Having the responsibility of selecting one among several competitive applicants can be a daunting task for any committee. At most times, the board may face criticism and allegations of unfair selections by different interested parties. Therefore, the appointed committee should properly vet the contestants to ensure that they only select the most qualified applicant for the respective position. The committee members can reach an accurate decision by considering certain factors such as the similarities and the differences between the contestants. They will be able to establish the party which fits the bill to avoid any future confrontations.
I been appointed to a committee of five members to interview the applicants for a position in a company I worked for, was a great and challenging experience at once. The responsibility of the committee was to scrutinize the candidates and remain with two best interviewees who were most qualified for a job promotion. After separating the wheat from the chaff, the biggest challenge was to draw a thin line between the two remaining applicants to establish who was the most suitable for the available position.
Our primary goal was to ensure a fair result for both the plaintiffs. We subjected them to an intense vetting process that consumed a big chunk of our limited time. We were in a dilemma on which contestant to recommend to the board of directors. Both applicants had worked for the same company for a good period and were conversant with the dynamics of the company's routine operations. They were occupying same position (team leaders) in the enterprise but in different departments. Therefore, their experience levels quite matched each other since they had worked for several years in various positions.
Both contestants were of the male gender and equipped with adequate skills to steer the company forward in the new post they would occupy. After long service to the company, they were familiar with the requirements and the goals of the firm. Therefore, if any of the two got the promotion, there was no doubt that they would perform and yield impressive results. These were critical requirements for the position as the directors would not approve of someone that was new to the firms operations.
They both had attained the academic standards that were required by the board and had good managerial skills. These were sensitive requirements to prove that indeed they not only had the experience required but had once studied for this field of career. They had, at least, two degrees from universities in different courses of management. The first one (Contestant A) was a holder of a degree in the field of Human Resource Management and a degree in Project Management while the second one (Contestant B) had a degree in Leadership and Management, and a degree in Human Resource Management. It was a tight race for the position and a tricky one for the committee. Unfortunately, in every contest, there must be both a winning and a defeated team (Mahatma Gandhi).
After the verification of the applicant's records in the company's systems, we found that both records were clear, and they had never faced any integrity issues. Therefore, we had no doubt that they were men of high integrity and discipline. No company would allow itself to have one of its departments led by a questionable character because it would only be a disaster in the making. Also, the committee assigned one of its members to do a field research in the company. We collected relevant information in regards to how the contestants interacted with their juniors and found out that both had good relation skills.
However, we also had to identify the differentiating factors between the two profiles for a successful process. Looking at the age bracket, contestant A was a bit older than Contestant B. It was a tricky issue based that both had certain advantages and disadvantages. When seeking an appropriate workforce, every employer looks at age and experience as a limiting factor. Younger employees are assumed to be more productive than their older counterparts while older ones seem to be wiser than their younger counterparts. It is not always as expected because things might turn out to be the opposite of what they are thought to be.
Another factor was based on the contestants' nuclear families. Contestant A was married for a long time with a few kids while Contestant B was recently engaged to his fiance. Based on this fact, the board of directors will be able to figure out the most suitable man for the job. Often, people assume that men with large families are more responsible compared to those with little or no families while others tend to think that men with small families are more flexible than those with bigger families concerning job restrictions (relocations and working overtime).
Based on these factors, we had to conclude our findings after the long and exhausting process and forward the reports to the board of directors. The board will determine the best candidate for the respective post based on these details for a fair appointment. It is the best wish of the committee that the best man is awarded the promotion but also we encourage both of them to work closely for a better performance despite the outcome of the event.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal:
- Drinking Students and Underage Drinking
- Is Climate Change Best Mitigated by Deglobalization?
- Verizon Communications Inc.
- Analysis of Security Issues in Cloud Computing and their Solution
- Artist Statement Essay Example
- Paper Example on International Terrorism in Canada
- Tangible and Intangible Costs and Benefits
- Test a Patient With a Bacterial Infection
- My Professional Goals for a Graduate Geology Program
- Essay Example on The Public Voice of Women
- The Truth behind Fairy Tales
- Definition Paper on Current and Long-term Liabilities