Which person would you employ?

[Rossita]

Which of these two people would you employ? For a bit of background they both started at the company at the same time and they’re both currently doing the same job. The vacancy they are both applying for is a promotion and will involve managing the department that they currently work in. The role does not require any professional qualifications.

Person A:
Highly qualified to PHD level in an unrelated field.
Has some experience from a previous role that helps in her current position.
Works very well alone and produces some really good work.
Is very committed to the department
Does not work so well as part of a team.
Can sometimes act a little ‘superior’ and has upset every other member of the team at some point.
Does not accept any constructive criticism and believes that her way is the only way to do things.

Person B
Qualified to GCSE level
Has previous experience that helps in her current role.
Is committed to the department.
Produces some really good work.
Sometimes struggles to work alone as she can lack in self confidence and needs to ask advice from other team members.
Is very much a team player, she is good at building professional relationships.
Has on several occasions managed a project which showed she was a good leader.
She is not always great at delegating so ends up taking on too much work herself.

I’ve posted here so people could vote because it makes it easier to see the overall opinion.

YABU Person A
YANBU person B

I think it's harder to "fix" A - if A won't listen, won't accept constructive criticism seem spikey by nature - we wouldn't employ them - even if they were bright they are hard to manage nevermind their team - they are just a pain in the butt for senior management.
We'd give B a trial see how it goes - with a bit of training, they might just do the job - they have potential.

Why are two people, one with a PhD and the other educated to GCSE level only, doing the same job in the first place?
I think you're related to B. And you should not be a position to hire at all.
Very strange practices.

I'm amazed at the amount of projecting going on!😂

It would entirely depend on how robust your management training and mentoring systems were. If , although this in my industry is relatively rare ,you have a KPI based mentoring system that develop a targeted development plan and follow it through with someone who knew what they were doing, then B. Managers who are developed and carefully supported can be amazing and truly loyal and continue through succession. They can be a huge asset. However without the support they become a liability. Lack of confidence and ability to decision make autonomously is a large missing part of an essential skillset.

If not , it would depend on why A had upset people. If was an inability to be appropriate then no. I would go outside.

"Why are two people, one with a PhD and the other educated to GCSE level only, doing the same job in the first place?"
^^
How do you know the job they're doing required any qualifications? What a judgemental tw*t

Also I would hire neither, and advertise the job externally. Both don't fit the profile, and wouldn't be right for the position

@Pebblexox

"Why are two people, one with a PhD and the other educated to GCSE level only, doing the same job in the first place?" ^^ How do you know the job they're doing required any qualifications? What a judgemental tw*t

Why would someone with a PhD be in a role requiring no qualifications? I'm not being a twat, it's a curious anomaly.

Neither, ideally. B if these are literally the only two candidates.

It depends on what the job needs though OP. By what you say I would choose B but I would be worried that they might not cope if they are under pressure. Otherwise I would look externally.

B !

A. And I hope when she gets the job she kicks your arse.

A because only B would write this mn post

@Humbersider

A. And I hope when she gets the job she kicks your arse.

?

B assuming those are the only options

Person B. Qualifications are irrelevant here.

Person A - I'd always go for better qualifications, as Person B will likely run into her upper limit of ability quite soon and doesn't sound like a self starter. The workplace isn't a popularity contest.

But I realise this view isn't popular in Britain, as qualifications are considered quite negatively here. I worked in other Northern European countries for quite a while and its the standard view there so Person A.

Interview the hell out of both of them and then decide.
I'd go for A and send them on some courses related that would (hopefully) improve their weaker points.

But I realise this view isn't popular in Britain, as qualifications are considered quite negatively here

Depends on the qualification.

Someone with a geography degree doesn’t make them a good manager.

Now if you did qualifications on personal strengths, A people person, or a confident chatty person would be great at front of house, or party planner, a quiet person would be better at listening, counselling for example, those with quick reactions maybe emergency departments -

Far more important than a degree in an in related field.

@IncandescentSilver

Person A - I'd always go for better qualifications, as Person B will likely run into her upper limit of ability quite soon and doesn't sound like a self starter. The workplace isn't a popularity contest.

But I realise this view isn't popular in Britain, as qualifications are considered quite negatively here. I worked in other Northern European countries for quite a while and its the standard view there so Person A.

It’s not the qualification- it’s the attitude and if you have never tried to manage someone who is arrogant and doesn’t listen to feedback you won’t understand. To hell with pissing off A’s team - A will piss off and annoy senior management because they won’t listen, the danger is they lack emotional intelligence and all the qualifications and training in the world won’t fix that especially if they are not open to understanding their weakness and fixing it. No one will want to work with A - they need a technical job away from people.

And why is over qualified very capable A doing in a job that requires no qualifications? I’d want to know why they did their PhD and why they are not using it? If it’s in an unrelated field why is it relevant? And why is someone with GCSEs seen as less able? Surely it depends on the job?

@edwinbear

Neither - I'd hire externally.

This but if that’s not an option then B

@justfinefornow

And why is over qualified very capable A doing in a job that requires no qualifications? I’d want to know why they did their PhD and why they are not using it? If it’s in an unrelated field why is it relevant? And why is someone with GCSEs seen as less able? Surely it depends on the job?

Lots of PhDs don't work in their field, just as lots of graduates don't. A PhD sets you up for a research career in your field, if you don't go into that it's quite likely you'll move out of your field altogether.

PhDs develop useful project management and analytical skills as well as requiring internal motivation and perseverance. These are excellent things for managers to have. So while someone with GCSEs may be qualified for the front line role, those GCSEs show nothing at all about management ability. Whereas, a PhD does demonstrate significant capacity for some important management skills and qualities.

Of course, A is also missing some necessary management skills too. A PhD only covers some of it.

PhDs develop useful project management and analytical skills as well as requiring internal motivation and perseverance Great but if they can’t adapt and learn new ways of doing things, accept constructive criticism, demonstrate emotional intelligence etc then we would not promote them - their Phd would not be relevant.

Neither of these sounds ideal but we don't live in an ideal world.
It depends what is needed for the job....

If it is really important to have a good team player, I would choose B but make sure there is plenty of development included for them so that they gain in confidence, take the initiative without depending on others and learn how to delegate.

However, if working alone to a high standard is the main priority I would be more inclined to take person A. I would give them more 'stand alone' stuff that stretched their abilities but make sure they had some team-working training to integrate them better in the team.

You don’t wan’t anyone like person A who has a track record of behaving as though they are superior to others in the workgroup. They may use their new position to be bossy and undermine the workgroup relationships and this will quickly infect the workgroup with poor morale. Person B is a clear winner and will gain the confidence to delegate and work alone with good training