I am a hiring manager and have been working with my companies HR department since November to fill a vacant position.

Anonymous

March 2,2023 at 3:57PM UTC

Welcome to Fairygodboss!

We’re the largest online career community helping women achieve their career goals. Gain access to articles, jobs, events, and a supportive network of women and allies. Membership is free, always.

I am a hiring manager and have been working with my companies HR department since November to fill a vacant position. Recently, the HR department forwarded resumes of two candidates that would be a good fit for the position. Yesterday, two team members and I interviewed with the first candidate (who was an internal applicant). Afterwards, I let HR know that this person would be an excellent candidate for the position. However, I wanted to meet with the second candidate who could also be a good fit. The HR recruiter followed up to let me know the second candidate would not be able to start until the second week of May and asked if this would this be a deal breaker. I told them that it was a deal breaker especially since the first candidate had interviewed so well.

I've worked with my company for 20 years and my past hires have all been successful. So I was baffled when my HR department called me to ask me if I asked "good questions" during the interview and did the candidate "provide meaningful responses that would indicate they could do the job." When I said yes, HR continued this line of questioning to the point where I asked if HR had identified any red flags that I should be aware of. HR said no, but it was more important to hire the "right" candidate than to rush the process... and that I most likely wouldn't be able to fill the position until May anyway.

The first candidate already works for my company so HR provided me with the opportunity to physically go to their office and read a print out of this person's 2022 year end review. Upon review, it only solidified my decision. Not to mention, everyone I know who has worked with this person says they are a delight to work with.

This morning I received an email from HR informing me that we need to keep the interview with the second candidate because they had provided HR with all the application paperwork. The message also said that HR would proceed with extending the job offer to candidate one. I am so confused. Why would I want to meet with a candidate who, if I even wanted to hire, would not be able to start until mid-May? Especially since we are offering the position to candidate one.

Is this normal HR procedure?

Why women love us:

Daily articles on career topics
Jobs at companies dedicated to hiring more women
Advice and support from an authentic community
Events that help you level up in your career
Free membership, always

32 comments

Share your insight

Join an authentic community that helps women support each other at work. Share your professional experience or ask for advice — you can even post anonymously.

