The Problem of Timing

We like to think that staffing is the result of a carefully prepared plan of action that begins with identifying job requirements and budgets, and moves steadily through interviews to an offer and a start.  There is a sense that we somehow control the process, or that we can control the process without the circumstances of life interfering.

I have no official statistics, but I wonder how often chance is the biggest factor in employment.  Does the race go to the swiftest, or the luckiest?

Two top candidates are brought in for interviews.  One has a pipe burst in their kitchen in their home and gets only an hour of sleep the night before.  The second, less qualified candidate sleeps like a baby.  The sleep-deprived candidate is also a person of high moral standards, and makes no excuses for his interview.  The well-rested candidate doesn't do great, but how hard is it to beat someone who didn't sleep the night before?

Who gets the job in this case?  Or worse yet, what if the pipe bursting occurred at 8:00 and the first candidate has to cancel a 9:00 interview?

We get these stories all the time in staffing - parents dying, cars breaking down, flu striking a family and once, just once, an arrest following a bachelorette party.

As a hiring manager - what do you do?

Anecdotally, my experience is that when something is going bad, it tends to only get worse - so if a candidate has more than two misfires in the time I'm working with them, I'm real nervous about giving them a third chance.

It's not particularly fair, but in a business where intuition counts for so much - I've learned that disaster tends to breed disaster when you're living on the edge. And too many people are living on the edge.

Should we have disaster recovery plans for candidates?  And is our process geared towards finding the best candidate, or the one who is untouched by unkind Fate during the interview process?

We like to think that staffing is the result of a carefully prepared plan of action that begins with identifying job requirements and budgets, and moves steadily through interviews to an offer and a start.  There is a sense that we somehow control the process, or that we can control the process without the circumstances of life interfering.

I have no official statistics, but I wonder how often chance is the biggest factor in employment.  Does the race go to the swiftest, or the luckiest?

Two top candidates are brought in for interviews.  One has a pipe burst in their kitchen in their home and gets only an hour of sleep the night before.  The second, less qualified candidate sleeps like a baby.  The sleep-deprived candidate is also a person of high moral standards, and makes no excuses for his interview.  The well-rested candidate doesn't do great, but how hard is it to beat someone who didn't sleep the night before?

Who gets the job in this case?  Or worse yet, what if the pipe bursting occurred at 8:00 and the first candidate has to cancel a 9:00 interview?

We get these stories all the time in staffing - parents dying, cars breaking down, flu striking a family and once, just once, an arrest following a bachelorette party.

As a hiring manager - what do you do?

Anecdotally, my experience is that when something is going bad, it tends to only get worse - so if a candidate has more than two misfires in the time I'm working with them, I'm real nervous about giving them a third chance.

It's not particularly fair, but in a business where intuition counts for so much - I've learned that disaster tends to breed disaster when you're living on the edge. And too many people are living on the edge.

Should we have disaster recovery plans for candidates?  And is our process geared towards finding the best candidate, or the one who is untouched by unkind Fate during the interview process?