There are interesting correlations between recruiting a good candidate to fill an open position and what is going on in the  race for the presidential nomination of the Democratic party.  Without going into my own conservative or liberal leanings, remember that I am a political science major, so I LOVE THIS STUFF.  Big time.

We’ve got two very interesting Democratic party applicants for the biggest job in the land.  As hiring managers, we have a choice to make on the information we have at hand, what we learned from the applicants’ previous experience in similar jobs, and how the two of them do in the rest of the selection process.

Remember that recruiting is finding the right talent for the right job at the right time.  We have to ensure there is a good fit between the skills/abilities of the candidate and the job that is available. 

The Dems have done pretty well in their process so far, winnowing down a field of 10 or 11 down to three just a few weeks ago.  They’ve used three selection procedures that have been proven to be extremely strong predictors of overall job performance:

• Structured employment interviews (focusing the employment interview on questions that highlighted the applicant’s ability to make good judgments in a variety of situations)
• Training and experience behavioral consistency method (requiring the applicant to describe their major achievements in several job-related areas and evaluating the statements against a scale)
• Work sample tests (applicants perform observable, job-related behaviors as predictors of criterion performance)

Through the use of these valid indicators of future performance, they’ve been able to reduce the list of qualified candidates by 80% down to the current two. 

I’d argue there is evidence (if not documented “proof”) of the other two “top five” selection procedures; general mental ability tests and integrity tests.  And those last two tests lead us to the choice that often confronts hiring managers…  two qualified candidates for the same job, each possessing different skills.  Each meets the minimum requirements for the position or they wouldn’t have gotten this far in the process.  But each is unique.

One candidate provides us experience, the other promises us wisdom.

One candidate talks about the need for change, the other talks about making change.

One candidate is happy “playing the game“, the other is happy to rise above it.

One candidate exudes character, the other exudes confidence.

One candidate is of the people, the other is for the people.

One is a bureaucrat, the other is a manager.

When I play the Employee Hold’em Card Game with clients and at human resource conferences, we constantly talk about the difficulty of making hiring decisions when you don’t have enough information on the candidates, or when you’re not satisfied with the information you have.

It looks like the opposite is true as well.  It’s just a lot more fun when you have two qualified candidates for a job instead of choosing the evil of two lessors.

Wow, politics is real life.  Who wudda thunk it?