Dear MT Community,

I am seeking opinions on the ethicality of using the favorite candidate interview prep guidance for a shared IT position.

First, let me explain what I mean by shared position: my institution is using shared staffing to reduce costs. In this particular case, my unit will receive 50% of this individual's time and another unit will share 50% of the individual's time. The other manager and I will share administrative supervision of this position. The work in the two units is roughly equivalent - research IT support. However, in my unit, this person will be the sole source of support and in the other unit the person will be one member of a team.

After the first round of interviews, we (both managers) have narrowed the search down to two candidates. Based on the interviews to date and the documented performance evaluations, I prefer candidate A while the other manager prefers candidate B.

Is it still ethical to apply the favorite candidate interview prep guidance in this situation? I am inclined to think it is not: there are multiple managers involved in the process; this is not simply a matter of me grooming my top choice for a meeting with my manager; and the repercussions of a poor hiring decision would have an impact across multiple units, not just my own.

Thoughts? Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.



wendii's picture


there's nothing unethical about using the Favorite Candidate Interview
prep in this case. If you believe this this candidate is the best
candidate for your team, and as far as you understand it, would be
suitable for your colleague's team also, then your support is the
outcome of that belief.

It's unlikely that someone who would be great for your team and who is
doing a similar role for both teams would be a bad hire for the other
team. In addition, it sounds like your manager is going to make the
final decision. As long as you're willing to 'murder the unchosen
alternative', supporting the decision you want until that decision is
made is not unethical.