1. Had they compiled an exhaustive list of criteria for their "must haves?" Had some important qualities been omitted? Were all of the items really necessary? If he and John did make changes, how would the four candidates measure up to the revised list?
I believe that they did not compile an exhaustive list of “must haves” and that there were some qualities that were excluded. Firstly, I believe they should have had a focus on a candidate that has experience in growing a company. They are generalizing the scope of management and related experience. A manager that only managed existing, successful companies may not know how to quickly grow a start-up business, which Bizland really needs. Secondly, there is mention of a heavy focus on interpersonal skills, but there are no specifics in the listed criteria. What exceptional leadership skills are they really looking for? Again, I believe they are trying to encompass too many things into one broad category. The criteria should include various, specific interpersonal skills that they would like to see. For example, negotiation skills may aid in securing more equity. Another example, would they like to see strong problem-solving skills or high-confidence? These skills coupled together could create a manager that would not seek the advice of others but would get objectives completed. Conversely, this type of manager might give Ravi the feeling of losing control, seeing he would not be consulted in making decisions.
I do not believe that all of the criteria were necessary. For example, the strong educational background “must-have” is a good way to screen candidates, but it comes with the risk of screening out potential candidates with extensive experience in business. On a side note, the list of “must-haves” brings in too many fields of business, from management to marketing. A consultant or specialist for each of these areas may be a suitable option for Ravi and John.
If the list were to be revised...