I use sound reasoning often at work, especially when difficult situations arise. After participating recently on an interview, I was asked to make a recommendation to management about which of the two individuals to hire. Both of the applicants met the basic criteria for the position. Both had similar technical qualification, and each of them had strengths and weaknesses that could relate to their performance. At first glance, the choice seemed to be a toss-up meaning that either person would probably have been successful in the position.
Rather than toss a coin, I used sound reasoning to decide which of the two candidates were marginally better qualified. Samuel Greengard (2003) explains in Workforce that employers often come in contact with candidates that have almost identical backgrounds. The job market can often be saturated with potential employees with similar educational backgrounds and work experience. Greengard explains that in these situations, the hiring committee needs to pick a list of attributes other than job qualifications in order to make a hiring decision. He recommends that the company hire based on a list of character traits including compassion, diplomacy, energy and confidence. Greengard believes that employees need to have an attitude that is the compatible with their potential employer (Greengard, 2003, 56).
When I had the make the decision with the hiring committee the first thing I did involved listing the five most important attributes for the position. In this case, the attributes were: work history, educational background, technical knowledge, interpersonal skills, and interest or enthusiasm about the position. I felt that this brief list of attributes would provide enough variety that one of the candidates would stand out.
I then evaluated both applicants against these five attributes. I assigned a scale of one to ten, with ten being best, to their responses to each
...