Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would pass - they are going to hound you for raises and promotions as soon as they are hired or generally be needy. I had a woman like this and it was never enough. We have an annual schedule for raises and a process to apply for open roles and she would just hound me constantly even though I don’t control HR or the company process / annual cycle.
This candidate is not demonstrating the ability to act professionally or communicate effectively. If this is her best behavior, is this who you want supporting leadership as an admin?

What a idiotic take ‘I have one singular occurrence of this in my professional livelihood, therefore everyone will act like this’

I’ve been a senior manager for over a decade and have hired over 100 people from entry level to manager. I have a good sense of who will work out and who will be more hassle then they are worth. Despite the “great resignation” I am getting more resumes than Pre-pandemic for my open roles and I have plenty of good candidates to choose from. No one owes OP’s candidate a job or mentoring. If you have more than one candidate and one has red flags, why would you take the one with red flags?
I am explicit with applicants what my timeline is and how they will be contacted. I provide people feedback when I don’t hire them in case they want to apply again in the future. I think that’s more than 95% of hiring managers provide.

In this case, though, the OP was not explicit about their timeline. I don’t view this as a red flag for the applicant — because the OP was not clear about the timeline and the process.

Whether OP was explicit or not, emailing on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and expecting a response immediately is not professional and clearly shows a lack of boundaries.

Just because someone says they are desperate does not obligate OP into hiring them. And for those saying to hire on a probationary period - firing someone after the period is up is still a messy and unpleasant experience. And now you have an additional 6 months of baggage. What if the person asks OP every single day for 6 months, "Are you going to fire me in October? You're not, are you?"

Also, OP, be careful what you say in return and punt to HR if you can. You don't want this person accusing you of any sort of discrimination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve only ever hired nannies and housekeepers, and this would be a huge red flag for me.
People keep saying to give this person a shot, but what are you supposed to do if it doesn’t work out? Fire them? Keep giving them another shot?

The same thing that you would do if ANY new hire doesn’t work . That’s what probationary periods and specific job descriptions are for, as well as specific improvement plans if such things are needed.

I guess I would find it a lot more difficult to fire someone if I knew that they didn’t have any sort of cushion while they found another job. I would be likely to let mediocre or even bad work to continue far longer than I would with someone who had a little bit of room if things weren’t working out for either one of us.

Yeah, they’ve absolutely disqualified themselves. Nobody wants to work with someone like that.

Some of the poeple on this thread have never had to worry about how they're going to feed their kids that night, or keep the heat on.

Please be candid about the timeline. Do not eliminate a candidate you were willing to hire because they're too enthusiastic. Geez!

Anonymous wrote:It's better to hire someone who needs the money than someone who doesn't. This person will work hard to keep the job. I'd give them a shot.

+1

OP changed "she" to "they". 🤔 ⚧️

I feel sorry for this candidate. I hope they find a job and get on solid footing again, and then pay it forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was a man applying for a non admin role he would be described as a go-getter, passionate and hungry. All very positive adjectives. But this is a woman applying for an admin role and she’s called desperate.

Disagree. This level of desperation in a man is really unattractive.

+1 yeah, I don't think this would qualify as go-getting no matter who was doing it. I really feel for someone who's in this position. It's hard to be chill when you're not sure you can pay your rent.

+2

Anonymous wrote:I’ve only ever hired nannies and housekeepers, and this would be a huge red flag for me.
People keep saying to give this person a shot, but what are you supposed to do if it doesn’t work out? Fire them? Keep giving them another shot?

The same thing that you would do if ANY new hire doesn’t work . That’s what probationary periods and specific job descriptions are for, as well as specific improvement plans if such things are needed.

Anonymous wrote:If you need an admin, and they are qualified, I'd give them a shot. She may be a very devoted employee.

Same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was a man applying for a non admin role he would be described as a go-getter, passionate and hungry. All very positive adjectives. But this is a woman applying for an admin role and she’s called desperate.

Disagree. This level of desperation in a man is really unattractive.

