Hiring

Some interesting things to ponder this week from the ever–readable Kris Dunn at the HR Capitalist.  

Chris suggests that internal candidates applying for an externally-advertised position may face bigger hurdles than might be first expected – as a result of necessarily having “baggage” about which the employer already knows. 

For example, little things like tidiness of workplace, a habit of listening to music while working etc can cause an employer to have reservations about a person – and these are things which are known about an internal candidate, but which remain a (helpful) mystery in the case of an outside applicant. 

The post is well worth a read.

Here’s an interesting question from Ask a Manager : can an employer legitimiately take into account a candidate’s potential commute time (and associated issues) when considering their suitability for a role?
From a legal point of view I don’t think there’s anything under New Zealand law that would prevent an employer giving consideration to this factor - but I also have sympathy for the candidate’s position : what business is it of the employer where I live and how long I have to travel?
I suppose the logical counter is that a lengthy commute potentially offers up issues of delay and lateness.  But shouldn’t the proof be in the pudding - and the issue managed on a performance basis if and when it arises?

It appears that the way that job candidates dress can dramatically influence their prospects at an interview – particularly in the present economic times. 

An interesting blog post this week about a survey of 500 employers, and their preferences for sartorial elegance in interviewees.   

Some of the results are intuitive (you probably shouldn’t wear jeans and a t-shirt to your interview – unless it is for a job at a cafe).  But others are a little more difficult to pick (stains and dirty marks on clothing seem to be a real death knell – and, for women, “dangling jewellery” is a no-no). 

Turning to the positive side of things, it appears that being largely conservative will advance your interview prospects.  Dark navy suit and generally conservative clothing and accompaniments seem to be the way to go! 

I have blogged previously about the dangers inherent to employers who provide a positive reference for an outgoing employee, despite the fact that an honest appraisal of the person may be much less flattering.   

It is not uncommon, of course, for an employer to agree in mediation to speak positively about the departing employee (or at least not to “disparage” the person).  But this agreement can often be at odds with the common law obligation upon the former employer to be open and honest in providing a reference for the person. 

An article today on Law.com warns employers about the dangers of providing glowing references on the social networking site LinkedIn.  In essence, there is a concern that a prospective employer may rely on a glowing reference provided on the website, only to find that their new employee is not what was represented.  That, in turn, may raise the prospect of a claim against the former employer, essentially in misrepresentation. 

This is an area fraught with legal difficulty – but one which (if the article is anything to go by) could be a growth area in the current market place.