[Niamh.]

Jim has the responsibility of filling a position in his firm. His friend Paul has applied and is qualified, but someone else seems even more qualified. Jim wants to give the job to Paul, but he feels guilty, believing that he ought to be impartial. That's the essence of morality, he initially tells himself. This belief is, however, rejected, as Jim resolves that friendship has a moral importance that permits, and perhaps even requires, partiality in some circumstances. So he gives the job to Paul. Was he right?

http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm

[Ammi]

..yeah, Paul's really going to do Jim proud...qualifications aren't everything, Joe knows what a great job that Paul will do/he knows his character and how well he'll fit in......

[Jamie89]

No, he should have given the job to the more deserving candidate.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

No, he should have given the job to the more deserving candidate.

I would have given it to my friend as well

[Ross.]

Yeah I'd give it to my friend :sorry:

[Livia]

He has more knowledge of his friend than he does of the stranger. He's right to give the job to his friend. Besides, if his friend ****s up monumentally it'll reflect badly on Jim, so he's going to be confident of Paul's abilities, I reckon.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

No, he should have given the job to the more deserving candidate.

The better qualified candidate SHOULD have got the job, but I have to be honest and say "Screw that" and I would have given my friend the job.

[Cal.]

I would give the job to my friend.

[Cal.]

The more deserving candidate will easily find a job elsewhere?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Who Is She?

The more deserving candidate will easily find a job elsewhere?

[Marsh.]

Also, being "qualified" doesn't necessarily make a good candidate either.

There's plenty of places where top graduates have all the certificates and on paper are great but when it comes down to it can't actually do the simplest of jobs.

[user104658]

I agree, he knows his friend better and therefore the safe bet, and therefore acceptably moral thing to do, is to give the job to his friend -- if -- what he knows about his friend, is that he'll be good for the company (is reliable, etc.). If he knows that his friend is actually a bit of a flaky arsehole and will probably make a terrible addition to the company, then giving the job to his friend is not only immoral but plain stupid .

Also, the fact that they are already friends can be a benefit in itself in working together; as they are more likely to know how each other thinks and therefore work well together, whereas with a stranger there is always the risk that it won't be a "good fit" personality wise, despite qualifications.

...I guess basically what I'm saying is there are more considerations than base-line qualifications in something like this, and it should all be taken into account, so long as the final decision doesn't end up being based purely on sentiment.

[Kizzy]

I would say the character reference side would be a bonus when working closely with someone. The more qualified guy may be a total tool.

[Natalie.]

I would give it to my friend

[joeysteele]

At Uni, we were put into groups of 3 for a project, we were expected to choose a team to work on a sensitive legal issue and needed the very best people on our team.

I got the choosing role,2 of my friends were well able to be in my team but others were more able and one of them was someone I didn't particularly care for.
I wanted to win however and shine on this,so felt my friends could be a distraction and expect possibly to get away with things more.

So I chose the other 2.

I guess from that, I would always go for who was actually best able to deliver what was needed for the particular job/task in hand,so no,I would not have given my friend the job in the scenario of this thread.

[armand.kay]

Just because he's more qualified doesn't mean he's best for the job, he may find that working with someone you respect and get along with would be better in the long run.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

At Uni, we were put into groups of 3 for a project, we were expected to choose a team to work on a sensitive legal issue and needed the very best people on our team.

I got the choosing role,2 of my friends were well able to be in my team but others were more able and one of them was someone I didn't particularly care for.
I wanted to win however and shine on this,so felt my friends could be a distraction and expect possibly to get away with things more.

So I chose the other 2.

I guess from that, I would always go for who was actually best able to deliver what was needed for the particular job/task in hand,so no,I would not have given my friend the job in the scenario of this thread.

Roofless!

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

Just because he's more qualified doesn't mean he's best for the job, he may find that working with someone you respect and get along with would be better in the long run.

..yeah that's the thing as well for me...it's that giving someone a self belief/confidence etc that can then make them the 'qualified' person because Paul wouldn't want to let Jim down.../he put his faith in him and believed in him...

[Jamie89]

I don't think I'd want to employ a close friend anyway, if there were any problems down the line (them being rubbish, needing to make redundancies... other general problems that can arise in a workplace situation) it could ruin the friendship. What if you needed to discipline them? What if a promotion became available and there were other more deserving employees... would you chose your friend because they're you're friend, and upset the rest of your workforce, or choose someone else and upset your friend? I just think it's best to keep personal and professional lives separate.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I don't think I'd want to employ a close friend anyway, if there were any problems down the line (them being rubbish, needing to make redundancies... other general problems that can arise in a workplace situation) it could ruin the friendship. What if you needed to discipline them? What if a promotion became available and there were other more deserving employees... would you chose your friend because they're you're friend, and upset the rest of your workforce, or choose someone else and upset your friend? I just think it's best to keep personal and professional lives separate.

Exactly Jamie, all of that was in my head at the time of that task I mentioned.

I would do all I could to help any friend get a job elsewhere but if I did have someone who was better qualified, then that is the road I would go down.

Of course if my Friend was the better qualified then equally, I would give them the job.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Roofless!

I can at times be TS.

I could just see that being said by them too,my friend/s and Bear.

[Josy]

I would NOT give it to my friend.

Already got a couple of friends jobs, one worked a month up until the first payday went on a 3 day drink binge and was never to be seen in work again, the other one got fired for fighting with a coworker