1. Suppose you have recently completed hiring a new worker. You posted an ad in a specialist publication, sorted through nine resumes, interviewed four people, and gave each one the same test of industry-specific knowledge. At the end of the process you chose a person and made an offer.
The person you chose scored 96 out of 100 on the test, he’s been in the industry for more than 10 years, and you negotiated a pay rate that is slightly higher than average for your shop. He has started work, and seems to be doing O.K. The whole process, from placing the ad to making the hire, took about four weeks. So far so good.
Then you get another resume via e-mail. This guy had seen the ad but had been happily working in a local shop — until his boss called in all of the workers and told them the shop was out of work and out of money and they were all laid off.
The guy has a decent resume, so you call him in for an interview. He scores a 100 out of 100 on the test, completing it in half the time of the guy you hired. He went to a highly respected local woodworking college, the same place one of your best current employees went, and he graduated top of his class. He has a good range of skills, including some that the guy you hired does not have. His past employers speak well of him, and he’s asking for 20 percent less money than the guy you just hired.
If he’d sent you his resume three weeks earlier, he would have been the clear choice. You have only one slot available. Would you fire the first guy and bring in the second?
Commenters: Please tell us whether you are an employer or employee.