Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there were two good candidates I would favor the one I had personal experience working with vs the one I only knew by reputation. I don't think that's favoritism so much as pragmatism. Why introduce more unknowns than you need to?

But why do interviews at all then? If you are already biased towards a candidate because they have inside experience with a group, don't waste everyone's time pretending like all candidates have a fair shake based on qualifications alone. Just be honest you're going through the rigamarole to cover your legal bases to feign that you tried to interview candidates. You had someone in mind all along though who had something no one from the outside could ever make up for though. It's inside nepotism/favirtism. Should have never wasted everyone's time on a worthless job application and interview process when everyone doesn't have an equal chance from the get go.

I'm sorry you, or your preferred candidate, did not get the job. That is always a disappointment and takes some time to process. That being said...

The purpose of an application and selection process is to guard against favoritism. It ensures that people that may not normally be on the hiring manager's radar get a chance to be seen.
The purpose of an application and selection process is also to "cover your legal bases." And that it also a good thing.
You don't understand what the words nepotism and favoritism mean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly B is a known candidate in that group. Why not hire B over A if A doesn't have a clear advantage, and might also not be a great personality fit.

Except there is a clear advantage - more years experience doing the same exact job as B. Both are already liked. You're clearly sending the message that years of experience and accomplishments don't matter. Only X factors like working with people in the group matter. How can anyone possibly have a fair chance at the job then if that's the primary factor? It's just favoritism while ignoring hard tangibles within the realm of control of both candidates like number of papers published, years experience, etc.

You are indeed sending the message that experience doing an individual contributor role is not the ONLY thing that matters when selecting for a people leader role. And that is a good thing.

More years of experience definitely doesn’t automatically make someone a better fit for a management position. Nor does publications. We just promoted someone relatively young and without an advanced degree in a similar situation, favoring her 5 years of experience over the guy with 20 and a masters. Why? Because she is a favorite. And why is she a favorite? You can throw her into any situation and she will excel. She shines on calls with clients and in all her interactions with other staff - articulate, thoughtful, listens, asks for help when needed, and finds solutions. Big picture person versus someone who gets lost in the details. Does it suck for the other guy? Yes. Is it the better decision for the company and team reporting to her? Yes.

It is called positioning, not favoritism. B was better positioned for this job.

Sometimes it comes down to likability and fit, especially if qualifications and experience are fairly equal. People on this board always focus on how things present on paper, rankings, etc. but forget that the soft skills matter too

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly B is a known candidate in that group. Why not hire B over A if A doesn't have a clear advantage, and might also not be a great personality fit.

Except there is a clear advantage - more years experience doing the same exact job as B. Both are already liked. You're clearly sending the message that years of experience and accomplishments don't matter. Only X factors like working with people in the group matter. How can anyone possibly have a fair chance at the job then if that's the primary factor? It's just favoritism while ignoring hard tangibles within the realm of control of both candidates like number of papers published, years experience, etc.

The way you wrote the OP is wasn't a "clear" advantage. What does "more" years entail? 2/5/10? For the exact same job I'd have to say 10 years might make a difference. Also, more years could hurt. Times are changing quickly. Is A less in tune with these newer times? Also, publishing 2x is not a clear advantage. And put that in relations to the "more" years. A has had more time to be in a position to publish.

You see it as "clear", I'm sure plenty of people see is as somewhat comparable enough to go with whoever they like best.

+1. I was candidate B, once, with 10 years of experience to candidate A's 20. And I was told after the selection had been made that I blew them away in the interview instead of resting on my laurels, while candidate A kind of phoned it in and talked about their great experience but not in any forward-thinking way.

I'm sorry you're disappointed, OP, but nothing you say smacks of favoritism. It does smack of poor sportsmanship. If it matters that much, ask for feedback on your interview so you can do better next time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there were two good candidates I would favor the one I had personal experience working with vs the one I only knew by reputation. I don't think that's favoritism so much as pragmatism. Why introduce more unknowns than you need to?

But why do interviews at all then? If you are already biased towards a candidate because they have inside experience with a group, don't waste everyone's time pretending like all candidates have a fair shake based on qualifications alone. Just be honest you're going through the rigamarole to cover your legal bases to feign that you tried to interview candidates. You had someone in mind all along though who had something no one from the outside could ever make up for though. It's inside nepotism/favirtism. Should have never wasted everyone's time on a worthless job application and interview process when everyone doesn't have an equal chance from the get go.

If you had blown them away you would have gotten the job. All factors considered you just weren't the winning candidate this time.

^^This.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly B is a known candidate in that group. Why not hire B over A if A doesn't have a clear advantage, and might also not be a great personality fit.

Except there is a clear advantage - more years experience doing the same exact job as B. Both are already liked. You're clearly sending the message that years of experience and accomplishments don't matter. Only X factors like working with people in the group matter. How can anyone possibly have a fair chance at the job then if that's the primary factor? It's just favoritism while ignoring hard tangibles within the realm of control of both candidates like number of papers published, years experience, etc.

The way you wrote the OP is wasn't a "clear" advantage. What does "more" years entail? 2/5/10? For the exact same job I'd have to say 10 years might make a difference. Also, more years could hurt. Times are changing quickly. Is A less in tune with these newer times? Also, publishing 2x is not a clear advantage. And put that in relations to the "more" years. A has had more time to be in a position to publish.

You see it as "clear", I'm sure plenty of people see is as somewhat comparable enough to go with whoever they like best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there were two good candidates I would favor the one I had personal experience working with vs the one I only knew by reputation. I don't think that's favoritism so much as pragmatism. Why introduce more unknowns than you need to?

But why do interviews at all then? If you are already biased towards a candidate because they have inside experience with a group, don't waste everyone's time pretending like all candidates have a fair shake based on qualifications alone. Just be honest you're going through the rigamarole to cover your legal bases to feign that you tried to interview candidates. You had someone in mind all along though who had something no one from the outside could ever make up for though. It's inside nepotism/favirtism. Should have never wasted everyone's time on a worthless job application and interview process when everyone doesn't have an equal chance from the get go.

If you had blown them away you would have gotten the job. All factors considered you just weren't the winning candidate this time.

Anonymous wrote:If there were two good candidates I would favor the one I had personal experience working with vs the one I only knew by reputation. I don't think that's favoritism so much as pragmatism. Why introduce more unknowns than you need to?

But why do interviews at all then? If you are already biased towards a candidate because they have inside experience with a group, don't waste everyone's time pretending like all candidates have a fair shake based on qualifications alone. Just be honest you're going through the rigamarole to cover your legal bases to feign that you tried to interview candidates. You had someone in mind all along though who had something no one from the outside could ever make up for though. It's inside nepotism/favirtism. Should have never wasted everyone's time on a worthless job application and interview process when everyone doesn't have an equal chance from the get go.

If there were two good candidates I would favor the one I had personal experience working with vs the one I only knew by reputation. I don't think that's favoritism so much as pragmatism. Why introduce more unknowns than you need to?

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the interviews actually matter. I’ve seen situations where there was a logical candidate on paper but they couldn’t make as good a case for how/why to make the jump to manager.

Interviews definitely make a difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men get jobs based on potential and women and minorities get jobs based on experience.

Not true at all. DEI is promting a lot of bad or very unqualified people in the latter camp.

No it’s not.

Maybe it’s better that A remain on the line and B do the management crap.

Favoritism or better social skills