Who intentionally hires a mediocre candidate?
weekly or daily ezine that I peruse to a greater or lesser degree depending
upon what other commitments I have.
Last week one of these ezine articles caught my eye with the headline Forget
the best: why you should hire the mediocre candidate. The article
quoted a research paper (unreferenced and undated)
from three European academics. This research purported to show that the
candidate, after being told that they were the lesser qualified candidate,
worked much harder than the candidate who was told they were the best person
for the job, because the ‘lesser’ candidate felt indebted to the hiring
manager.
‘mediocre’ is inappropriately used by the sub-editor (or whoever wrote the
article’s heading). The writer of the article doesn’t use ‘mediocre’, they use
the expressions ‘most qualified’ and ‘least ability’ to contrast the two
categories of candidates.
Who in their right mind, knowingly, hires a mediocre candidate?
I doubt any employer wants to hire such a candidate. What the headline
writer fails to recognise is that just because a candidate is assessed as
the least qualified candidate, that doesn’t necessarily make them mediocre.
Hiring decisions are frequently made where the motivation and
behavioural competencies of a candidate are regarded as more important factors
than qualifications and experience. As any professional recruiter will know;
just because a candidate has a greater level of capability than other
candidates being considered for the position, they aren’t necessarily the best
choice for the job.
The best candidate for the job is always a combination of skills,
competencies, motivation, availability and remuneration.
Find: Spotting Exceptional Talent Before Everyone Else (Portfolio/Penguin,
2011) – ‘compromise on experience; don’t compromise on character’.