Question for you #EduSky
You’re hiring. You have two candidates. One whom you know is not a good leader but has applied well and interviews well or someone who is fantastic, applied well but dropped points in interview. Which one would you hire?
You’re hiring. You have two candidates. One whom you know is not a good leader but has applied well and interviews well or someone who is fantastic, applied well but dropped points in interview. Which one would you hire?
Comments
is this interaction bait or a joke
However, having had several knock backs like this I got to the point of saying, it clearly isn't meant to be.
- hiring for values alignment
- talent pipeline
- EDI strategy
- organisational strategy/plan
Interesting Q, got me thinking...
1 ) the evidence you have that one candidate is "not a good leader".
Context behind that view would need to be understood.
2) What the dropped points at interview were for (again context). Eg dropped points for safeguarding *could* be a red flag.
Of course, also worth unpacking: why didn't interview go well? That "why" intrigues me, too, when making that call.
Especially because poor leadership impacts negatively on others, and their ability to do their jobs.
Always room to support development of the other candidate.