The hiring process in my company consists of the HR shortlisting candidates based on some policies, and then the manager selects the top candidates from among them to be invited for interviews.
Sometimes only a few people apply or HR shortlists only a few candidates from among those who apply. Hence, the manager is faced with choosing from a very narrow pool of candidates. It is possible that none of the shortlisted candidates has the right mix of skills and experience required for the job.
However, if nobody is hired, the whole process (advertising for the position, etc.) has to be repeated, and can take up to a year. There is no guarantee that the scenario will not repeat.
Hence, the manager has to choose between:
- Do not hire anyone since none of the candidates quite cut it in terms of the desired skill set, OR
- Hire the candidate who is the closest fit among the available candidates.
Opinions seem to vary from hiring for potential rather than experience to a bad candidate might indeed be worse than no candidate.
I imagine hiring a candidate with less than the desired level of qualification would mean having to rethink the job role, which would typically result in the position not adding as much value as expected. Is this a fairly typical outcome of a hiring process, and the key lies in the manager's ability to bring the less qualified hire up to speed and/or redefine the role to match the skills the candidate does possess?
What factors should a hiring manager consider when deciding between filling the position with a less qualified candidate or continuing to wait for a qualified candidate?