is it ethical to hire a fellow climber?

Just interviewed a girl, noticed that she took a year off after college. Apparently, she is was climbing full time and she's a real beast at it. Can't say that she's the most qualified candidate, but I can make a case for her. Also, since she's a woman, I would get positive points from management. Now the question - would it be ethical for me to give her preference because I am also a climber?

She would be ok, her math might be a weak spot. This said, I think mental toughness is just as important and if anything, 5.12 trad climber is not gonna panic. Kind of hoping that rest of the candidates today suck so I don't need to make a choice.

Well honestly no and yes. Ethical...um depending on your ethics, not really. Legal is the question you should be looking at. If you are a small company you can probably get away with it. I work in the HR department at a large medical company and we need to be able to back up our hires to the federal government especially when it comes to diversity. We need to be able to show information from our requisitions and overall hiring processes if required in an audit.

Think of it this way...if you were hit with a discrimination lawsuit by the other candidates, what would your defense be? I find that usually helps clarify.

not sure about the ethical aspect, but the general picture you paint suggests that it would be a bad idea. you basically say she isn't qualified, and has a weak spot. is math important for the job? if so, the answer is pretty obvious...

if you needed a brain surgeon would you really hire one based on a purely emotional notion? particularly if they weren't really qualified and were technically deficient?

Marek Sapkovski wrote: This said, I think mental toughness is just as important and if anything, 5.12 trad climber is not gonna panic.

Sheer panic is the only thing that has gotten me through a 5.12 trad climb.

Highly dependent on your companies culture. I am a financial accountant and actually landed my job from a forum post here on MP. One of the best things to ever happen to me. The controller of the company is also a climber/mountaineer btw, and it has all worked out pretty well.

Phil Lauffen wrote: Sheer panic is the only thing that has gotten me through a 5.12 trad climb.

Welcome to Eldo folks lol!

slim wrote:not sure about the ethical aspect, but the general picture you paint suggests that it would be a bad idea. you basically say she isn't qualified, and has a weak spot. is math important for the job? if so, the answer is pretty obvious... if you needed a brain surgeon would you really hire one based on a purely emotional notion? particularly if they weren't really qualified and were technically deficient?

Add to all this: if she is a climber there is a better than average chance that you two will become friends. And then, if her lack of qualifications requires that you fire her, you're REALLY going to have an ethical problem.

of course. Being good and serious about climbing should be something to put on a resume. How is this any different than say time in the peace corps or the military?

Fit with the company culture is more important than technical skill for most businesses. Sure the brain surgeon example is an exception as would be highly technical machinery use etc... But for most jobs you can teach tech skills much more successfully than teaching culture fit. People are hired all the time based on personality, similar interests, etc... No problem there.

The real question should be: Is it ethical for you to give her a full-time job that will limit her climbing time?

slim wrote:not sure about the ethical aspect, but the general picture you paint suggests that it would be a bad idea. you basically say she isn't qualified, and has a weak spot. is math important for the job? if so, the answer is pretty obvious... if you needed a brain surgeon would you really hire one based on a purely emotional notion? particularly if they weren't really qualified and were technically deficient?

Legally, she got the right creds. So that would not be an issue. The choice will be between her and another kid, everyone else so far sucked. There is some pressure to hire women in my industry, so I doubt here would be questions - my direct reports, however, might question my choice.

Consider what you know about the climbing community. I have noticed that typically, higher level thinkers tend to be climbers. I'm continually surprised by how many climbers are in the scientific and engineering community. Dumb climbers tend to become dead climbers. You get an applicant that is clearly a better fit, then you'd be best served choosing that, the ethical choice... but if it's close, go for the climber.

Also... would you climb with her?... would you climb with the kid? IMO, who you trust you life with would carry weight.

MarktheCPA wrote:Fit with the company culture is more important than technical skill for most businesses. Sure the brain surgeon example is an exception as would be highly technical machinery use etc... But for most jobs you can teach tech skills much more successfully than teaching culture fit. People are hired all the time based on personality, similar interests, etc... No problem there. The real question should be: Is it ethical for you to give her a full-time job that will limit her climbing time?

it sounds like she might fit with his culture, but is he sure she will fit with the company culture? i don't really agree that fitting in with company culture is more important than technical skill, unless maybe you are selling khakis at A&F.

keep in mind that if she turns out to be a total dud, people will ask you why you brought her on board.

Just because someone has a good lead head and determination out on the rocks, doesn't necessarily mean that confidence and work ethic will translate to the office.

I have a strickt no asshole policy for my desk, so personality is important. In the "eat what you kill" culture, it's too easy to fall into everyone for himself pattern, while I want us to "hunt like wolves - hunt together, eat together". Let's see what my coworkers say about her and the other candidate. Crossing my fingers.

After you have reviewed all the prospects, ask yourself this question:

Which person is best qualified for the job?

THAT is the person you should hire.

Since you "can't say she is the most qualified of candidates," I find it strange that you are getting hung up on this.... What would your boss say if you told them you were putting a person having a similar hobby as you as part of the decision process?

Besides - once hired, that person who climbs like a beast is probably going to smirk patronizingly at your "no shit, there I was!!!" stories at the water cooler....

Marek Sapkovski wrote:Just interviewed a girl, noticed that she took a year off after college. Apparently, she is was climbing full time and she's a real beast at it. Can't say that she's the most qualified candidate, but I can make a case for her. Also, since she's a woman, I would get positive points from management. Now the question - would it be ethical for me to give her preference because I am also a climber?

I think as usual people don't read very carefully. "Can't say that she's the most qualified candidate, but I can make a case for her" tells me that there are both objective and subjective qualifications at work here. That is typical of most jobs more involved than, as someone else put it, "Selling khakis at A&F." You put significant weight on her being a climber in the category of subjective criteria. And you might even be right to do so.

The actual question you ask is whether it is "ethical" to give preference to a climber merely because you are a climber. The answer to that is "no, of course not." If you did that you'd be hiring because she is like you. But that's probably not what you're realy considering doing. YOu are probably considering weighing the subjective criteria in her favor because she does something that is difficult, that demonstrates a certain grace under pressure, that is evidence of overcoming what can be mind-killing fear. You're not thinking of giving preference because YOU are a climber, you are thinking of giving preference because SHE is a climber, and you happen to know that being a good climber usually requires certain personality/character traits that you think would be valuable to your employer. And that is most certainly NOT unethical.

Then again, this isn't really an ethical decision. If you genuinely think her climbing makes her the better candidate then of course the ethical thing to do is hire her. The decision you're trying to make is whether climbing makes her a better candidate. Good luck with that, I don't have the slightest idea.

I say hire the climber. I have selected candidates before where they were not the most technically qualified based on "softer skills." This is not actionable legally. You don't have to default to the most stacked resume. Selecting a candidate because they would work well with the current team personalities or because you have indications they would be a longer term resource worthy of development are viable rationales.

When I was still in law school, and they were prepping us for interviews, a hiring partner once said to me, “You’re all smart. You will all work hard. We pick the one we wouldn’t mind being trapped in a conference room for six hours with.” Go with your gut!

I can send you a link for an ethics course with awful flash animations, multiple choice questions, and slow loading sound files if you like. Fascinating shit.

why not? Lax bros do it all the time.