In the near or distant (relative) past where wolves dared to tread in closer proximity .... I forget if it was Nobody or No-one who answered a question, which was quite funny.......
Recently discussing with a leading senior psychologist, the appointment made (of a senior administrator) within their department, they said,
"The fact that we already have someone temporary covering it, made no difference at all - to the candidate(s)"
I asked what criteria had helped the decision being met, to which they said,
"Well the successful candidate was very specific".
"In what way?" I asked
"They explained in greater detail how they'd do stuff" the Snr. psychologist extolled.
"What did they say that was so different?" intrigued further (I suspect), to which the psychologist said,
"Well when asked how would you do 'something' they'd explained, "First, I'd go into work, then I'd take off my coat and then I'd sit at my desk, then...."
After listening to the long list of strategically important stuff, I asked,
"What were the worst things about any alternative choice.... other than that?"
Professionally they explained to me, "Welllllll, one had improved a letter, after reading suggestions they could make inclusions and/or alterations to it, so obviously they'd disregarded the instructions we left. Though their version was enhanced without being extended as such, that's not what we'd expect".
"Oh" I said, then asked, "What else?"
"One had a wealth of experience, but that had made no significant difference", he paused briefly then continued, "after some discussion about the job, they'd admitted that they had no direct background or previous experience in our department".
"Was that a significant factor?" I quizzed
"Well as they'd admitted this during the interview, yes."
"Oh right, so they'd been honest about this?"
"Worse because, they'd mentioned an area we don't cover"
"Ah, you believe they'd 'guessed'?"
"Yes, clearly no research had been done, which we felt should have"
"Couldn't be bothered hey?!"
"Apparently. Obviously we considered this negatively, despite their obvious enthusiasm to learn in situ or their background of experience in various other and associated departments along with any previous history of working within similar partnerships."
"Tut"
"Whereas the successful candidate had expressed a genuine and much more recent breadth and depth of pertinent knowledge to a far greater extent. Naturally we were impressed by this. Plus, one of them didn't even have a professional qualification in typing"
"Why did you shortlist them if they couldn't type?"
"Well they 'claimed' to be capable of a very high rate and accuracy, but at the interview I explained that doesn't provide evidence of continued professional development - if I disregard their employment history."
"Ah right....... So did you employ the candidate already in post?"
"Oh I couldn't discuss that with you, let's just say I found sufficient fault with the alternatives (though it may sound like nit-picking - it all added up) to justify dismissing their potential appointment."
"Ah right, did finance come into consideration?"
"What? Oh, well the candidate employed will commence at the basic, though the money is available regardless of previous progression."
"Selection must have been difficult"
"Yes, but as a professional I follow strict codes of ethics and protocol principles."
"Would it have made any difference if you'd known one of the candidates had an auditory processing disorder? Are you familiar with that at all?"
"Er, well.... um...., I do know what the words mean - though not put together like that, no.
However there's a range of considerations - if that is a disability - to be taken into consideration, though I don't know if that's regarded as a disability, there are areas of the application form that oblige people with disabilities to declare them................."
"Ah right, that's interesting".
