Am I right or is the employee right?Be honest either way.?

Question

This is a very true story. Ok, even though I have not been in the office as much butI still go. In a couple of weeks, we will be doing evaluations. I am very hands on. Some say a bulldog or another word that starts with b, but anyway. This week, I have decided to sit in with the screeners while they do their interviews and take notes. Ok, this young man came in for his interview. Very intelligent, fresh out of college. I usually do not say a word during the interview. So anyway after the interview was over, I asked the screener, so what do you think? They said, a No Go. I said Why. They said because they did not take the time to make sure they were professionally dressed. I said he looked fine to me. They said did you see his shoes, he could have taken the time to at least polish them if this interview was that important. So, I did what I thought was right. Usually I just will sign off for a "reccomend to hire" when it comes accross my desk.

This time, I recommended for hire and sort of pulled rank. Then I sent it to one of my colleagues to sign off. I do not think she was being fair. When I was fresh out of college, my first interview, I had to borrow clothes from my sister. I do not think because his shoes were a little worn that it should have excluded him from a position when I felt he was an asset. The screener feels that I undermined them and did not trust their judgement after many years on the job. What do you think?

I will be doing these screeners evaluations in the next week. Although I consider everyone my co worker including my screeners, I am over the entire HR department. I just do not want anyone feeling just because of who I am that I do not trust their judgement. I want my employees to have a comfort level with me. I never want them to feel like I am a dictator. I trust my screeners, but I wonder how many times others have felt this way.

Answer 1

Sorry but my opinion is this.

Your company has screeners for a reason. They are trained and experienced in the position they hold. The reasons they find are on the level in respect to what they believe.

You should respect the screeners and their findings and leave it at that.

If you are not comfortable with the people they are choosing for hire then I would understand your sitting in. But if they hire people that are working out well in the company, you should let them do their job.

If you insist on sitting in and choosing the inteneded hirees then you should be up front with the screeners so they can work with you and not against you.

Answer 2

As a fellow professional I have to say i am kind of on the fence with this one. I know you have heard "Don't judge a boOK by it's cover".... well books have covers for a reason. When I interview the first thing I do is take quick snapshot in my head, and this includes hair, breath, teeth, fingernails and shoes. A little worn is ok, but scuffed is not. I may have taken this as a lack of attention to detail on the part of the candidate.
If this guy was just fine I would not have said a word and let the interviewer use their own judgment. If the guy really shined with outstanding qualifications and was tremendously well spoken I would give you a nod on the risky recommendation.
You have stuck your neck out for this guy and the people that work for you will judge your managerial skills as a result.
To give a firm answer on this I would need a history on this evaluator and would want to consider the quality of his or her past recommendations. I just have a feeling here that there may be more to it than just the shoes.

Answer 3

If the shoes were the only thing as you stated then you did what was right.

If the rest of him was sloppy then fine, but jeesh how picky can you get. And how stupid does that person sound...sure he was great but his shoes were a bit scuffed....

Well in evals with that particular screener you can discuss that though you value their attention to detail, they should also be flexible enough that they don't end up missing the forest for the trees. Though his shoes weren't polished he was otherwise presentable, professional, and skilled. IF they take it as a trust issue instead of the ability to become better at their job then well, every place has their disgruntleds. It's nice that you consider them coworkers but the reality is you are still their boss. Plus they don't work for you as much as they work for the company-they should always be doing what is best for the company.

Answer 4

If he was clean and neatly dressed, other than his shoes, I would not put much weight on the condition of his shoes for the following reasons: They might have been clean and polished when he put them on in the morning, but he may have had to walk through dust or mud due to weather or construction. Shoe polish may have been a low priority on a limited budget, compared to rent and food. If the shoes were clean but not new and/or freshly polished, it may have been the best he could do on his budget. Finally, he may not be fully aware of dress standards in a formal office if he was young and new to the workplace. This is something that can be easily corrected during the training periord and addressed if needed at his first performance review. You may have overreacted a bit and I believe you did right by the applicant but you should discuss with the screener why you believed he deserved further consideration. Explain that every arbitrary standard is subject to exceptions in the right situations.

Answer 5

I think you did the right thing, and also that you need to have more confidence in your ability as a boss. You can have faith in your screeners without agreeing with every decision they make. Perhaps they need to be trained better so that the trust level will be even higher. You were put in charge for a reason - don't second guess yourself.

Answer 6

I think you were definitely right. He may not have shiny new shoes to wear to an interview and he may have been embarrassed by them. But I think an employer should look at the person's character and experience and work ethic, instead of making a snobby comment like your coworker. I used to work for a company that was all about appearances, and half the time, we'd get people in there that were more than qualified for the job, but wouldn't wear what the interviewer deemed the "appropriate attire" and their application and resume would be chucked in the trash, and we'd spend another 3 months working our a$$es off and doing the jobs of 4 people by ourselves because we were still shorthanded.

Answer 7

You were totally right. This screener could be letting a lot of excellent candidates go by because she's a snob about shoes. She should be focussed on performance with just a general look at appearance and manners.

Answer 8

That screener should be fired for being an idiot. Think of all the hard working geniuses that he passed by because of some superficial detail. His boss should lecture him for an hour on making stupid decisions and then send him home to shine his shoes. What a total jerk. Your company is completely irresponsible to keep a worthless crumb like that on the payroll.

Answer 9

to not hire someone because his shoes were not polished is soooooooo wrong. Perhaps that is all he could afford! He could be a great employee with a lot of potential, to disregard for such an ignorant reason is terrible. Makes me wonder about this "screener" and their intelligence!

Answer 10

i'm not a lawyer, yet right here is my 2 cents. touch your mastercard corporation and notice in the event that they are going to opposite the charges. The storage corporation could be responsible because of the fact the worker replaced into their agent. the worker could in all probability be responsible the two criminally and in a properly mannered way on account that he gained the financial income. criminal costs can in trouble-free terms be introduced for the time of the police or prosecutor. If he ordered something which replaced into mailed to him, the Postal Inspectors could take the case. Civil adventure could desire to pass by using small claims court or ordinary civil court, reckoning on the quantity in touch. of direction, if the mastercard corporation reverses all the charges, you in all probability won't have a civil adventure (small claims or in any different case) on account which you will not have any ultimate financial damages. Criminally, it could count on how plenty funds we are speaking approximately and how busy the police are with greater and greater glamorous circumstances. historic past tests are great, in case you have the ideal call and county researched. in any different case, they at the instant are not completely good. There could be some criminal accountability on the part of the corporation which did the historic past verify for the storage corporation. so a techniques as bonding, maximum agencies have worker dishonesty coverage, despite the fact that it in trouble-free terms covers the corporate's assets, not third celebration assets. Bonds or coverage could be bought for extremely just about something, for a cost. If the mastercard corporation won't opposite all the charges, you may desire to pass lower back to the storage corporation and attempt to get them to pay. ok, perchance that replaced right into a nickel's worth.