Interviewing a candidate subordinate - ethical dilemma poll.

Ok, you’re in middle-management; you’re a capable, ambitious person.

You have to interview some people for a position subordinate to your own.

There are several candidates available who will be more than adequate to the task, but one of them is outstanding - not only will he/she be capable of the job, but is certain to excel at it.

You recognise the reality that this person is quite likely to get promoted over your head, possibly then preventing your own progress in the company.

Do you employ the brilliant candidate who is a danger to your career, or do you employ one of the safe, but merely adequate alternatives?

Defensive hiring is part of the game in large corporations. It shouldn’t be…but it is.

Hire them, then sabotage them by giving poor performance reviews in the areas that would get them promoted over your head.

Just kidding.

I guess part of it would depend on how set you are on filling the position on a long term basis. If you know this person will be rapidly promoted out of the position, then it doesn’t really help you keep that position filled, does it?

If they’re all that good, it’s not like they won’t have that opportunity to excell elsewhere.

Hire the brilliant person and she’ll be indebted to you and can then help pull you up the ladder with her.

I’m with Homebrew on this one. A good hire in a company that you’re comfortable with only helps your position. There is a good possibility that you will be remembered as the one who found the talent. If you work for a company filled with backstabbers, than don’t make the good hire. Cover your own ass.