You are not a perfect boss, and you don’t run a perfect company.
It may be your baby, and you would like to think it’s perfect (just as all parents believe their babies are the most beautiful baby ever), but the reality is, your company is just average. There are good things and bad things. Maybe it’s slightly above average, maybe slightly below. But the chances of your company being in the top 10 percent of companies to work for are pretty slim.
And yet, when you hire, do you look for the perfect person? The person who checks all the boxes? After all, you want only the most qualified people working for you. And as such, are you struggling to fill your positions? (If you’re not, then feel free to disregard the rest.)
What if you chilled out a little and started looking at people who did not check all the boxes?
To keep reading, click here: Why You Should Hire “Unqualified” Candidates
5 thoughts on “Why You Should Hire “Unqualified” Candidates”
Because of my position, I chair a lot of review panels, which screen applicants for positions and recommend the most qualified ones to the deciding officials to interview. Perhaps it’s because our positions are somewhat “niche,” it’s my impression that employers frequently have to settle for hiring people who do not check all the boxes. Nevertheless, most of the hires do turn out to be successful. I’m not aware of any of our recommended candidates who were hired, then didn’t work out as hoped.
Dear Grannybunny —
I have been reading (and enjoying) your comments here on Evil for a loooong time, and have tried to “find” you over the years (Google, LinkedIn, etc.) with no success, as I’m pretty sure I’d benefit by being connected on LinkedIn, and believe you would as well.
Not selling anything.
If you would like, I’d enjoy getting a connect request from you:
Well, this site did it again.
My LinkedIn address is:
Regarding the Tegus job description, which says in part, “if you’re excited about this role but your past experience doesn’t align perfectly with every qualification in the job description, we encourage you to apply anyways.”
It would be so, so, so, so much better for Tegus to write their job descriptions in such a way that it is clear what they’re looking for, and that way nobody has to guess, on either side of the desk.
Rather than list 10-15 “requirements” and then tell people if they don’t meet them, apply anyway, wouldn’t it be better to list the 2 or 3 “hard requirements” that the employer really needs and then encourage folks to apply if they have those?
For example: “In this role, we require people to have at least 2 years direct experience widget weighing, 2 years direct experience widget washing, and the ability to construct Level II Excel pivot tables (there will be a test). We have found, over the years, that people who also have the following characteristics, or similar, have been the most successful: C1, C2, C3, and C4.
LOVE that. Why do employers think they deserve perfect people, when we all know that perfect people don’t actually exist? Certainly not perfect employers. This is great. Thanks for this!
Comments are closed.