Sometimes, it is hard to choose the best ones from a stack of resumes that are written according to all the rules. It is even harder to choose the reliable ones from the many professionals who responded to the vacancy. How to consider those who by virtue of circumstances may be an ambiguous colleague or what is more – a “risk zone”?
So, people. In addition to experience and resume, they are sure to bring to your team their personalities, beliefs, habits, problems, type of tea and coffee, and even favorite TV series. They will bring everything that makes them human. They will bring their lives with them, which can mess up yours or affect the microclimate as a whole.
Involvement of an experienced psychologist, who looks deeply into the inner world of the applicant, to finish in the margin of the resume his/her professional opinion, would be very helpful, but only a few employers can afford such a luxury. In case there are no Freuds and Jungians among the staff, the only way to avoid mistakes is… a certain amount of cynicism and composure in the process of analysis of candidates.
Of course, situations are different, there is always room for exceptions and the exceptional, plus it is especially hard for a recruiter to be unbiased in the context of complex vacancies. Here are the so-called dropout markers that you should consider in the process of the candidates selection.
So, whom should you hire with caution (or should you think long and hard, huh?)?
Risk zone 1. “Godfather to the king and matchmaker to the minister”
No matter how cynical it may sound, you should not hire “relatives”: relatives and friends. During working hours, in any case, you will treat them more loyally than others, and others will definitely notice and discuss this. And out of working hours, you will continue to communicate not with friends, but now with co-workers, and your working day will never end. If suddenly your relative has to be fired, he/she will not be able to leave as “just a former employee”. One way or another, you will have to experience this dramatic situation together and for a very long time. This will disadvantageously affect your relationship. And if it is a relative, the discussion and experience of this unfortunate fact with the participation of the entire family circle will never end! So, it’s better not to start this, if it is not a question of the survival of someone near and dear.
Risk zone 2. People who are “too much”
Too talkative during interviews, too loud, too eager to make themselves agreeable, too emotional. It can be overwhelming and impressive, but an interview is not a one-night stand. You accept a person into the team for a long time, and this daily “too much” is guaranteed to become annoying very quickly. Well, at least because … it is too much. Of course, it is possible that this is a side effect of the applicant’s anxiety at the interview. But even in this case, it is worth considering: why do you need employees who handle their emotions this bad?
Risk zone 3. Candidate who is already cramped
If you noticed this in the process of the interview, but cannot offer anything else, higher position or a position corresponding to the level of the applicant, it is also better to refuse him/her. If a person is out of position, in a position that makes him/her feel cramped right away – this is a time bomb that will go off sooner or later, but not in favor of the team. And if the applicant demonstrates that he/she himself/herself is fully aware of his/her superiority, greatly increases the risk of hiring a “star” employee with all the consequences.
Risk zone 4. “Former captains”
What about those who come to hire for a higher position than they have ever held, or those who, on the contrary, speculate to lower their career stakes? Those who want a higher position are preferable: they have career motivation on their side (of course, if the professional level and set of competencies imply the possibility of growth). But it is risky to hire a former director to the position of an ordinary employee. Firstly, something obviously happened in his life, and this “something” does not pass without a trace, and secondly, “general’s” habits tend to appear unexpectedly and in the most inopportune circumstances.
Risk zone 5. “Tired of everything”. And of you too…
You should not hire those “burdened” with everyday problems and tired of life. An employee in a new place will have to cope with adaptation and solve new tasks. And he/she is already tired, he/she has a lot of his/her own problems, and here you are…
Of course, the applicant will not make a display of problems in family life or an unpaid mortgage. But a few guiding “social” questions can touch a sore subject and let it show up. Talk about life. What is more, look closely at the applicant. A person who is tired of life is usually obvious. Such applicant has a guilty look and lowered shoulders, the desire to shrink, become invisible and take up minimal space in the room. In general, if for some reason you feel sorry for the applicant, this is a signal “you should not hire him/her”.
Risk zone 6. Lovers of bonuses
At the interview you feel that from the first minutes the candidate does not introduce himself/herself, his/her skills and competencies, but directly leads the conversation into direction of bonuses, insurances, allowances, office equipment, travel allowances and parking spaces. Of course, all these are important things that deserve attention. But, if exactly this, and not the range of future responsibilities, that the applicant comes to the fore, it is time to think. With a high probability, the candidate came in order to take and receive, and only then work.
Risk zone 7. Communicative imitators
Unfortunately, a common category nowadays. These are employees, who skillfully fill their working day with all the attributes of vigorous activity. They scurry along the corridors with documents, participate in incessant coffee breaks, look for something on monitors, communicate with someone on the phones, create office noise and maintain a semblance of work. At the interview, they are often betrayed by their communication style: vague answers to questions, specifics are hidden behind trendy terminology, they fill the dialogue with “empty talk” in which it is impossible to catch the meaning. They are always “positioning”, “pushing” something. Everything does not look so rosy if you ask to talk about a specific role in a specific project or schedule your usual working day at a previous job. Ask “what exactly did you do?”, and you will get a test result – positive or negative for the candidate.
Now you can carefully look out into the corridor or look at the list of candidates. Is anyone else left there? If yes, then this is a sure sign that promises a happy and fastest filling of your vacancy!