Why aren’t you allowed tarantulas? They’re harmless, relatively clean, and cute.
This sort of this really pisses me off. Hey HR dudes- are you hiring the best candidate for the company or the best resume writer?
Anyway, the Boss here knows that Amy is a Good Person, which is critical. Hire her.
Being a Good Person does not necessarily mean that person is the Best Candidate.
At the end of the day, hiring someone is about fit as much as it is about qualifications. There’s a lot of subjectivity involved, even if someone has a perfect resume. So I don’t think it’s the end of the world if the John hires Amy for what essentially is a low-level position.
My point is that Jonathan’s obligation to Amy is entirely personal, and the proposal is that he give her something - a job - that is not his, to satisfy it. Jonathan has a duty to find the most qualified person he can to fill the job in the OP. The job is not his to give away like a gift or payment. Granting somebody that job to satisfy his personal obligation is stealing.
Suppose Jonathan worked in the loan department of a bank, and his decision was whether to forgive Amy’s loan? Or suppose he worked for an insurance company and was choosing whether to pay on a claim? Whatever the case is, if he is putting into Amy’s pocket somebody else’s money, which she would not have gotten if he did not owe her this personal obligation, which somebody else did not intend her to have on the basis of Jonathan’s personal obligations, then he’s stealing it, isn’t he?
I’m assuming all these jobs take place within the real world, not in a standardised test. That being the case, Amy doesn’t look so marginal to me. Everything less-than-great in her application could well be due to the stress of long-term unemployment, which is reversible - and I’m not totally convinced that interviews and standardised tests are actually predictive of real-life performance. They’re used because, usually, there’s no way to get a good sense of how a person behaves in real life, so these are the next best thing.
In this case, though, Jonathan actually does have info on what Amy’s like in a real-life situation. He knows that she keeps a cool head in a pretty major emergency, and can react instantly, capably and independently; she’s got plenty of determination and tenacity (hauling him to safety can’t have been quick and easy, even if she’s an athletic Amazon and he’s a 98-pound weakling); and she’s got the courage to do something hugely important even at serious personal risk. A LOT of people don’t measure up to all that, and all of those things matter. She sounds like someone you want around.
I think I’d go with Skald’s idea of putting her on my best sales manager’s team and telling the manager that she’s fireable, but it would be great if she could be brought up to scratch. The fact that she passed the tests indicates that she is, in fact, qualified by application standards as well as real-life standards - there’s no reason why she shouldn’t be able to do the job perfectly well. I would probably tell the manager the whole story and explain why I believe this indicates she’s a good person to have on board.
There’s a huge conflict of interest here. However much gratitude you may feel, do you really want to have someone who saved your life working directly for you? Or even in your vicinity?
That said I’m firmly of the opinion that one good turn does deserve another. Jonathan should check for a suitable vacancy for her elsewhere in the organisation and - with full disclosure - ask that she be interviewed for it.
Jonathan should set up an interview with Amy. If she interviews better than the others then Jonathan should consider giving her the job but he should base his choice on which candidate is best.
During the interview he should offer to take assist Amy in her job search, making it clear that he cannot advance her over other more qualified candidates but he can help her with her resume and with contacts. This would be a personal favor from him. This helps satisfy his obligation to her and opens the door to a more personal relationship if both are willing.
Exactly, good points. 
My thoughts exactly. There are things you can’t test for. Maybe executive assistant isn’t the right job for her, but I bet I could find something for someone who knows how to make right decisions, on a snap. That’s the kind of thing you don’t let go.
Considering that I owe her my life? I know people at other companies. I’d shop her to them, if I couldn’t place her now.
I make sure that I know what other positions does the company have available or expect to open soon, check whether I know anybody who may need someone with Amy’s training, set up a separate meeting with her and help her get a job that’s the best mutual fit I can find. Is she looking into sales as a “desperate move”, or is it a genuine interest? Both her and the company that hires her may be better served if they hire her for a different position. The information provided doesn’t say what her college degree was on, only that she has one. The position of executive assistant requires the already-demonstrated ability to think on the run, but having the boss be directly indebted to his exec may not be best; would Amy do well in the position Leslie leaves? Does one of my acquaintances have a need better fitting Amy’s training?
