We often ask ourselves what the right candidate should be and admit that we sometimes experience ambivalence about certain salient and recurring characteristics of a candidate's behavior during the selection process. Although the diversity of candidates and clients gives us the opportunity to constantly make new contacts, we always know that "what is suitable for one client is not suitable for another". Professional knowledge, knowledge of the client and his values, and the attention to detail developed through many years of experience help to evaluate candidates more objectively. We are happy to share our practice, how and when do we understand that it is time to choose another candidate?
- Not preparing for the interview
We meet candidates who avoid answering the questions we ask, and when we try too hard to get no answer, we feel like interrogators. Such candidates are often passive during the selection and show less emotion, so it becomes more difficult for us to objectively decide for what reasons they are really interested in the position and take the time to talk to us. Because the interview is a great opportunity to present yourself, and candidates who don't use it seem to be stuck "between the earth and the sky" and it becomes more difficult for us to interest them in other competitive job offers. For this reason, we often ask ourselves the question, will working with such a candidate be unsustainable and is it better not to continue further cooperation? However, more often we say "YES" and give a second chance.
There are less frequent but highly memorable candidate behaviors that we consider to be a serious cause for concern about a candidate's suitability and credibility: no-shows, lateness, overconfidence and talking without interrupting, arrogant or disrespectful behavior. Although these characteristics may be determined by the stress experienced during the interview, we evaluate how the candidate's behavior changes throughout the interview, whether the worrying characteristics are repeated, or whether the candidate's behavior may occur in another similar situation.
- The only motivation is the salary
If in the first minute of getting to know the candidate we get the question: "what salary do you offer?", will we waste our resources on such a candidate because he is not suitable? Maybe he would be suitable for a quick sale process, maybe he lacks experience in auditions and we can advise him when to raise this issue? If we receive a salary question in the first minute, we try to understand why the candidate wants to participate in our selection further and give him the opportunity to present himself and his professional achievements more than professional expectations.
We need vigilance, because candidates who consider only the offered salary as their first priority can seek a new job at any cost, and we have more risks that they will "spread their wings" without thinking much later, when a "better offer" appears.
Some of these candidates use the job search as a time for "labor market analysis" to check whether they are earning a competitive salary in the market. Such candidates also often choose monetary motivation as the first number and boldly ask questions about the proposed financial conditions. Sometimes such candidates say that they are not entirely sure whether they can expect a higher salary at their current workplace and ask how to talk to their current employer about reviewing the conditions. It is not uncommon for employers to agree to raise wages in order to retain employees, but if the only or main motivation in the long run remains only wages, we raise the question, what next? And this question is already a separate topic.
- Frequent job turnover and high loyalty. What's worse?
We also pay attention to how often a candidate changes jobs and we consider job changes without strong arguments as a serious reason not to make a long-term commitment to a new employer. A young specialist looking for new experience is more worried about the change of jobs than the job change of a candidate with many years of experience. Could this be a signal that the candidate has a harder time adapting to new conditions, the team or achieving long-term goals? Most likely, a higher turnover of jobs may indicate that the candidate has ambitions to accumulate a wider range of competences, which can be perfectly used in more creative positions, in fast-growing companies, where there is less "solid foundation under the feet".
And if the candidate has been working in one workplace for more than 10 years, is that bad? In that case, we more responsibly assess whether he may have greater difficulties in adapting to new changes and requirements, or whether his vision coincides with the company for which we organize the selection.
- Condemnation of workplaces and colleagues
When a candidate strongly emphasizes negative experiences in the current or former workplace and prefers to emphasize the mistakes of colleagues or managers instead of emphasizing achievements and positive experiences, and public condemnation of the workplace seems normal to him, do we consider such a candidate unsuitable? In such cases, we clarify the context, the reasons and want to understand what the candidate sought to reduce negative feelings and experiences at work, was it really all black, or maybe we can find shades of gray?
It is likely that when such a candidate is asked for recommendations, he will start to avoid or claim that former managers will not want to provide them. It is likely that if an employee was evaluated at a former workplace, both his colleagues and managers will provide feedback and share insights.
- Ideal candidate. Who is he?
We admit that every day we meet charismatic, enchanting candidates who charge us with energy and after such conversations only pleasant feelings remain. However, it is important to remain alert, because sometimes during such pleasant conversations, we also feel masterful tricks of the candidate to avoid awkward questions and redirect the speech in a different direction, using playful phrases. The goal of the interview is getting harder to achieve, the real truth.
I believe that we would find more obstacles that prevent us from evaluating candidates as suitable. The list can be really long, but we ask ourselves the question, should we waste energy looking for negative qualities or should we rather choose highlighting the candidate's strengths? If our long-term professional competence says that the candidate can fit the culture of our client's company, fit into their team with their unique communication style, attitude, and values, we pay attention where it deserves. Only by creating an environment conducive to discussion can we achieve open communication and cooperation.
