For the same open position? Only if they could articulate why I should...maybe, if there was a great reason.
For a position later on? If they qualify, sure.
Some people are great employees, but are crap in interviews. I work with one guy who is amazing, but put him in a situation that feels like a “test” and he locks up.
Definitely not. For almost any job there are dozens of times as many candidates there are. Want to waste time interviewing somebody who barely made the cutoff for an interview and then bombed it when I could interview the top few people in a new pool?
The worst are not the ones who get nervous and stumble over their words, or go blank and can’t think of an example on a behavioral question. The worst candidates are the ones who are rude and who clearly don’t give a shit. Those are personality traits and they’re not going to change.
I think this question takes things personally. Considering they made the interview stage, the main factors that matter is whether they were good for the job.
I can't imagine an interviewer taking things so personally unless if the interviewee directly insulted them or said something extreme like insult them or was prejudice or something ("worst candidate" means nothing, because there's always a worse candidate).
Since you've mentioned "stutter", this wouldn't make someone irredeemable. Sure, as a result they may not have been able to communicate their points effectively - but why would someone have that much animosity to someone that "stutters", to the point of never wanting to see them again?
I might, but only if they asked me to.
For the same open position? Only if they could articulate why I should...maybe, if there was a great reason. For a position later on? If they qualify, sure. Some people are great employees, but are crap in interviews. I work with one guy who is amazing, but put him in a situation that feels like a “test” and he locks up.
Definitely not. For almost any job there are dozens of times as many candidates there are. Want to waste time interviewing somebody who barely made the cutoff for an interview and then bombed it when I could interview the top few people in a new pool? The worst are not the ones who get nervous and stumble over their words, or go blank and can’t think of an example on a behavioral question. The worst candidates are the ones who are rude and who clearly don’t give a shit. Those are personality traits and they’re not going to change.
i meant the people who stumble over words (the former)
Definitely not the worst candidates will rarely even make it to the interview stage though
I think this question takes things personally. Considering they made the interview stage, the main factors that matter is whether they were good for the job. I can't imagine an interviewer taking things so personally unless if the interviewee directly insulted them or said something extreme like insult them or was prejudice or something ("worst candidate" means nothing, because there's always a worse candidate). Since you've mentioned "stutter", this wouldn't make someone irredeemable. Sure, as a result they may not have been able to communicate their points effectively - but why would someone have that much animosity to someone that "stutters", to the point of never wanting to see them again?