Position Requires Driver, She's Not One... Yet
The top candidate for our posted position, which requires access to a car and ability to drive (we reimburse for mileage) to various work-related appointments. does not have a license or a car. She said in the interview (I’m told) that she’s been putting off getting her license, and would be willing to get it and get a car.
The runners-up have cars and ability to use it, but don’t measure up in other criteria.
This sounds problematic to me on several levels, but as I say, she’s the superior candidate in all other criteria for the job. So let’s ask the obvious question. Can I, should I, make her an offer with continued employment, say after 3 or 6 months, contingent on getting a license? Do we then have to re-open the interview process to others who don't have cars?
The runners-up have cars and ability to use it, but don’t measure up in other criteria.
This sounds problematic to me on several levels, but as I say, she’s the superior candidate in all other criteria for the job. So let’s ask the obvious question. Can I, should I, make her an offer with continued employment, say after 3 or 6 months, contingent on getting a license? Do we then have to re-open the interview process to others who don't have cars?
Comments
OK, someone might tell me I'm wrong, but my answers to your questions are 1) I don't see why you couldn't make such an offer and 2) I don't see why you would have to "re-open" the interview process. As it stands, a candidate with no car IS your top candidate now. So you can show that you didn't exclude those without cars, right? Or am I missing something?
Anyway, it seems completely reasonable to me to ask what you're asking--to commit to you that she will do what it takes to completely qualify for this job. My biggest question would be whether she simply doesn't have a license yet but knows how to drive, or does not yet really know how to drive. I assume it's the former? Otherwise, I'd be a little nervous about the fact that she's still fine-tuning her driving skills while as she's driving around while working for you.
Anyway, it seems completely reasonable to me to ask what you're asking--to commit to you that she will do what it takes to completely qualify for this job. My biggest question would be whether she simply doesn't have a license yet but knows how to drive, or does not yet really know how to drive. I assume it's the former? Otherwise, I'd be a little nervous about the fact that she's still fine-tuning her driving skills while as she's driving around while working for you.
[/quote]
CT, you raise an excellent point, and I wondered the same thing. My impression was that she did not already know how to drive. I rationalized away my concern with the fact that we don't check anyone's driving record prior to hire in this type of position, so someone could be a new driver or a seasoned driver, with a good record or a poor record, and we don't know about it, ask about it, factor it into our decision to hire. So the question that comes out of this and that I need to think about is... should we? I think the answer is no, but it's back to your question of whether knowing someone has never been behind the wheel of a car, we are comfortable putting her in a position where she will be driving even short distances on her own once a week.
I would add that if your top candidate does not possess 2 of the main required job elements/skills, then maybe you should revise the job description. Perhaps willingness to drive and access to a car within X time frame?
The reason I suggest this is that candidates who do posess the main required job elements (i.e. drivers license and car) may question why an otherwise unqualified candidate beat them out for the job. Is the "the criteria" for which the other candidates don't measure up part of the written job description? Could choosing an otherwise unqualified candidate give the appearance of discrimination based on the race, etc.?