I would do my best to help her, but with the idea that the help has to pay long-term.
Of course he shouldn’t hire her. I can’t quite believe so many of people think he should. You hire the best person for the job, based on their application (and sorry, a well-written CV is vitally important - it presents the first impression the company have of you, and in this climate with 100s of applications for every vacancy, it’d better be a damn good one), experience and qualifications, and yes, performance at interview.
She saved his life, yes. I would assume that she did so because, y’know, it’s his life, not in the hope of some kind of material reward. He owes her his thanks, which he gave her, nothing else.
Also, if the manager’s so ethical, why has he already decided, prior to interview, that the job’s going to the internal candidate? It may well be she will turn out to be the best candidate, but that shouldn’t be decided before the process has even started.
Your first paragraph speaks volumes about your wisdom. I like what you said.
But, a couple of thoughts on the two bits I quoted - about what he owes her, of course there wouldn’t have been any deal struck in the moments before rescue, but I do think he is obligated to do more than thank her, especially if he has the ability to help relieve some distress of hers. For example if he’s financially well off, and she’s struggling, I think he’s vaguely obligated to offer help. And about hiring the internal candidate, well, that’s often a decision companies make. It amounts to deciding they will move their own employees around between jobs but not hire any new employees. Isn’t that a legitimate decision?
No, he owes her his life. Without her intervention (which risked her own life, he’d be dead. That’s a genuine debt in my ethical system, though perhaps not in yours.
The job of his personal secretary involves getting along with him, handling his quirks and dealing with the ins & outs of the company. Despite what some persons said upthread it’s not a minor or unimportant position; it’s entirely reasonable to decide that job should go to someone in the company whom he already knows, who already knows him and the company, to minimize transition difficulties. Saying “This job should go to someone in the company” is not remotely unethical.
Looking back at the OP, I realise I had misread - was under the impression he was interviewing candidates for a job he had already pretty much decided was going to the internal candidate. On re-reading I realise that’s not the case, and he’s simply promoting an employee, which is fine. That’s talent management and should be encouraged.
But I stand by my belief that he should not be hiring anyone other than the best person for the job. Ok, she saved his life. That is a Good Thing. But giving her job over the heads of more qualified candidates? That is a Bad Thing.
Full disclosure: I work in HR. I’ve had this argument with recruiting managers before. Your mother, your lover, your brother, your guardian-frigging-angel - I don’t care. The job goes to the most qualified person. Anything else is unethical and in most cases illegal.
But she is the Most Qualified.
as **eclectic wench ** sez
"In this case, though, Jonathan actually does have info on what Amy’s like in a real-life situation. He knows that she keeps a cool head in a pretty major emergency, and can react instantly, capably and independently; she’s got plenty of determination and tenacity (hauling him to safety can’t have been quick and easy, even if she’s an athletic Amazon and he’s a 98-pound weakling); and she’s got the courage to do something hugely important even at serious personal risk. A LOT of people don’t measure up to all that, and all of those things matter. She sounds like someone you want around."
Most HR people don’t know the most qualified candidate from the least- HR staff seem more concerned with whatever petty “rules” they can make up which serve their own sense of self-importance, not what is actually best for the company.
For example- from the OP that the person putting their photo on their resume somehow makes them less qualified. :dubious: Or my favorite- what sort of paper should your paper resume be on (the one you bring to the interview, since most initial submission is electronically)- I have had one HR person claim that he’d shitcan any applicant that didn’t bring it in on nice bond paper, as they knew to make their best impression. Another HR “expert” claimed that any such paper would get shitcanned as content was what was important. :rolleyes: Or in another case, that the applicant’s choice of email providers spelled doom.