32 Comments

Join the conversation

Jackie RukaMarch 2,2023 at 4:22PM UTC
I am not in HR but was an executive and often if there were good qualified candidates we would want to interview them despite internal candidates or when someone can start. For several reasons, one, the internal candidate can also be interviewing elsewhere and may not accept the offer at their current company if they got a better offer. Second, it’s always good to have a pipeline of candidates that maybe a fit as other roles open up or people decide to leave. You don’t always know what’s going on behind the scenes.
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 2:36PM UTC
This is fairly common practice where I work. In fact, I just went through this process again recently as a hiring manager. It happens at similar companies as well. The competition implies there is more than one candidate interviewed. It allows you to demonstrate neutrality. It also allows you to say that you hired the best candidate. You may end up hiring the internal candidate, but you can say you followed procedure.
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 4:03PM UTC
In the current market having a pipeline of candidates available as roles open up is becoming much more important. In my company we are consistently seeing it take 3-6 months just to get enough candidates to meet the minimum number for the interview process (we need at least three, five would be preferable). Repeatedly we are having two of the three candidates take other positions before we can make an offer. This has resulted in several bad fits because rather than start the process all over the hiring manager settles for the remaining candidate. It's awful and it's contributing to our increase in turnover creating a vicious circle.
Bonnie CoventryMarch 2,2023 at 5:50PM UTC
I think you lend yourself to a bias that you may miss out on an opportunity when you only speak to one candidate, ever. To share fairness is so important. If that external candidate has been contacted I think the integrity of the process is important and to allow an interview. You never know you may get a new buy in and excitement of the candidate. When you close yourself off you may lose a perspective you didn't know you needed. Also, when internals look at internal moves you want to avoid possible misinterpretations of the process. You don't want to look like you weren't fair. Maybe HR sees something also in their experience that may be able to build a bench for the company for a future possibility. I wouldn't look at it as a chore but an opportunity. Good luck.
AnonymousMarch 2,2023 at 5:53PM UTC
I am in HR and can tell you that we have to proceed based on company policy & procedures, so even if it doesnt make practical sense, if the action is policy it must be followed.
I am sure in smaller companies this is more rare but in larger companies many processes are documented as a workflow and the Recruiter/HR person can't deviate. Not sure if this is what happened with you, but putting it out there that sometimes we also think things are ridiculous but uanble to affect change.
AnonymousMarch 3,2023 at 1:26PM UTC
Because it’s a policy of HR. They are treading legalistic rules. It’s not just simple as hiring the first guy person you like. Be compliant with HR, they know what they are doing. You sound a bit defensive.
Rae WagonerMarch 4,2023 at 2:38PM UTC
Agree to disagree. If OP has been trying to hire for this position since November, and it’s MARCH, May is a long dang time away when there’s an in-house candidate who seems like a great fit and has a proven track record. Also, they’re going to offer in-house candidate the job but also interview “can’t start till May?” That sounds like they’re jerking candidate 2 along. And all the while our OP needs this position filled.. every day it’s vacant there is work that either is not getting done OR someone else is having to cover. sounds to me like HR is calling the shots. Unless there’s more that we (and maybe OP) don’t know about this situation, it’s messed up.
Finally, OP states she is a hiring manager. Sounds to me like she knows what she’s doing.
AnonymousMarch 5,2023 at 12:09AM UTC
Unfortunately hiring process doesn’t care if you are working more because they are not hiring fast enough. That is not relevant. From a business perspective you wanna get someone in asap to lessen the workload and create a team however from a legal HR perspective, they have to check a lot of boxes and sounds like they wanna at least give the other candidate an fair opportunity and a shot at the job even if they end up choosing the internal candidate. there are certain rules they have to follow from a complaince perspective.
GirlBossanova934974March 4,2023 at 1:49PM UTC
This is what happens when the pendulum starts swinging a bit too far in dealing with the HR Department. In essence as in this case, HR starts making business decisions instead of being an advisor. It makes zero sense to be interviewing another candidate when you have already hired someone else. If you have a job worth doing, you cannot wait around another 90-100 days for someone who MIGHT be available over 90 days down the road. What should have happened is that HR should have advised the second candidate that NO, we cannot wait that long. It sounds like someone in the HR office made some concession or some under the table deal they had no business making.
Katherine Metres Akbar, Interview Coach & Resume ExpertMarch 4,2023 at 1:54PM UTC
I don't know. If the person they wanted to hire were an unknown quantity who might not work out, having a second option in the wings might make sense. However, under the circumstances, this seems to be unnecessary. I hope you are allowed to he honest with the candidate and let them know that the company wanted to interview them since they were a strong candidate, though the position has already been offered. You could use it more as a "getting to know you for future opportunities" meeting if the candidate is game. I think they should be told ahead of time to make an empowered choice whether this is how they want to spend their time. I say this as an interview coach whom people pay $500 to prep them for interviews. This is to say nothing of the time and stress involved in interviewing. Employers get a bad rap when they jerk people around.
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 2:42PM UTC
Hire slow, fire fast. It does sound like you haven't vetted enough people. Being delightful is nice, but not a qualification. I've hired for every type of role. Rushing to hire never ends up to be a good thing, no matter where the candidate comes from. What more can you learn about interviewing? There is always more to hone in that skill.
Beth Whight MoralesMarch 4,2023 at 3:38PM UTC
I wouldn’t say normal, but if they believed this candidate would be a good hire for this role, there may be other roles. That’s the nice answer.
What may actually be happening is there IS a red flag - real or not - and they think the internal candidate will not survive in the position. If that is the case, it’s possible the position will be available again shortly after the external candidate is.
If you are confident with the internal hire, then interview the second candidate to see both how they will fit the original position as well as how their KSAs could support other company needs.
Crystal HowellMarch 4,2023 at 4:20PM UTC
I think it is only professional to allow all candidates that took the time to apply to your company and give them shot. You might be passing up a good candidate for this role or others. It's only an hour, and job seeker will appreciate it and see your company in a positive light.
Michelle S.March 4,2023 at 4:27PM UTC
So you would want someone to interview you, and get your hopes up, all while knowing that they will NEVER hire you? That’s not best HR practice.
Rosa GoesMarch 4,2023 at 7:22PM UTC
I agree with you Michelle. Not best HR practice. I would rather interview knowing a decision has not been made. I would have a better chance of getting an offer. I wish there was a way to know that first hand.
