|
||
|
9th April 2019, 08:54 | #11 |
Vis Whiz
Rover 75 2.5 auto Saloon Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 20,582
Thanks: 2,057
Thanked 3,056 Times in 1,621 Posts
|
This happened where I used to work, even to the extent of the preferred candidate was given the questions they would be asked in the interview prior to the interview.
This ensured if there were any investigations or audits on the interview the successful candidate could invariably be shown to have had the best interview. That said, when working as part of a team it is often as important that the person "fits in" with the ethos of the team, this cannot always be determined in a 1 or 2 hour interview.
__________________
Dave... Lost a few stones and a Gall Bladder and part of a bile duct and all of my dignity in the suppository incident Last edited by stocktake; 9th April 2019 at 11:44.. |
9th April 2019, 11:00 | #12 |
I will find or make a way
75 Auto 2.5 SE Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Westcliff on Sea
Posts: 5,165
Thanks: 423
Thanked 1,680 Times in 1,014 Posts
|
Hiring and Firing
My ideal world:
It depends, or should depend, to a large extent on the status of ‘the Boss’. Is he/she the owner of the business or another employee and junior to the real boss? If the former, it should be their privilege to employ whoever the heck they want. After all, it is they who suffer the most for their independence. What’s the point of the effort, the worry, the foresight and planning, the financial risk and the rewards, if your every decision is governed by those who have no responsibility telling you what to do? You are not a charity, but you can use your natural inclinations to be outward looking when you choose to. The only criterion should be the one of suitability in the eyes of the boss. Then it’s up to the boss to treat them properly. In the case in point, maybe the boss thinks the one he has chosen will be better for the business, and a better ‘fit’ in the long run, and worth waiting for. I had my own business for 15 years and if anyone had the nerve to tell me who I could or should employ, they would be made aware of the door. My wife and two daughters were paid employees of the company, should I have given preference to others? On the other hand, I also had two sub-contractors I used when necessary. There are many qualities to consider when appointing another to a team. I would not employ someone merely because they were from a particular minority unless they had the skills I wanted. If on the other hand they were ideally suited, gravid or not, the search would be over. It’s a strange thing about the proliferation of special interests groups. They have an immense power way beyond their actual numbers through intense lobbying of influential people. Those in the public eye then feel obliged to agree and promote a cause or be blackmailed into submission through social media.
__________________
member no. 235 |
9th April 2019, 11:19 | #13 |
Posted a thing or two
Ex-ZI190 owner. ,Ford Focus RS Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Malton
Posts: 1,573
Thanks: 1,123
Thanked 301 Times in 198 Posts
|
|
9th April 2019, 12:48 | #14 | |
This is my second home
Rover 75CDT, Jaguar XF-S 3.0V6, V'xhall Omega V6 Estate, Twintop 1.8VVT, Astra Estate and Corsa 1.2 Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,078
Thanks: 283
Thanked 624 Times in 440 Posts
|
Quote:
It is not often that we agree Wyamond, but on this occasion we do. I would add two tings however. 1. Whether the "boss" is the business owner or not is irrelevant. The key qualification that is required is that the "boss" is empowered (by the business owner or in the case of larger organizations the business hierarchy) to make the decision. In general he/she will be and will also be ultimately accountable for the work of the person that he/she is hiring or promoting. The decision maker's neck is often on the line for the team's performance and it is right that his/her decision is final subject to the organizational and legal imperatives. 2. Minorities may appear to have power but in reality they do not. The law only requires minority groups not to be disadvantaged due to their minority status, not that they be given an advantage. Therefore, suitability for the role is always the primary consideration, in reality and in law. |
|
9th April 2019, 17:04 | #15 | |
This is my second home
Rover 75 Saloon & Tourer Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 14,890
Thanks: 1,630
Thanked 3,032 Times in 2,181 Posts
|
Quote:
macafee2 |
|
9th April 2019, 17:11 | #16 | |
This is my second home
Rover 75 Saloon & Tourer Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 14,890
Thanks: 1,630
Thanked 3,032 Times in 2,181 Posts
|
Quote:
