Here's a question that I've wondered about lately. I'm interested in your reaction.
My standard guidance to clients is Hire the Best Qualified. [I bore them with that on a regular basis especially since our firm writes Affirmative Action Plans and we don't want them to slip into the use of quotas.]
My question, however, has nothing to do with Affirmative Action. It goes instead to the issue of whether past service should ever trump present qualifications. I've seen situations where one applicant may be better qualified than another, but the less qualified applicant has sacrificed for the organization by taking on tough assignments that others shirked, been punched in the stomach more times and has rebounded, and has established a solid record of trust. At what point do we give the promotion to the less qualified person on the basis that he or she has earned it?
Now if the applicant who has sacrificed, etc. is also more qualified, then the decision is clear: that person should get the promotion.
In our quest to focus on individual qualifications, we often ignore organizational ones. By not selecting the applicant who has done so much for the organization, we may be sending a demoralizing message to others who are hoping that one day their sacrifices will be favorably taken into account. This is especially so if the other applicant rose via assignments that were important but considerably less demanding.
This is not an argument for mere seniority or chair-warming. Achievement must be present. It is a simply an observation that there are times when a job applicant has paid his or her dues and that ignoring such efforts can be the sign of a very cold organization.
To a large extent I think the hiring process is seriously broken. Broadly, a cv and cover letter never really convey the person. Every time I've been involved in hiring I have this nagging fear that we are dropping/ignoring great people on spurious grounds, spelling mistakes, lack of direct experience etc.
ReplyDeleteConsider the evidence about spelling/grammar. Journalists and authors have editors go over their work before its published and still errors get through. So why are we so harsh on applicants that have spelling and grammar errors in CVs and cover letters when they don't have access to professional editors? With experience you basically count out the people who bring valuable skills that are likely to have more bearing on their success than past experience.
I am convinced that the current focus on English perfect CVs and cover letters and direct experience over skills and accomplishments is harming hiring more than anything else.
If the guy who sacrificed in the past is likely to do so in the future, then wouldn't you give him points for his attitude and go from there? I keep reading advice saying that attitude should trump experience. If his is that motivated and loyal, then perhaps he's really the best qualified after all.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, if he's a burnout case who should have been rewarded for past effort and wasn't, and now you're contemplating handing him a promotion out of guilt over that, well, that's an ethical conundrum all right.
Why isn't there a personal development plan in place for this dedicated and proven performer?
ReplyDelete