+1 yeah, I don't think this would qualify as go-getting no matter who was doing it. I really feel for someone who's in this position. It's hard to be chill when you're not sure you can pay your rent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would pass - they are going to hound you for raises and promotions as soon as they are hired or generally be needy. I had a woman like this and it was never enough. We have an annual schedule for raises and a process to apply for open roles and she would just hound me constantly even though I don’t control HR or the company process / annual cycle.
This candidate is not demonstrating the ability to act professionally or communicate effectively. If this is her best behavior, is this who you want supporting leadership as an admin?

What a idiotic take ‘I have one singular occurrence of this in my professional livelihood, therefore everyone will act like this’

I’ve been a senior manager for over a decade and have hired over 100 people from entry level to manager. I have a good sense of who will work out and who will be more hassle then they are worth. Despite the “great resignation” I am getting more resumes than Pre-pandemic for my open roles and I have plenty of good candidates to choose from. No one owes OP’s candidate a job or mentoring. If you have more than one candidate and one has red flags, why would you take the one with red flags?
I am explicit with applicants what my timeline is and how they will be contacted. I provide people feedback when I don’t hire them in case they want to apply again in the future. I think that’s more than 95% of hiring managers provide.

You ask someone to burn their vacation/leave, to hire a babysitter, and to commute in these gas prices for an in-person in addition to a phone screen. The candidate isn't OWED mentoring per se, but it certainly isn't a bad thing to do. Especially if you win a re-compete and have to rev up with additional staff in the future. It takes <30 seconds to write "Our dept's core hours are M-F 10-3". A decade of experience, but still not a director? I can see why. An aged manager isn't necessarily a strong one.

I’ve only ever hired nannies and housekeepers, and this would be a huge red flag for me.
People keep saying to give this person a shot, but what are you supposed to do if it doesn’t work out? Fire them? Keep giving them another shot?

Anonymous wrote:How do I professionally respond to this and would you still consider them for the job?

Lots of good answers here:
a)probationary
b)follows directions test-"we'll be reviewing candidates Friday. Please do not contact us for an update until then"
c)stop stringing candidate along with vagueness and answer questions with kindness and specifics-"We have no/this immediate position which I will forward for consideration. Onboarding takes 4 weeks and first paycheck is 2 weeks after date of hire (earliest May 16) with no sign-on bonuses or advances. Our department along with HR/(references) work core hours of M-F 10-3pm here. To expedite the process please have former employer John Smith call us back or provide another reference.//We will be making a decision after interviewing a minimum of 3(2, etc.) candidates.//We have decided to pursue other options at this time as you are not a fit. For future reference, if you need responses nights/weekends, please consider interviewing with hospitals, on-call IT, or international commerce. {Thankful for the time and resources spent including possible vacation time or sitters}".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would pass - they are going to hound you for raises and promotions as soon as they are hired or generally be needy. I had a woman like this and it was never enough. We have an annual schedule for raises and a process to apply for open roles and she would just hound me constantly even though I don’t control HR or the company process / annual cycle.
This candidate is not demonstrating the ability to act professionally or communicate effectively. If this is her best behavior, is this who you want supporting leadership as an admin?

What a idiotic take ‘I have one singular occurrence of this in my professional livelihood, therefore everyone will act like this’

I’ve been a senior manager for over a decade and have hired over 100 people from entry level to manager. I have a good sense of who will work out and who will be more hassle then they are worth. Despite the “great resignation” I am getting more resumes than Pre-pandemic for my open roles and I have plenty of good candidates to choose from. No one owes OP’s candidate a job or mentoring. If you have more than one candidate and one has red flags, why would you take the one with red flags?
I am explicit with applicants what my timeline is and how they will be contacted. I provide people feedback when I don’t hire them in case they want to apply again in the future. I think that’s more than 95% of hiring managers provide.

In this case, though, the OP was not explicit about their timeline. I don’t view this as a red flag for the applicant — because the OP was not clear about the timeline and the process.