into though.

 

[Iceweasel]

B sounds the best but retiring that soon is a problem, unless it works for the company, like the position disappearing. None of the others would be a consideration for me but it sounds like HR wants diversity so bad they can taste it. Just hire a one legged black lesbian and keep her around for decoration.

 

[320 Years of History]

Then why choose B?

He indicated that individual is likely to retire within 5 years. As a position that should lead to a career it is obvious that is simply impossible in her case. D, to me, represents a batter candidate with previous work that was above expectations. The fact he simply wanted a 1099 is something to look into though.

Blue:
Mainly because the OP doesn't indicate whether the role is a career-track one and because I thus assumed it is not.

Red:
He wants to be a contractor instead of an employee. There was no indication of whether the role is better suited, from the employer's standpoint, to a contractor or to an employee. One key difference is that contractors retain rights to the intellectual capital they produce. That may or may not be relevant for the employer. I don't know and I didn't feel like asking.

You're right though, D seems like a suitable candidate aside from his not having finished high school. Might he be self-taught effectively enough without the multidisciplinary thinking skills one acquires in high school? I don't know. Again, and in light too of the many highly slanted remarks in the collection of descriptions, I didn't feel like asking.

At the end of the day, I elected, as best I could and to the extent I was willing, to just "play the game" as it was presented.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?.

You have not presented the information in a manner which permits me to believe a word that you have said.

And yeah.....I know.....you don't care if I believe you or not. It's all good.

 

[D Truth]

Then why choose B?

He indicated that individual is likely to retire within 5 years. As a position that should lead to a career it is obvious that is simply impossible in her case. D, to me, represents a batter candidate with previous work that was above expectations. The fact he simply wanted a 1099 is something to look into though.

Blue:
Mainly because the OP doesn't indicate whether the role is a career-track one and because I thus assumed it is not.

Red:
He wants to be a contractor instead of an employee. There was no indication of whether the role is better suited, from the employer's standpoint, to a contractor or to an employee. One key difference is that contractors retain rights to the intellectual capital they produce. That may or may not be relevant for the employer. I don't know and I didn't feel like asking.

You're right though, D seems like a suitable candidate aside from his not having finished high school. Might he be self-taught effectively enough without the multidisciplinary thinking skills one acquires in high school? I don't know. Again, and in light too of the many highly slanted remarks in the collection of descriptions, I didn't feel like asking.

At the end of the day, I elected, as best I could and to the extent I was willing, to just "play the game" as it was presented.

Since the job is salaried it is viewed by the company as career oriented. We also have hourly or "support" personnel, contractors, interns and temps.
I referred "entry level" as relative to the salary... which was only 10K or so more than what we pay interns.

Most of the OP is just a rant at the hiring agency and HR for the clowns they send us when we are asking for the opposite. I didn't intend for it to be a game, just a review of my assessments and a lot of venting. Granted, the assessments presented were harsh as I was particularly pissed off at the time. I do appreciate the feedback, made me reconsider how I view some of these candidates.

There were a lot of interviews, the five I remembered represented a contrast between what the managers considered valuable and what HR (or their hiring agency) considered valuable. To be honest the one I really wanted for the position was an intern who hightailed it at the end of the year dammit. And yes, one of the five were hired.

I probably should have been more clear about HR's real unwritten criteria: "Get a university grad who will work cheapest past the managers, preferably someone who satisfies the diversity quota".

 

[Boss]

Then why choose B?

He indicated that individual is likely to retire within 5 years.

There is no way to determine when a person is planning on retiring unless you ask. I've known people who work into their late 70s. It depends on the work and the person. It's supposed to be illegal to discriminate based on age but it's probably one of the most serious problems in hiring today. If that were the only reason you rejected this person and they knew that, you're setting your company up for a lawsuit for age discrimination.

Now.. for me personally, five years of solid employment from someone who knows their stuff and brings a benefit to the table for my company is about as good as I can expect. It's a nice thought that everyone you hire is going to stay 25 years and retire with a gold watch, it just usually doesn't work out that way. An older person might actually stick around longer than someone young and still searching for the job they love. Older people tend to be more stable and content. So how is hiring someone who may retire in 5 years different than hiring someone who will likely leave within 5 years to go work for a better company?

 

[D Truth]

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.
ues
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.

I have to disagree with some of your points.
To me, nothing beats experience.
Certs? lets talk.
College? meh... Starting to agree with colleagues, these kids from the university are lost.
Diversity? buzz off. IT is about brains, not any of that other shit.
Credit Score? So what?
Criminal BC? Fail it you are gone.
Drug Test? Fail it you are gone.

In IT, experience is king. Experienced IT people are the most adaptable professionals there are, they deal with a rate of innovation and change that far exceeds any accountant, business manager, or legal profession. I'm trying to not be angry, so don't even get me started about HR. The only other area which comes even close is marketing.

 

[D Truth]

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.

Pretty much spot on.

Candidate "A" - Business Communication Degree. Ask him about software development PM, he babbles on about some sort of football analogy about the coach designing the play. OK so on to software dev patterns...ask him specifically about MVP development patterns - seriously - responds with the NFL MVP from 2013 and how he predicted it.

