Written by
Hi Robin, I like Jim's idea . But here's a twist: suppose the company is sympathetic toward the disabled and is more likely to hire candidate A because he has schizophrenia. I know this may sound contrived or far-fetched but in the community where I live it actually does happen. It's almost like years ago when it was deemed to be appropriate to have a man of colour working for you.
Best wishes,
Don Fraser
Hi Don:
You've introduced a whole new set of questions and considerations, which is good. These complicate the hiring problem I posed by bringing into the hypothetical situation one more dose of reality.
It is extraordinary that your community has a tendancy or penchant for hiring individuals with a mental illness. [I assume consumers are readily available.] But I've got a question for you. Do the consumers hired get paid the same rate as their "sane" fellow workers?" This question may sound cynical, but I have a reason for asking.
Ooops. I'm out of space. I'll present your situation in my next blog and include an answer to my "cynical" question.
I'll talk with you about this on my next Sunday blog.
Robin
Hello Robin,
You asked for more responses so here goes..
Find this question poses quite a philosophical puzzle, although as you say it must be a common enough practical scenario. Maybe things are not as simple as they seem.
Can I throw these Qs into the melting pot? ( Non expert :From someone who has only worked in a sevice industry..Ah, thoughts for another post here...)
As a employer in a competitive business, with both personal advancement and the firm's success presumably behind decision making I (the hirer) would be wondering WHY candidate A CHOSE to disclose, and at the last competitive hurdle too? (What does this say about his personality (not his sz)??
A feeling that in a hard nosed business field he might tend to 'give' to persuasive competitors perhaps. If he mentioned adjustments he might require in the work structure that might better explain why he volunteered this info 'for free'. Like choosing to show one's hand when playing cards. A submissive gesture?
Finally there is no evidence that candidate B does not also have sz or similar, but has chosen not to disclose!!! (Different personality traits, probably the competitive Type A go getter,chosing this setting and time as being inappropriate to disclose .)
The creativity issue is interesting, but could presumably be checked out in other interview techniques to distinguish between the candidates.
Just my own thoughts expressed.
Chris,
UK
Chris:
I've been on the go since the 18th and just now picked up your excellent comments.
You reply intoduces even more reality into my "hypothetical' hiring scenario.
I'm just finishing my blog for tomorrow the 23rd. After that's finished, I'll give your comments the complete response they deserve in the form of a reply to your reply.
If it is alright with you, I'd like to introduce some of the issues you have raised into my blog for next week, Sunday, 30 November.
This discussion gets more and more inteesting as we go.
Robin
Featuring Content From:
By using this service, you accept our Terms of Use. Please read them. The consumer health information on is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. You should promptly seek professional medical care if you have any concern about your health, and you should always consult your physician before starting a fitness regimen. Copyright © 2012 Remedy Health Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
I would discuss the 2 candidates with my boss. All things being somewhat equal; he may be quite knowledgable about mental illness or have a strong negative bias. Some of the world's most creative & successful people have lived with mental illness. Both can do the job but one could contribute more to your own success. Regards; Jim Blaha
Jim:
Your suggestion is a terrific one. As you indicate, discussing the two Applicants with your boss is an excellent way of determining what his feelings are and increases the probability that each candidate will have a complete hearing. [If I were your boss, I would consider interviewing the two Applicants myself.] It also opts your boss into the whatever decision is made. If your boss rejects Applicant A, then at least you have done all you can. If he selects Applicant A, you have an implicit representation that he will be prepared to grant accomodations if required.
You sound like a good CEO to me.
Thank you for your reply.
[What about you other readers out there. Do you agree or disagree? Do you have anything to add? Do you have a different idea?]
Robin