Occasionally, a job candidate with huge upside displays a glaring flaw that prohibits their selection.
Despite a set of amazing skills, talents, and experience, they exhibit a fatal flaw that turns a favorable review into one of deep concern. Once the selection team fully considers this imperfection, they normally conclude it is too risky to take a chance on bringing this person on board.
So, they take a pass and move on to other candidates who do not display deal-breaking defects.
But before giving up on a promising candidate with a fatal flaw, it would be wise to first push against the blemish and see what the team can learn. By confronting the candidate with the negative evaluation and asking them to explain or dissuade the team about the major shortcoming, the team will either come to override its concerns or become further convinced that the defect is too large to ignore.
Consider a candidate who is favorably evaluated by individuals on the selection team but then fails in their final interview with the team leader because they come across as exceedingly arrogant. Before accepting the leader’s view that this is a deal-breaker, a good team might consider confronting the issue in a direct but palatable way with the candidate:
“You have so many great qualities and the team is highly favorable toward you, but unfortunately the team leader felt as if you came across as overly confident, bordering on arrogant in your style. Help us understand what might have happened in that conversation. Did you express yourself differently with the team leader? Were you conscious of how you came across? Would you say you can become arrogant at times and if so, why?”
The ensuing conversation will expose how self-aware the candidate is, why they engaged the team leader in that way, and what they typically do to offset such a defect. After such a conversation, there will likely be little doubt as to whether the issue is indeed a deal-breaker or whether the flaw received more attention than it should have.
Candidates who are in denial of the perceptions others form or get defensive about how they presented themselves confirm that they are not a good fit. But, on occasion, a candidate may know that they displayed themselves in a negative way and will talk about what they might do differently if they had a do-over.
After exploring the whys, whats, and hows of the flaw, the team may conclude they should underweigh the defect and move forward in the process.
At a minimum, by confronting the deficiency, the team performs a remarkable service to the candidate. Rarely do candidates know why they were rejected or what issue created the turn of events leading to a negative evaluation. Teams that make their thinking explicit with candidates act as leaders, offering hugely valuable feedback to someone who clearly needs it.
Other than mild discomfort, there is little downside to pushing against a flaw exposed during the interview process that has unnerved the team. If the data on just about everything about the candidate is favorable, it would be smart for the team to explore the flaw directly with the candidate before rejecting them.
Selection teams spend too much time in the process not to take an extra moment to push against a singular flaw. Everyone benefits when they do.
A Daily Dispatch from the Front Lines of Leadership.
