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?

Are you Person-with-shit-hot-CV, OP?

Damn Carol and her inconvenient scruples!

"Carol sounds like a typical public sector jobsworth"

Oh, so you'd rather you taxes were used to hire people who are mates with the boss rather than through the fair and transparent process? Sure...

The public sector is the way it is so that there is clear accountability, the backhanders in the private sector seem rank to me.

PS. I'm with Carol

The problem is its like pulling teeth trying to hire someone. There needs to be a healthy medium surely.

Carol sounds like an idiot. As do the people defending her, to be honest... their arguments make no sense.

Where I work anyone recommended by an employee gets an interview. Carol should wind her neck in.

I was the person works with Carol and had to find someone to replace her with an hours notice. The person who took over was very unimpressed.

Certainly in some organisations, where people are selected for interview on the basis of a fair and anonymous scoring process, Carol would be right. It’s time-consuming and laborious but probably strictly fairer.

So does that mean Carol has flounced from her job on this ridiculous point of principle and the person who had to take over at very short notice is very unimpressed with her?

That casts Carol in an even worse light, to be honest. Probably just as well she has flounced.

I was the person works with Carol and had to find someone to replace her with an hours notice.

So Carol objected and they still interviewed, so he didn't sit on the panel?

Good on her. Of course the boss can't interview his mate.

So does that mean Carol has flounced from her job on this ridiculous point of principle

I wouldn't participate in a panel that gave the impression of being rigged. Why should C risk being accused of impropriety for B and his mate.

Carole is 100% right.

There are application & interview processes for a reason.

If Bob thought of someone he could have shown him the ad at the time, and friend could have applied as per process

There is NO WAY it is fair for Bob to sit on the panel, and interview his pal, who he recommended 🙄

There was a thread the other day where someone was disappointed not to get a role & said it was all fixed / internal candidates. Most replies agreed. I stoutly defended the interview process & said it was a fair process - when I'll hear stories like this tho ...🤷🏻‍♀️

I would feel uneasy about interviewing a friend of my manager, just because my manager said so. i've had that happen before and they were actually rubbish, but the manager was not happy that they didn't get the job.

It puts you in a pretty shite position, as if they were good and got to the job, then they can go to Bob and moan about you because there is already an established relationship.

I'm with Carol.

Bob also pulled himself from interview process because of the impression it might give if his friend got the role.

So did they appoint Bob's friend in the end, then?

I don't blame Carol for backing out at all, I wouldn't want to be associated with that farce either.

Headhunting isn't contrary to equal opportunities. By removing himself from the panel Bob has followed best practice.

Carole is being ridiculous.

Not sure who has got the job yet .

To those calling Carol all sorts of names and saying "that's how headhunting works" - this is precisely why headhunting does not offer equal opportunity, because it depends on who you know, not just whether you meet the requirements of the job. If none of the candidates are up to scratch, then you need to go out and spread your net wider, and/or make your job more attractive. Then Bob's friend can apply.

Why on earth should they have to make the job more attractive when Bob's friend is already interested?

That's totally ludicrous and has no bearing on commercial reality.

Equal ops is not just about the interview, the whole process needs to be equitable, the post should be re advertised more widely, Carol is right.

Equal ops is not just about the interview, the whole process needs to be equitable, the post should be re advertised more widely, Carol is right.

Equal opportunities has nothing to do with it, unless the mysterious fourth candidate is the only straight white man in the mix - and that would be a massive drip feed . Equal opportunities is about not discriminating, not about whatever Carol is complaining about here. What is inequitable about - effectively - accepting a late candidate, who may or may not be better for the role? Because that's what we're talking about here.

The policy has enough leeway to allow the extra person to be interviewed. So therefore, Carol could object to the policy - but cannot object to someone operating within the policy.

Recruitment does not have to be "fair". If a better candidate appears after the application deadline, the idea that you have to give the job to someone who applied before the deadline is ridiculous.

Lord Emsworth

Recruitment does not have to be "fair". If a better candidate appears after the application deadline, the idea that you have to give the job to someone who applied before the deadline is ridiculous.

Of course recruitment should be fair 🤷🏻‍♀️

You don't HAVE to give the job to someone who applied before the deadline. You can decide, following interview, that no-one is appointable, and re-advertise.

Most ads will state - late applications will not be considered, or similar. So you can't just invite someone to interview who did not apply as per procedure.

@EarringsandLipstick

Ummm... I didn't say anything about "should". I said, it doesn't have to be. There is no law that says how roleholders should be recruited, and a number of posters seem to think that there is.

The OP has clearly stated that this is within policy, so they can invite someone to interview who did not apply as per procedure.

You want the best person for the job. You don't want to appoint a candidate who scraped past the pass mark for the interview, knowing that there's someone else who might be better, and is willing, but you can't consider them. It's not fair to the business to end up with an adequate person rather than a great person, because there was an arbitrary application cut-off date and the great person hadn't heard about the job, or had been on holiday, or whatever other reason.

@LordEmsworth
There aren't laws but there are policies & procedures in every organisation, that if they are contravened, do allow the applicant that feels they have been treated to take legal action.

You also misunderstand my post. I meant 'should' in that it is a poor reflection of an organisation if they are willing to be fast & loose with recruitment policy. If you are treating the recruitment process so arbitrarily, it doesn't inspire confidence in other good work practices

For what it's worth, no organisation I have ever worked for would act like this.

I’ve done plenty of recruitment in the corporate world. And Carols would have a very short shelf life. It would be right and proper for Bob not to be involved in the recruitment further and leave the decision to those who are.

Part of A/B/C's job is finding candidates. B's mate is a candidate, being merged into the interview process before interviews are taking place. This is absolutely fine - indeed, expected. My work has bonuses if your referrals are hired.

So it's fine - as long as B doesn't have anything to do with interviewing his mate, anyway.