Candidate "B" - An outdated set of certs. She seemed really grateful for the job at the minimum salary. I really wish I could of figured out a way to advise her that she could have negotiated higher salary (and not violate HR's unwritten rules)... she's widowed and supporting her daughter and a grandchild. Christ was it an epic fight with HR for her hire...
Aparently she should have never even been processed due to lack of "education". I had to get a VP (who coincidentally never went to college) to finally get the hire processed.

Candidate "C" - Associates in Web Design (I think) . You may have a point... yet still she was more qualified for a internship, not a salary. I can only say the best thing for her would be to drop out of the university game and get a real job, there is no excuse for prostitution... a cert wouldn't hurt either, most importantly - get off the dope. So yeah, my opinion was a bit more jaded of her because another interviewer passed me in the hall, said "piss test" while shaking his head on my way to interview her.

Candidate D - Alphabet soup of certs. Looked asian, had a Russian last name, you would be confused too, why is this a factor in hiring people?
As another post pointed out... turned out the guy did have another job, he owned his own business. Only found his resume because it was sitting in our old system for a couple of years. Still all is good, during the interviews he gave us some very valuable cloud options we were not aware of, which all checked out. Second interview was even better. Hoping he accepts a contract on a big project next quarter. HR seems to have a particular hatred for this guy... makes me like him more.

Candidate "E" - Business Management degree, HR also very positive. Interview was ridiculous, I'm pretty sure the poor guy didn't even realize he was in an interview for an IT job. HR sends us another winner!

 

[Boss]

I have to disagree with some of your points.
To me, nothing beats experience.

This was the primary basis on which I picked Candidate B.

I don't really see where you disagreed with my points but you may be speaking of my assessment of the criteria set by HR. Again, I am in no position to argue, just conveying my own personal expertise in the matter. In my case, I was always the final "decider" so it was entirely my prerogative as to the criteria. I never checked credit scores or mandated diversity but I can see how a proactive HR might do so and I simply made the case for them. Sometimes, creative approaches are in order to get the best quality people. That's why it may not make sense to you that credit score would be a priority but it can tell you a lot about a person's integrity that you can't discern through an interview.

And again, while I agree with you absolutely, nothing trumps experience in most cases, it can also be a detriment in certain fields and for certain individuals. I always hated the term "overqualified" because it seemed a little self-defeating. The same for your complaint of demanding too low a salary. If you have a quality candidate who is content with a lower salary than you would be willing to pay them, why is that a problem? I never really held these things against anyone in hiring because to me, it showed they were modest enough to not ask for too much or expect too much. If they were willing to take this job they were "overqualified" for, and at a pay rate less than deserved, I looked at this as a blessing. Count my lucky stars they crossed my path. I'm getting a rock star for cheap... I'm not complaining about it.

So was it Candidate B who was hired?

 

[xband]

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)

Person B has hands on experience that cannot be taught in college. I only have a High School education but was hired over an engineer from Fermi Lab looking for a job but I had a military background.

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

 

[xband]

I have to disagree with some of your points.
To me, nothing beats experience.

This was the primary basis on which I picked Candidate B.

I don't really see where you disagreed with my points but you may be speaking of my assessment of the criteria set by HR. Again, I am in no position to argue, just conveying my own personal expertise in the matter. In my case, I was always the final "decider" so it was entirely my prerogative as to the criteria. I never checked credit scores or mandated diversity but I can see how a proactive HR might do so and I simply made the case for them. Sometimes, creative approaches are in order to get the best quality people. That's why it may not make sense to you that credit score would be a priority but it can tell you a lot about a person's integrity that you can't discern through an interview.

And again, while I agree with you absolutely, nothing trumps experience in most cases, it can also be a detriment in certain fields and for certain individuals. I always hated the term "overqualified" because it seemed a little self-defeating. The same for your complaint of demanding too low a salary. If you have a quality candidate who is content with a lower salary than you would be willing to pay them, why is that a problem? I never really held these things against anyone in hiring because to me, it showed they were modest enough to not ask for too much or expect too much. If they were willing to take this job they were "overqualified" for, and at a pay rate less than deserved, I looked at this as a blessing. Count my lucky stars they crossed my path. I'm getting a rock star for cheap... I'm not complaining about it.

So was it Candidate B who was hired?

HR what a joke and in house training is another joke. HR was keeping qualified people out of the multi-billion international company that is privately held. Production went down and the owner elimated

 

[D Truth]

I have to disagree with some of your points.
To me, nothing beats experience.

This was the primary basis on which I picked Candidate B.

I don't really see where you disagreed with my points but you may be speaking of my assessment of the criteria set by HR. Again, I am in no position to argue, just conveying my own personal expertise in the matter. In my case, I was always the final "decider" so it was entirely my prerogative as to the criteria. I never checked credit scores or mandated diversity but I can see how a proactive HR might do so and I simply made the case for them. Sometimes, creative approaches are in order to get the best quality people. That's why it may not make sense to you that credit score would be a priority but it can tell you a lot about a person's integrity that you can't discern through an interview.

