Reference no: EM133321397

Assume you are serving as a member of the hiring committee for an executive-level position in your organization (it's up to you to decide on the exact position). After starting with a large group of applicants, the committee has narrowed the search down to three potential candidates:

1. Jean. Jean clearly has a passion for the work this position involves.  This candidate answered all the questions adequately but was stronger in some areas than others. There were a few occasions when Jean seemed to be caught off guard by a question, but in each case, Jean managed to regain composure and make a solid response. Jean is clearly intelligent and has a good understanding of the organization's goals and priorities. On the other hand, Jean sometimes gave responses lacking detail and context. Jean has a physical disability that will not limit the candidate's ability to do the job and expressed the desire to make the organization more focused on serving people with disabilities.
2. Taylor. Taylor is a smooth and confident speaker. Taylor was well prepared for the interview and answered every question as though it had been provided ahead of time. Taylor's answers were more detailed and precise than those of Jean, but Taylor showed less enthusiasm at times. Taylor's responses focused more on the specific duties and responsibilities of the role, and rarely touched on the "big picture" of the organization's long-term goals. Taylor is a member of a historically underrepresented racial minority. Your organization has few underrepresented racial minorities at the executive level.
3. Sam. Sam combines both the strengths and weaknesses of the other two candidates. Sam isn't quite as confident as Taylor but speaks more smoothly than Jean. Sam is less passionate about the job than Jean but is more passionate than Taylor. Sam's answers manage to be both detail-oriented and express a sense of the organization's long-term goals. Sam appears to be a traditional candidate.