SweetpollypurebreedMarch 5,2023 at 12:37PM UTC
I agree. And that’s why, among many reasons, HR gets a bad rep.
I want to say that people should use critical judgement when they receive communication from HR. But in the scenarios listed above where there is rapid turnover it sounds like employees are approaching business with a quid pro quo mindset. I will accept a job but also be open to another
job that might recruit me, especially if you offer an inaccurate job description. Seems like a very transactional approach to business to me. Is this considered undermining of trust or an unnecessarily time consumptive way to recruit talent in the business world? I guess I would than say it sounds like employees are taking their cues from management.
Michelle S.March 4,2023 at 4:26PM UTC
I know a lot of people are responding from a applicant stand, but as a Director of HR in my previous life, absolutely not. No way would you want to interview someone who you know you’re not gonna hire. Not unless there’s a shot in the dark that they could be chosen, and these circumstances seem to be pretty set in stone. Otherwise, I always go through the interviews. I set up unless something happens, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that I’m gonna be hiring someone. Otherwise, always try to reserve my judgment until the end, but don’t ever feel obligated to meet with someone come and get their hopes up, just to know you’re going to deny them from the start. No way.
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 4:49PM UTC
Sometimes companies interview a slate of "diversity" candidates to meet certain metrics even if they have no intention of offering the person the job. Wells Fargo has a scandal about these fake interviews recently that you could look up. I wonder if you company is doing that in this case
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 4:52PM UTC
For one, as someone looking for a job, I find it ridiculous that I would not even be given an interview if the 2nd candidate. How do you not know the 2nd candidate is just as good or better?
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 5:51PM UTC
On the other side, what if you go through the interview process (taken time off, driving to location etc,) and the candidate is already picked - you are just a token interview? I have better ways to spend my time and efforts (I've had it happen).
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 5:22PM UTC
As a person in HR, and I do the initial interviews, then extend offers after the hiring manager meets with them, I can say I recommend still going through with the 2nd candidate. While this person sounds great, we’ve been burned a few too many times when we stop the process until ALL the paperwork is done with the initial candidate. That left a lot of precious time where we could have continued the search and didn’t. HR may also know something they can’t share with you and is covering their side of things as well. Some companies require a certain number of candidates be interviewed. Perhaps the 2nd candidate is just as qualified and is considered to be in a protected class. There is an obligation to interview. Perhaps HR knows of another position coming open. Jumping to conclusions often causes more drama than not. HR gets a bad rap because we can’t always give you all the information we have.
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 9:28PM UTC
Take my advice: interview all the people. I have two openings. I hired one person who worked one day and took another job that day for more money. One day worked. Then, my second applicant couldn’t pass the drug screen so I was back there square one with no good options. And, I had plenty of applicants that wouldn’t accept because of the salary range. Not taking up for HR here but hiring people in this environment is really hard!
Rae WagonerMarch 5,2023 at 3:23PM UTC
That’s fair. I’m sure that being forced to keep pertinent information confidential is frustrating. Necessary, but frustrating!
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 6:58PM UTC
I am not sure any of HR's decision has anything to do with you. Their job is to mitigate risk on behalf of the company and to keep viable candidates in the pipeline. It sounds like what they are doing what they are supposed to, extending an offer to one and keeping the interview for the other so there is back-up if for any reason candidate #1 does not come through.
Nova SmithMarch 4,2023 at 9:41PM UTC
Is it possible that the candidate that can start in May is more current in their skills? Students graduate in May.
AnonymousMarch 4,2023 at 11:11PM UTC
I am not in HR, but at my company recently my department has been extremely short-staffed consistently. When positions are filled, new hires tend to leave quickly, or a person does not perform nearly as well as they looked "on paper," and had to be let go--leaving a gap to be filled yet again. In one instance, there was a candidate interviewed who our manager considered as "the best interview I ever had in my life." There was another candidate, and the manager was hesitant to agree to interview that other candidate, since she already had her mind made up on the "best" one. I asked her if she has to interview the person even though she already made up her mind. She said, yes, our HR requires that if someone has submitted an application, they must be interviewed. In the end, the "best" candidate worked for two days after coming on board, and left for another position offered at another company. He said that the actual work duties and work environment did not turn out to be anything like he expected. Not anything like he pictured in his mind. This created a vacancy again, which took months to fill. In my experience, the person who is the "best" candidate is also looking at other positions and companies are competing for them. The internal candidate is already there, and may or may not be looking to leave the company. This is a toss up, as you may risk your good candidate leaving to another company, or the external candidate being the better choice but with no way of knowing without being given a chance.
AnonymousMarch 5,2023 at 5:47AM UTC
The candidate likely fit one of the non-discrimination protected categories, so they wanted to make sure there was no way to get them in trouble with the EEOC before turning them down. This is just a guess, but I have seen it happen at past jobs.
AnonymousMarch 5,2023 at 5:49AM UTC
I wonder if the second candidate is that HR persons friend or has a personal grudge against the internal candidate
LilaMarch 6,2023 at 2:46PM UTC
It's about EEOC regulations and avoiding a potential discrimination lawsuit. 90% of discriminations lawsuits originate during the recruiting phase. You can always hire the best qualified person for the job, but in order to be in compliance with anti-discrimination regulations, you have to interview all "qualified applicants".
AnonymousMarch 6,2023 at 6:05PM UTC
Would had been easier for HR to let the OP know right away that they needed to interview both. Although I think it odd that they need to interview all qualified candidates. What if you get a good turn out? You would be interviewing many qualified candidates.
LilaMarch 6,2023 at 10:28PM UTC
You're right, if you had 50 qualified applicants, if would be nearly impossible to interview all of them. There are a number of "dispositions" that you can use to pass over candidates like "candidate not considered, timing" -- just has to be properly noted. We usually request our hiring managers to interview a minimum of three candidates. And true, it would have been easier for HR to make sure that the Hiring Manager was aware of all of this in advance.
Maria Paula CalvoMarch 6,2023 at 4:36PM UTC
Compliance with EEOC is one aspect. The other one is that you may always discover new talent that can either make you change your first decision or consider that it can add value in other roles available in the near future. So it would not be a waste of time, give credit to the second candidate: you never know what you can find!