Who to hire?

Yeah just go superficial and pick the pretty one, or pick the one with the most experience/ability to learn.

Remember to log her keystrokes and not trust her at all.

My consultancy fee for my Human Resource services is £50 per hour and ill Trust you my account details.
 
Last edited:
It's been interesting reading everyone's comments and somewhat insightful into people's minds... I don't want to interview for myself ever again after reading this haha. I'll most likely go for #2 as the role is no doubt going to be boring at times and a winning personality fit in the office will be essential to allow her to keep herself entertained chatting to us all. I trust that she left her old role - and is unemployed - because she didn't want to work for an oppressive employer and for that she gets a lot of respect. She may appreciate the role more than the other 2 who are more focused on developing a career than working in a relaxed but fast-paced environment

Thanks GD. Shall update the original post next week when it's confirmed
 
1) Why was the work/life balance bad for her? That would be a warning bell to me. Is this someone who wants to go out and gets bored easily. If so no amount of good management will overcome that without wasting a good deal of time. Maybe it is just me but someone complaining about a worklife balance is normally a family person not someone who is driven and eager. (Not that I am saying they are exclusive to each other).
2) Why was she unemployed - is there a good reason? Does she need to be that 'smart' for the role?
3) Was her degree relevant and good. Does the role involve any pressure - if not then the timidity will not matter and the chances are as she gets accustomed to the job that familiarity will remove that problem.

So I guess I would go 1) if I were building for the future and looking for someone who I could progress and I was sure she was actually dedicated. If not the 2) if she had a valid reason for unemployment and the job didn't require her to be 'smart'. 3) Well unless you can afford to someone else needs to take the chance on her - she may grow into it but she may not.
 
I'd avoid number 1 to be honest. If she's being interviewed and hired by someone who needs to ask for this kind of help on an internet forum then she'll probably be moving on or progressing up the ladder at a far faster rate than will feel comfortable.
 
JackG4 said:
It's been interesting reading everyone's comments and somewhat insightful into people's minds... I don't want to interview for myself ever again after reading this haha. I'll most likely go for #2 as the role is no doubt going to be boring at times and a winning personality fit in the office will be essential to allow her to keep herself entertained chatting to us all. I trust that she left her old role - and is unemployed - because she didn't want to work for an oppressive employer and for that she gets a lot of respect. She may appreciate the role more than the other 2 who are more focused on developing a career than working in a relaxed but fast-paced environment

Thanks GD. Shall update the original post next week when it's confirmed
Click to expand...

No. That is NOT why you chose her.
 
Whats the issue with hiring the unemployed?

You're all the same low/middle earners that jump into every benefits thread claiming that there is jobs for EVERYONE. Admin jobs are for thick *****. If you won't hire a thick **** to shuffle paper and enter info on a PC, who will???
 
'Harry said:
Whats the issue with hiring the unemployed?
Click to expand...

Previous employment with references tells you that the person turns up, is not constantly off sick, doesn't cause problems etc. If you don't have an employment record then that information is missing. It doesn't mean they are going to be a problem but it is is an unknown. It his duty to find the best employee.

Even I know that and I am the opposite of the person you describe.
 
The__Malteser said:
No. That is NOT why you chose her.
Click to expand...

I firmly believe a team of friends works better than a team of talented individuals. Some workplaces simply don't need a group of smart people but rather people who enjoy working together and bounce off of each other
 
It sounds like 1 is the best suited for the role, but may incur recruiting costs again if she moves on quickly. 2 is a bit of an unknown and despite being nice and friendly, might be a bit useless. 3 is definitely a bit of a risk, but would depend on your assessment of her competence (you mention her demeanour but not how well you think she could perform). If you think she could do the job, 3 would be a good bet, otherwise I would go with 1 for the superior ability. 2 only makes sense if you want average ability and a good fit for the team (wheeeey).
 
I prefer to hire off CV, interview is really only to make sure they aren't a stinky tramp.

The whole idea of interviewing is so false, you make your judgement before they've even sat down then waste everybody's time trying to justify it.
 
JackG4 said:
I firmly believe a team of friends works better than a team of talented individuals. Some workplaces simply don't need a group of smart people but rather people who enjoy working together and bounce off of each other
Click to expand...

Indeed.

People who work well together are much more productive.
 
Telescopi said:
I prefer to hire off CV, interview is really only to make sure they aren't a stinky tramp.

The whole idea of interviewing is so false, you make your judgement before they've even sat down then waste everybody's time trying to justify it.
Click to expand...

What if I lied on my CV. I've seen some amazing CV and when I meet the person, encounter a passionless drone looking for a paycheck and not a new opportunity.
 
JackG4 said:
I firmly believe a team of friends works better than a team of talented individuals. Some workplaces simply don't need a group of smart people but rather people who enjoy working together and bounce off of each other
Click to expand...

Agree with this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom