2 good candidates - which would you pick?

[1stV45]

I can't say what the job is because it's a bit niche and it would be awful if the candidates recognised themselves but it's a low level management position requiring some practical skills but no formal qualifications.

Candidate 1 : Many years experience in many different but related fields as well as experience of the same job elsewhere. Sensible reason for leaving but no great desire for this company. Adequate answers at interview but nothing special. On another day he would probably have done enough to get the job and would be "Ok" in post. A safe choice.

Candidate 2: Very young, much younger than the people usually in this role, who tend to be approaching middle age. Varied work experience, including having been promoted to a management role in a PT job whilst still at school. He's been doing a junior role in the same field and whilst hasn't worked at this level has a very good understanding of what's required. Came to interview incredibly well prepared and did well on the written task, which I actually thought was too hard. Really excited about the job, some other interests and skills that could enable him to contribute much more widely than the job description. I think I could help him develop into a real asset, although there is undoubtedly work to do there.

Having written it down, I think I've made my decision but the younger man would be a risk. Would you go for it?

I cannot actually believe you are asking this question of a bunch of strangers on the internet who have not been involved in the interview process.

And I am amazed that the supposed 'HR' professionals on this thread have not said this.

If anybody found out you had done this at your workplace you should be immediately disciplined.

If the candidates found out you had done this they could take serious action.

I would be horrified as would anybody else to think anybody had put my job application up for a public vote on the internet.

This is highly unprofessional and against equal opportunities. Shame on you.

Candidate 2. The first will leave in a couple of years, or sooner, anyway.

I agree with nostaples I’m afraid. The point about being an interviewer and presumably, a manager, is that the decisions are yours to make. Did you interview alone, or with others. I think I’d be a bit fed up if I thought someone was basing a decision about whether to hire me, on the opinions of people who are strangers and with limited information.

If there’s a scoring system, surely that’s the criteria.

I'd go for candidate 2 on your description.

Candidate 1 sounds like the type of person you've always gone for, and you would probably benefit from a bit of diversity in your team.

If you're really not sure, flip a coin. In the few seconds the coin is in the air, you will know which side you want to come up.

If the candidates found out you had done this they could take serious action
What ridiculous hyperbole 🙄

Sounds like the only basis for choosing candidate 1 is that they're older, which would obviously be illegally discriminating against candidate 2. That said, this is all pointless - just work out the scores.

@SpamIAm

Sounds like the only basis for choosing candidate 1 is that they're older, which would obviously be illegally discriminating against candidate 2. That said, this is all pointless - just work out the scores.

How does that work? 😂

@JuliaJohnston because age is a protected characteristic

But they're different ages . If you gave it to the younger candidate you'd be discriminating against the older one 😂
Well, only if you actually told the unsuccessful candidate the real reason, which obviously nobody of average intelligence would do.

I don't get what you're saying at all @JuliaJohnston. OP has clearly stated that everything about candidate 2 was better except they're young. So, based on what OP has said, the only reason for not giving candidate 2 the job would be their age, which is discrimination.

2 definitely

*I cannot actually believe you are asking this question of a bunch of strangers on the internet who have not been involved in the interview process.

And I am amazed that the supposed 'HR' professionals on this thread have not said this.

If anybody found out you had done this at your workplace you should be immediately disciplined.

If the candidates found out you had done this they could take serious action.

I would be horrified as would anybody else to think anybody had put my job application up for a public vote on the internet.

This is highly unprofessional and against equal opportunities. Shame on you.*

This with bells i wouldn't think highley of my managers if they disclosed interview details on mumsnet to determine who go the job. Surely if you're incapable of making an decision based on the point scoring system you shouldn't be interviewing or have additional staff member during the interview process.

Surely the reason not to appoint candidate 2 is his lack of experience, not his age?

I'm reporting this thread. It's extremely unprofessional and extraordinarily disrespectful to the candidates involved.

Every one of us deserves and would expect our applications to be taken seriously using proper HR and equal opps protocol which requires anybody involved in the appointment to have been involved in the whole process, which should be transparent.

The other recruiters and the candidates should have access to all of the documentation and processes involved in the appointment, which now includes this entire thread.

Any one of us would expect and deserve our own applications to be treated properly.

The HR professionals who have got involved with this process, therefore colluding, with unprofessional and potentially discriminatory recruitment practices should also be ashamed.

OP, if you worked for me, I would treat this as gross misconduct.

Has the young guy exaggerated his accomplishments and bowled you over? Could be arrogance.

I agree with nostaples.

Goodness me! A totally anonymous thread, with a scenario that may even be hypothetical. But either way isn't identifiable. No personal details given, of any nature. May be any one of a million job applicants, in one of thousands of businesses.

Cheer up those who are getting wound up! It's an interesting dilemma and interesting to see the responses.

@vixb1 there are real people involved. The OP should not be asking anybody who has not been involved in the entire recruitment process, let alone randoms on an internet site, to influence her choice.

Posters have not even met these candidates, know nothing about the job, have not been involved and are NOT in a position to make a judgement.

One of the pieces of advice here is to flip a coin, other pieces are discriminatory on protected factors, and would therefore be against the law.

How would you like it if you’d put a lot of work into application which you thought was being treated fairly according to the process that had been explained to you, and actually one of the people making the decision on whether to appoint you asked for random people to help Witt that decision, based on a highly selective summary of a few factors about you and your employment history (which actually have nothing to do with your application or performance at interview) as she saw them and one of which, was your age.

Honestly, I am really disappointed to discover that anybody, especially HR, people would think this was OK. Anyone who has colluded with this Who has anything to do with recruitment needs done serious retraining about recruitment practices, including checking their own organisations policies and procedures and following them.

Number 2 without a doubt.