Shortlisting job candidates: Principles, Criteria, and Evaluation

Key scoring criteria and weights

Your task is to shortlist job candidates and explain the reasoning behind your decision in reference to their CV’s and academic literature on recruitment and selection.

You will receive a job description and seven CVs from potential job applicants. Your task is to shortlist two of the job applicants for an interview against the job description and the pool of CVs.

You written work should consist of the following sections:  

1.Key scoring criteria and weights: You should specify which principles and criteria you used to evaluate the CV and how you weighted the different criteria and why. You should also name the two candidates who you gave the highest scores and who should therefore proceed to the next stage of the recruitment process. Refer to relevant academic and other sources where relevant to justify your approach.

2.Evaluation of the shortlisting process: In this section, discuss how satisfied you are with the result of the shortlisting process. Do you think you selected the best candidates? If so, why was the process successful? In contrast, do you think some of the best candidates were left out of the short-list? If so, why did this happen? Overall, you should identify and discuss 2-3 lessons learnt from the shortlisting exercise in reference to academic literature.

3.Lessons learnt: Identify the main two lessons you learnt from writing and assessing CVs, explaining how these lessons might apply when you next write a CV for a job that interests you.

We will discuss the analysis of the CVs during the lecture in Week 3 (27th January) as well as in the seminar in Week 5 (12th February).

#2 lessons learnt for HR

#3 lessons learnt for you

Grade Explanation

Evidence of wide reading around the subject including academic research based on quality sources; systematic, fully evidenced and original evaluation of the CVs; excellent and logical flow of well supported arguments.

The analysis is carried out in relation to authoritative academic and other sources; evaluation of CVs is systematic, thorough and well evidenced; arguments are well expressed, logical and easy to understand.

The analysis is explained well in reference to some quality sources; two candidates are shortlisted and the process for this is clearly explained, albeit not in as much detail as in 70-79; arguments are generally logical and flow well, but there may be some minor weaknesses in the quality of expression.

The analysis is explained in relation to only 2-4 references which may not be from high quality sources; two candidates are shortlisted and a process for this has been outlined, but there may be some weaknesses in how thorough and well-evidenced the analysis is; arguments are understandable, but there may be errors in the logic or in grammar.

The analysis is explained with very few references to academic or other sources; evaluation of CVs lacks structure and evidence; arguments are difficult to understand and lack logic, there are grammatical errors throughout the work, jargon is used.

The analysis is poorly explained with rare or no reference to academic and other literature; description of candidates rather than their evaluation is carried out; arguments are unclear and the quality of English hampers the logic of arguments.

Remember to reference all your sources. Referencing is important because it helps you to avoid plagiarism and demonstrate the quantity and quality of your reading.