An Indiscreet Conversation on Hiring Case Study

The primary issue of this case is whether or not to hire a qualified female candidate considering the ‘risk’ involved. Four friends are discussing the issue over coffee, which, as a side note, I highly discourage having conversations of this nature in a public setting. I am not condoning the path the discussion took, yet am merely suggesting that you never know who is sitting at the table next to you and as a leader you should protect the privacy of your organization. Anyhow, early on in the conversation we learn that Joe is faced with a staffing decision: does he hire the more qualified female knowing there is a chance she may start a family or does he hire one of the two lesser qualified males considering they have less ‘risk’ associated with them?

Joe has just interviewed an exceptional candidate for a new division he is starting. She boasts an MBA from an Ivy League institution, something the other two candidates fail to offer (they have MBAs but not from Ivy schools). The female candidate also brings more experience, both in years and relevancy. Yet the candidate begins to ‘concern’ Joe when she mentions the reason she is returning to Toronto is because ‘New York is not a place to start a family’.

Joe does not want to be viewed as sexist, yet he is thinking and speaking in a sexist manner. His ‘excuse’ is that he cannot afford to lose time replacing her if she should in fact take a leave. This was surprising because Joe works for a large organization. According to his friends, Joe should be more able than someone who works for small company to absorb the ‘hit’. It is interesting to note that if Joe did hire her, she would attract top talent because she is top talent herself. These new recruits would most likely be proficient enough to fill in during her absence. Furthermore, it is doubtful this candidate pursued her MBA while simultaneously having the intention of removing herself from the workforce in the near future. Most likely, if she did...