Employment question

[Mary Arrotti]

If anon is concerned with possible personality conflicts - then that should have been discussed during the lunch interview or during a subsequent conversation. 
  There's nothing wrong with discussing something that a candidate brings up. Something along the lines of "You have expressed strong political opinions. How would you handle working with people with very different political beliefs and viewpoints?"
   
  It's all fine & good saying that politics have no place in the workplace. But during lunch, people express personal & even political opinions - and they're going to seek out people with similar perspectives. In anon's group, the doc team shares a common political viewpoint & socializes during lunch. 
   
  Is it necessary for the candidate to be of similar mindset? Is it necessary for the candidate to socialize with the doc team? Is it a problem if the candidate ends up eating lunch with another group (say the conservative QAers or the liberal legal dept)? I'd answer No to those questions - not so sure about anon though.
  
Chris Vickery <cvickery at arenasolutions.com> wrote:
  I think the key to the problem is not that
the candidate had conflicting views, but that he expressed them so
vociferously. I think that the cultural fit of a candidate is a big
consideration, and it seems that this candidate does not fit, not
because he holds contrary viewpoints to the group, but because of his
manner.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. If it's a yes/no question of "is it
ethical to exclude a candidate for their political views?" the answer is
definitely no. If the question is "Is it ethical to exclude a candidate
because their manner may disrupt the working environment?" then the
answer is yes.
       
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not web links.