Return to Answer

Taking the risk of sounding Captain Obvious, let me point out that the purpose of an interview is to determine if a candidate is a good fit for the job. If your interview panel does not have sufficient confidence that the candidate is suitable, do not extend him an offer.

Several factors can, and do, go into making that decision, not just their technical competency. Weirdness is one such factor, but there are plenty more. I have seen technically well-qualified candidates getting rejected, because they were "too much into research and not into business", their communication style was extremely convoluted, they worshipped a platform that we don't use (you know, the Java v/s C++ problem), their showboating was way over the top, and so on.

From your description, it sounds like communicating with women is important to this job, and John has made it clear that he is far off the mark there. So naturally, you can conclude that the candidate does not meet the requirements.

The purpose of an interview is to determine if a candidate is a good fit for the job. If your interview panel does not have sufficient confidence that the candidate is suitable, do not extend him an offer.

Several factors go into making that decision, not just their technical competency. Weirdness is one such factor, but there are plenty more. I have seen technically well-qualified candidates getting rejected, because they were "too much into research and not into business", their communication style was extremely convoluted, they worshipped a platform that we don't use, their showboating was way over the top, and so on.

Communicating with women seems important to this job, and John has made it clear that he is far off the mark there. So you can conclude that the candidate does not meet the requirements.

Taking the risk of sounding Captain Obvious, let me point out that the purpose of an interview is to determine if a candidate is a good fit for the job. If your interview panel does not have sufficient confidence that the candidate is suitable, do not extend him an offer.

Several factors can, and do, go into making that decision, not just their technical competency. Weirdness is one such factor, but there are plenty more. I have seen technically well-qualified candidates getting rejected, because they were "too much into research and not into business", their communication style was extremely convoluted, they worshipped a platform that we don't use (you know, the Java v/s C++ problem), their showboating was way over the top, and so on.

From your description, it sounds like communicating with women is important to this job, and John has made it clear that he is far off the mark there. So naturally, you can conclude that the candidate does not meet the requirements.

Just to put that in perspective, suppose I wanted to hire a carer for a children's foster home, would it be alright to hire someone who expressed clearly how much he dislikes children?

Taking the risk of sounding Captain Obvious, let me point out that the purpose of an interview is to determine if a candidate is a good fit for the job. If your interview panel does not have sufficient confidence that the candidate is suitable, do not extend him an offer.

Several factors can, and do, go into making that decision, not just their technical competency. Weirdness is one such factor, but there are plenty more. I have seen technically well-qualified candidates getting rejected, because they were "too much into research and not into business", their communication style was extremely convoluted, they worshipped a platform that we don't use (you know, the Java v/s C++ problem), their showboating was way over the top, and so on.

From your description, it sounds like communicating with women is important to this job, and John has made it clear that he is far off the mark there. So naturally, you can conclude that the candidate does not meet the requirements.

Taking the risk of sounding Captain Obvious, let me point out that the purpose of an interview is to determine if a candidate is a good fit for the job. If your interview panel does not have sufficient confidence that the candidate is suitable, do not extend him an offer.

Several factors can, and do, go into making that decision, not just their technical competency. Weirdness is one such factor, but there are plenty more. I have seen technically well-qualified candidates getting rejected, because they were "too much into research and not into business", their communication style was extremely convoluted, they worshipped a platform that we don't use (you know, the Java v/s C++ problem), their showboating was way over the top, and so on.

From your description, it sounds like communicating with women is important to this job, and John has made it clear that he is far off the mark there. So naturally, you can conclude that the candidate does not meet the requirements.

Just to put that in perspective, suppose I want to hire a caretaker for a children's foster home, would it be alright to hire someone who expressed clearly how much he dislikes children?

Taking the risk of sounding Captain Obvious, let me point out that the purpose of an interview is to determine if a candidate is a good fit for the job. If your interview panel does not have sufficient confidence that the candidate is suitable, do not extend him an offer.

Several factors can, and do, go into making that decision, not just their technical competency. Weirdness is one such factor, but there are plenty more. I have seen technically well-qualified candidates getting rejected, because they were "too much into research and not into business", their communication style was extremely convoluted, they worshipped a platform that we don't use (you know, the Java v/s C++ problem), their showboating was way over the top, and so on.

From your description, it sounds like communicating with women is important to this job, and John has made it clear that he is far off the mark there. So naturally, you can conclude that the candidate does not meet the requirements.

Just to put that in perspective, suppose I wanted to hire a carer for a children's foster home, would it be alright to hire someone who expressed clearly how much he dislikes children?