To ask who was being unreasonable

[Redcliff]

3 people (lets call them Abe, Bob and Carol) work for a largish charity in a fairly remote office. Abe is hiring a new member of staff in a specialist role and despite widely advertising the role there are only three candidates worth seeing and none of those look great. The day before the interview Bob (who is Abe's line manager and part of the interview panel) says that he used to manage someone who was good and that he is available. Abe feels bit uneasy as this person hasn't applied but his CV looks good. He e-mails Carol (who is part of the interview panel) to tell her there is one extra person. Carol point blank refuses to interview them as she feels it goes against equal ops. Who is being unreasonable?

Carol is being ridiculous.

I presume the fourth suitable candidate is able and willing to be interviewed, so they should be.

ALL suitable candidates should be interviewed and an objective and unbiased decision reached. Abe cannot know what Bob's candidate would be like without interviewing them. Nor can Carol.

All four candidates need to be interviewed in an unbiased way and given due consideration.

Why would anyone be ‘uneasy’ or ‘refuse point blank’. Bob is headhunting - perfectly common practice.

Carol point blank refuses to interview them as she feels it goes against equal ops

Carole is being a bit of a divvy TBH. The application period could be extended

Carol doesn't understand what equal opportunities means.

Bob.

Abe and Carole should complete the three interviews as planned. If none of the candidates is appointable, then Bob could ask his friend to apply, then Abe and Carole assess friend's suitability.

If friend is so available and suitable, why hasn't he responded to one of the widespread adverts? He secretly hates Bob...

Carol should be sacked

The issue here is whether you have gone through an open and transparent interview process - if someone else was theoretically going ot make a complaint. It's not great process to change all your procedures cause someone i known to your boss and if i was a candidate i'd feel like my time had been wasted.
It is a bit unorthodox to let someone in like that - we couldn't do it in a lot of organisations small and big that i have worked for. We would probably interview extra person if we thought A B and C were not suitable.

Bob. Unless all 3 can agree to extend the period and the mate decides to apply. I think Carol is right, that's exactly what equal ops is supposed to prevent, people appointing their mates instead of going through a fair and transparent process.

Carole is an idiot.

You have the CV. It looks good. You add them to the interview list and consider all FOUR candidates based on the interview and CVs.

I would probably lean towards Bob being unreasonable. Why didn't his friend apply for the job when it was advertised?

Does Carol think Bob wont be able to interview the others fairly?

Carol is BU, this person is being offered an interview, not the job

Interesting that people have different views. I think Bob's freind wasn't really job hunting which is why he didn't apply. Reopening the job would have meant delaying the whole process and the role is to work on a time critical project.

Also Carol feels there would be bias towards Bob's friend.

Presumably a largish charity has HR policies. If it’s within the hiring policy to add another candidate to the shortlist in this way they should definitely do it given the candidate may be stronger than the current applicants. If it’s outside the policies then they shouldn’t as they leave themselves open to being accused of misconduct. If I was Carole I would state the policy (assuming it in some way does support her re transparency) not use a meaningless statement such as she has.

Carol is an absolute div.

Of course you should interview him.

Are you Carol, OP?

lol - not Carol (or any of them). The policy has enough leeway to allow the extra person to be interviewed.

Very stupid of Carol as this person could have been perfect for the job. She’ll never know how. Does she not understand how head-hunting works?

I think it depends on your policies. In my gov job it would be a big no, HR would never allow it as a) unconcious bias towards Bob's mate and b) he should have gone through and filled in the applications as the others did.

I would be concerned that as the top boss, Bob would sway the decision and already have his mate in mind, making interviews redundant and wasteful for candidates. Given that i would interview those you have then Bob's mate if no one else is suitable.

The policy has enough leeway to allow the extra person to be interviewed.

In that case allow it but be mindful of unconcious bias and ensure Bob has nothing to do with the interview and hiring process.

So A, B and C are arguing over the recruitment process for someone who may not want a job anyway

I stick by my original response, but add that as this is a time-critical project, if none of the original three candidates are suitable, you could flex your policies to truncate the recruitment process to allow you to consider Bob's mate for a fixed term contract.

Obviously Bob must not be involved in the process.

It depends. This would never be allowed in my place of work. I would interview the others first and if none were suitable, then invite the friend to interview

Carol sounds like a typical public sector inflexible jobsworth. We’ve all worked with a Carol at some point.

Carol is a gobshite.

On the facts given here, I am with Carol tbh.

You have said that none of the candidates are outstanding, and it would be hard to explain how they were interviewed and not appointed, yet an additional candidate - recommened by one of the interview panel - has popped up at the last minute.

I think it would be fairer to interview the three candidates who have applied first, and if none of them are suitable then to approach Bob's friend. You have written them off before seeing them, really. If Bob's friend wanted the job he would have applied and I don't think it's fair that he is seen at the same time as people who have applied. The job was not up for headhunting (and why isn't Bob's friend working at the moment? I have seen some disasters in my time with suddently available 'friends').