A manager in a large organisation does not have so many privileges. As a manage, jobs for the boys, excluding the best candidate is not acceptable if interviews are held. In reality it is not appropriate even if interviews are not held but as a "victim" of a job for the boys where an interview was held, i'd not object to the same person getting the role if an interview was not held. My time would not be wasted and I'd not believe I was in with a chance. macafee2 |
|
9th April 2019, 17:46 | #17 | |
This is my second home
Rover 75CDT, Jaguar XF-S 3.0V6, V'xhall Omega V6 Estate, Twintop 1.8VVT, Astra Estate and Corsa 1.2 Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,078
Thanks: 283
Thanked 624 Times in 440 Posts
|
Quote:
Ian - I have understood fully what is being said. The recruiting manager has made a recruiting decision. You, based on your wife's views, believe that it is the wrong decision and possibly influenced by relationships. You are not accountable for the recruiting manager's decision nor his team's performance. In my view, it is simple as that. I have been interviewing and making recruiting/promotion decisions during the last 32 years of my working life. I have also been impacted by the decisions of others. At the end of the day, even in a large organisation, the recruiting manager is accountable to the organisation for his decisions and his team's performance. Unless there is substantial evidence that the decision maker has abused his position/responsibility or acted contrary to the organisation's policies, practices and standards or laws, his/her decision should be recognised as professional irrespective of anyone else's views on whether the decision is a good one or otherwise. P.S. never question another's (manager or colleague) professional integrity unless you would be willing to do so in front of an employment tribunal or a disciplinary hearing with substantial evidence to back up your claim/allegation. The latter could be the result of the other party instigating action in order to defend/protect their professional standing and reputation. Last edited by MSS; 9th April 2019 at 18:29.. |
|
9th April 2019, 18:09 | #18 |
This is my second home
75 model car Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 20,169
Thanks: 4,008
Thanked 5,083 Times in 3,114 Posts
|
Its not what you know, or how qualified you are, its WHO you know
__________________
Cheers. Rich… |
9th April 2019, 18:30 | #19 |
I will find or make a way
75 Auto 2.5 SE Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Westcliff on Sea
Posts: 5,165
Thanks: 423
Thanked 1,680 Times in 1,014 Posts
|
Ian, I agree with you entirely that when ‘jobs for the boys’ trumps merit it amounts to a dereliction of duty on the part of the boss. That’s his fault, the wrong decision, and he will pay the price eventually in one way or another. The effect on the unsuccessful applicant for the job is disheartening to say the least.
That the law should take the decision out of the employer’s hands and make it illegal is, in my view, quite another thing. If the unsuccessful applicant is protected under certain categories, we all know what they are and most of us would applaud that, then the law will take precedence. Unfortunately everyone knows from experience the world is rarely fair and I for one, although disliking the example you stated, reluctantly declare for the boss’ right to favour family or social connections. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do in any way at all, just understandable and frankly what many people would do. For all anyone knows the boss in question may have had some other reason that arose prior to interviews and he felt obliged to comply. I feel for those affected in this way, I’ve had some.
__________________
member no. 235 |
9th April 2019, 20:12 | #20 |
This is my second home
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,428
Thanks: 3,123
Thanked 3,170 Times in 2,096 Posts
|
I remember attending a Rugby Club Dinner where the after Dinner Speaker was a Receivership Professional.
He gave a humorous and animated talk on why companies go bust. The main reason was blind obedience to those above. The funniest examples were those of family run companies where as the company sank into decline the owners sacked all the people with REAL experience and expertise and allowed family members without a clue to run things. Leading to the inevitable hands of the Receiver. Who, having professionally analysed what caused the business to collapse, realise who did/does what and sideline the family incompetents and brings back those that actually ran, and were flagging it up to deaf the ears of, “the company owners” before they were sacked by those same incompetent owners. Blind obedience without challenging? Crazy More than that - it is a form of cowardice in my book. Last edited by Darcydog; 9th April 2019 at 20:29.. Reason: Punctuation |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|