A great article we thought we’d share with you courtesy of the Recruitment Grapevine:

 

Today marks one of the most extraordinary election results of our time; Donald J Trump has defeated Hillary Clinton in becoming the 45th president of the United States, ending eight years of Democratic ruling in America.

With no political background, businessman Trump will soon take a seat in the most powerful desk in the world, and the victory is as much of a shock to the world as Brexit was.

The campaign was heavily built on Trump and Clinton defaming each other’s character to gain votes – with the media focusing on their rivalries and divisiveness and less on their policy proposals.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Trump appealed to “the grievances and anger of much of the nation’s white working class” with the majority of his support coming from older, blue-collar whites whereas Clinton gained strong support from minority voters, especially Latinos, and did much better among college-educated white voters than any previous Democratic nominee.

However, this political victory has darker implications.

The New York Times reports that “after all the lies [Trump] told, all the fantasy he indulged in, all the hate he spewed and all the divisions he sharpened, he was rewarded with the highest office in the land.

“What does that portend for the politics of the next few years, for the kinds of congressional candidates we’ll see in 2018, for the presidential race of 2020?”

With America now faced with a future of uncertainty – what can recruitment deduce from this unnerving election?

Never underestimate weak credentials

With Trump’s lack of political background contrasting with Clinton’s thirty years of experience, it’s baffling to think how he even rose to such a high post.

However, according to a new study conducted by University College London professor Chia-Jung Tsay, when it comes to impressing a hiring manager, natural talent beats experience.

Perhaps this is where Clinton failed – despite her abundance of experience, she failed to charm voters the way Trump did. The Guardian reported that her big ideas took a back role and her strategy to sell herself using her experience against the deafening voice of Trump made her campaign message weak.

Trust

One of the biggest hurdles to Clinton’s success were the allegations against her sincerity. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating her flouting of data security laws until just two days before voting – despite her being cleared of any charges.

This blow to her campaign was exacerbated by Trump, who actually rejected the FBI’s conclusion and said “the investigations into her crimes will go on for a long, long time,” on Sunday at a campaign speech.

Although Trump had a plethora of allegations against him; anti-Semitism, racism against Mexicans, sexual assault, misogynistic behaviour, discrimination, the scandal that she’d been hiding ‘nefarious plots’ seemed to hang over her campaign like a nasty smell.

John O’Brien, Head of Membership at AXELOS, comments on the damage that omitting information can do: “Lies can quickly get out of hand – it can soon become apparent that the individual is having difficulty meeting the expectations set out in the new position. While the employee could face their contract being terminated, the employer has a lot to lose, both financially and in terms of its reputation.”

Whilst both had severe dents in their campaigns, which led to some voters selecting a candidate in order to prevent the other from coming to power – surely you’d think that for the most important job in the world, the country would have more responsibility in who could even run for such a prestigious role.

At least, that’s what recruiters would do anyway if they were faced with two candidates who they believed didn’t have the credentials fit for the post.

We’ll be collating the views of our audience on what they would have done if faced with two unstable candidates – so stay tuned.