Actually you’re still misreading. There are three actions implicitly suggested by the OP:
- Hire Amy to one of the several sales positions. I think I wrote there were about 15 openings and the square of that many applicants.
- Hire her to be his personal admin, leaving the person he’d intended to offer the job to in her current position.
- Hire her as a regular admin.
The virtue of option 1 is that this is the job she actually applied for and presumably feels qualified for. The OP doesn’t say whether she has any experience in the field, but I would assume she does because the specific problems mentioned were NOT problems with her experience, but rather with her test scores and her nervousness during the interview. Also, she passed the standardized test; it’s just that, with so many applicants, her score was not relatively impressive. Another virtue of giving her that job is that she would not be his direct report, which might be an issue given the debt he feels he owes her, and also the issue of her beauty making it look like he has, ah, phallus-based motives.
The virtue of option 2 is that she would be under his direct supervision. Yes, I know that that seems to contradict what I just wrote, but hear me. Jonathan feels himself massively indebted to her. (And I agree that he has a massive debt.) If she’s his direct report he has the ability to help her improve herself in ways that he would not if she’s two or three levels below.
The virtue of option 3 is that it skips over her bad interview in sales and looks less like favoritism than 2.
Full disclosure: I’m an inside sales manager. In the scenario I made up, I’d be one of Jonathan’s direct reports and Amy’s possible supervisor.
Sales jobs are a crapshoot. The standardized tests we give applicants are ridiculous and have little predictive power. The single best IS person I’ve ever met was in my training class when I started inside sales, and he was suboptimal on the math portions of the tests. But he was absolute gold when it came to working the phones: incredibly focused, incredibly disciplined, incredibly charming. I’d hire him back in a second if I could; I will hire him if ever given the opportunity. But I’ve also known people who aced the math parts of the test but sucked at the actual job for various reasons: tooo unfocused, too lazy, too whatever.
And the personality profiles are worse than crap, in my opinion as a long time IS person.
That’s why these things are normally weighted, so that you can give higher priority to the skills that matter most. Tests are usually given fairly low weighting, IME - usually, if you have two candidates, who have performed equally well at interview, have similar levels of experience, and equivalent qualifications, then you might make the tests the deciding factor. My understanding of this is that the woman in the OP did not perform brilliantly in any part of the process.
Personally I consider psychometric tests to be little more than a gimmick, and would never recommend using them, so I guess we agree on that.
And I still maintain that he doesn’t owe her a job - any job. You (hypothetical you) save someone’s life because life is precious and worth saving. The savee does not then “owe” you anything but heartfelt thanks.
I’ve always worked for charities. Firstly with disabled adults and currently with socially excluded young people. My priorities are firstly, to assist the managers with recruiting the best possible staff so we can provide the best possible service to our clients; and secondly, to protect the organisation from potentially costly employment tribunals which could occur if we’re not seen to be abiding by employment law. I don’t make up “rules”, I see it as my job to advise, and that advice will be quite strongly worded if I think your decision is risking the organisation. Ultimately though, if you choose not to listen to me I will abide by your decision and take action to minimise the associated risks.
But I’m sorry you’ve had such a bad experience with HR staff.
I don’t think he should give Amy the job. However, I do think he should mentor her and help her improve her professional and interviewing skills so she’ll be a much stronger candidate next time around as well as keep an eye out for other positions she may be qualified for and recommend her.
I’ve been in jobs I wasn’t qualified for. They paid the bills for a while, but I would have been much better off in the long run not suffering through that.
Having had Personal Assistants before, I can assure you that they do a lot more than ordering lunch and other mundane chores.
I considered my PAs to be miracles in human form. A good one can understand the policies of the boss, and apply them in new and sometimes unusual circumstances. At the same time, a good PA will know when to “check with the boss” My PA acted as a reasonable gate keeper, allowing me to deal with the most important issues before the minor ones.
Bless PAs, wherever you are.