I'm bothered that our company routinely avoids hiring good candidates who happen to be overweight. What do you think of the policy?

Full Length Question:
"I've been tapped by my bosses at work to do the initial search for some talent we need in house. I found them a great candidate, completed an initial interview with the candidate and my boss attending. After the interview, I was told the candidate just wouldn't work because s/he was overweight. I was told to not even set up an interview with more managers or our president because they would just take one look at the candidate and say "no."

Our company has culture of being overtly image-conscious, but the party line was that it was because we wouldn't be able to afford health insurance for the candidate. I'm pretty bothered that we're treating people this way, so much so that I'd like to pass up the project. What do you think?"

I sense that you're frustrated because your boss rejected this candidate exclusively because s/he is overweight. If that's the only factor that prevented this candidate from being hired when s/he was otherwise the most qualified, I can understand your concern. From what I can gather, you're watching a subtle form of discrimination. And your company is missing out on the benefits of diversity -- as they choose style over substance.

It's a very sad situation that the American public is so obsessed with appearance. It sounds like you are able to set that issue aside and see this applicant's talents, even if your boss cannot. Yet now you're faced with the issue of whether or not to go to bat over a charged and frankly...weighty...issue.

You might create a matrix for evaluating candidates, and determine the factors for evaluation and their weights (no pun intended this time). Then, you can more objectively (subjective concerns always enter) assess this person against the other job applicants. Then, when his or her appearance comes up, you can have a more substantive discussion about the merits of rejecting a candidate. Of course, if you're hiring a fashion model, or someone who needs to be on camera, then weight matters. But if you're hiring a computer programmer? That's another situation.

Additionally, your company is jumping the gun on deciding, without a health exam, that this person is a medical insurance risk. In fact, people who look incredibly fit can be hiding a slew of health problems. Can you see alcoholism if you can't smell it? Are you able to uncover internal issues, like heart disease, in a hiring interview? "No" on both counts. So, I agree that the insurance issue is likely a way to get you to back off the issue, rather than a serious concern.

But do you really want to pass up the project? It sounds like you could benefit from communicating more confidently about the hiring criteria. You should treat the criteria in a fact-based way, rather than feeling sorry for this candidate and deciding to collect your toys and run away from the project. The decision to not see this candidate again is not a personal affront against you. While it can be seen as discriminatory, it reflects more on your boss and your company than on the apparently overweight candidate.

Again, I recommend using an evaluation matrix to at least attempt to make the conversation about hiring criteria more explicit. Another suggestion: Propose a "day on the job," or an assignment that you ask each candidate to do. For example, when I was in management consulting, it was common practice to give a candidate a strategic problem, a ton of data to mine, and a computer. That candidate would have two hours to analyze the data and create a persuasive PowerPoint presentation filled with recommendations. Then, the candidate would deliver to a panel of consultants, who would grill the candidate. That helped us to find out who could really do the job. You might propose a similar "bake-off." But at this stage, I don't know that it would get your boss to "back off" on the decision not to revisit this candidate.