And again, while I agree with you absolutely, nothing trumps experience in most cases, it can also be a detriment in certain fields and for certain individuals. I always hated the term "overqualified" because it seemed a little self-defeating. The same for your complaint of demanding too low a salary. If you have a quality candidate who is content with a lower salary than you would be willing to pay them, why is that a problem? I never really held these things against anyone in hiring because to me, it showed they were modest enough to not ask for too much or expect too much. If they were willing to take this job they were "overqualified" for, and at a pay rate less than deserved, I looked at this as a blessing. Count my lucky stars they crossed my path. I'm getting a rock star for cheap... I'm not complaining about it.

So was it Candidate B who was hired?

Borrowing from another poster... "blue" is what I have a difference with.
Accepting lower than what you are worth is a sign of a lack of confidence. That sends off red flags for me, just how I am.

If this lady only realized how her lack of a corporate backbone was hurting her...it just pisses me off. I wish people had more accurate realizations of what they are actually worth.
If she had a clue to what she was actually worth she would not have to worry about her grandchild so much... well at least not financially. Jesus, I wish I could "legally" talk to people in plain terms.

Oh yeah, after an epic fight with HR, we hired."B". Only been a month or so, I can't make any real statement... no late 'ins or unexplained absences. She apparently never worked at a company that had flex time? I'm pretty sure that my conversations with previous employers regarding irregular absences were because of kids. I don't consider kids to be irregular in that sort of sense... that is what vacation, sick and flex time is for!
Her management of the change calendar has already proven very valuable, customers are happy. The project calendar has cut meetings down tremendously... the DBA jerks are even taking advantage of her SQL skills to dump grunt work on her. If she keeps it up I'd like to promote her to a management salary next year. Even if I lose that fight, she's in line for profit sharing and a pretty good raise next year.




.

 

[Disir]

D,
Many, many women were raised not to discuss money. It is considered extremely impolite. Taboo. Historically, women have not negotiated salaries well. There are those that have no problem negotiating salaries--acknowledged. Women can walk in and negotiate the hell out of anything else that needs negotiating but not when it comes to themselves. It's one of the tools that certain businesses know how to use in union busting. The name of the game is keep them negotiating individually where they will come up short. It has less to do with self confidence than with American culture and gender.

 

[alpine]

this was easy...

B as manager
D as programmer

they can coexist and live happily ever after.....

 

[Boss]

Accepting lower than what you are worth is a sign of a lack of confidence. That sends off red flags for me, just how I am.

With all due respect, you weren't asking her what she believes she is worth, rather, what pay she would expect to receive. These are two completely different things. Potential employees who need a job don't want to blow it by demanding too much. They had rather under-value than over-value. Things like this meant very little to me personally. It's nice when they hit pretty close to the mark for what the job pays but really... it doesn't mean a whole lot. You're putting too much stock in it and drawing conclusions based on assumptions you're making about her. Remember what you said about the kid who didn't know jack but was demanding a manager's salary... comes across as arrogant.

Again, a potential employee is selling themselves. Price yourself low and show how you're a bargain because of what you bring to the table. It's a much easier conversation to have in telling her the job actually pays more than she asked for as opposed to having to tell her she isn't going to get what she asked for. But really, in all honesty, this question would have practically nothing to do with my hiring decision.

 

[320 Years of History]

Accepting lower than what you are worth is a sign of a lack of confidence. That sends off red flags for me, just how I am.

With all due respect, you weren't asking her what she believes she is worth, rather, what pay she would expect to receive. These are two completely different things. Potential employees who need a job don't want to blow it by demanding too much. They had rather under-value than over-value. Things like this meant very little to me personally. It's nice when they hit pretty close to the mark for what the job pays but really... it doesn't mean a whole lot. You're putting too much stock in it and drawing conclusions based on assumptions you're making about her. Remember what you said about the kid who didn't know jack but was demanding a manager's salary... comes across as arrogant.

Again, a potential employee is selling themselves. Price yourself low and show how you're a bargain because of what you bring to the table. It's a much easier conversation to have in telling her the job actually pays more than she asked for as opposed to having to tell her she isn't going to get what she asked for. But really, in all honesty, this question would have practically nothing to do with my hiring decision.

I think that's what stupid job seekers do. I've had plenty of applicants ask for more than what I've/the firm initially planned to pay them. When they do, we successfully negotiate to an agreed upon salary or we are unsuccessful in arriving at an agreed upon salary. I don't just toss them out the door if they are the person whom I want to hire.

What would be the usefulness of being so strident about it? I'm not hiring someone because they want less money. I'm hiring them because I think they are the best person for the job/tasks I want them to perform. Generally they are well aware that they are an outstanding candidate for the position and they expect to receive fair compensation. Sure, some of them ask for more than I'm willing to pay, but still, I haggle with them before telling them "thanks but no thanks." I have yet to have a prospective employee walk away because I told them no on their first salary request. And why would they? By the time they finish our interviewing process they know whether they really want to work in our firm. The pay is quite good, but very few, if any, folks join the firm just for the money...perhaps the mailroom clerks do....I don't know; I don't interview folks for those positions.