Hiring decisions

[Cerberus]

I need some opinions and figured I could get them here . I am tasked with hiring a new assistant manager in my department. This position will be supervising others. On one hand, I have a very good and dependable employee that has applied for the position. It will be a promotion for him and he will then be supervising the position he once held as well as a couple of others. On the other hand, I have an outside applicant that has applied for the same position. The outside applicant has almost twice the years of experience which includes supervisory experience. They both did very well in the interview and are about equal in their technical knowledge for the position. My current employee only has about half the years of experience as the outside applicant and no supervisory experience. When I can, I like to promote from within as a reward for working hard and performing well. In this instance though, I feel as though the outside applicant is the better choice. I know this is kind of vague and there aren’t a lot of details but give me your thoughts please. I have to make my decision final by the end of the day.

I whish I had 2 positions I could hire for.

TIA!

 

[ditchdr]

Promote from within, then hire the other guy to do the ones job you promote. Both have a job, and it shows both that if you work hard and get your job done, it is rewarded.

 

[dadofthree]

Inside, it's a known. Supervising isn't that hard. I'm assuming they'll be supervising professionals

 

[Vonderbach]

Hiring from the outside will get you a new supervisor, but it will also bring about contempt from the inside man. He knows he has the skills, so he's going to be upset if he gets passed over by an outsider.

You need to consider the harmony in the workplace since that is a crucial part of doing business.

 

[Katslair]

I agree. It is always best to hire within. It makes all your employees know that hard work is rewarded.

 

[Commuta_Busa]

as bad as this sounds I would hire the guy with the experience. This would mean that you get a resource that is qualified and you don't have to fill any other positions. With the way things are I can't imagine the guy who didn't get promoted walking out the door. The other option would be to promote from within, and not replace his old position. Shift the work load among the remaining resources and save the costs from the position elimination.

I know I hate these kinds of tactics myself.

 

[bowwow]

I say hire outside. I was promoted from within. All my co-workers thought they would be on easy street with me being their boss. This made my job more difficult because I had to do what my boss told me to do. Most of them turned on me saying " I had changed". No kidding. A boss is there to make sure things get done weather you like it or not.

 

[Wallie]

If it was me i promoted the guys you have there and teach him your way. If you bring the other one he already has the experience but he would try to change what you have done w/ the other guys. Why re--event the wheel when you already have it there, if you said that the one you have there is good keep that one and keep moving forward. My 2 cents.

 

[slatroni]

promote from within

 

[PandaNin]

I try to promote from within as often as possible. Once you hit management levels (above supervisor) it's sometimes good to introduce new ideas to the mix. Especially if the position is newly-created. When replacing a resource, promote if possible.

RE: the others thinking it's easy street. Sit the new promotee down and let him know what to expect and coach him on how to handle it. Set expectations early and minimize any hard feelings

 

[BusaBret]

Sounds like the outside person's only upside is supervisory experience. The current employee has equal technical knowledge and also a working knowledge of your company. Which one is the better person for the job? Meaning which has the better attitude, will be the better manager and do so while maintaining a productive environment?

Supervisory experience is kind of like credit. The only way you are ever going to get it is for someone to take a chance. All else being equal go with the inside person.

 

[k03gsxr750]

If you have a good crew its a kick in the teeth for him to "train" what would have been his job. In the sense that anyone from outside is sort of starting from scratch. If he has been there for years showing you that he wants / deserves the added responsibility of the job there is no reason not to promote. As others have said remind him being promoted means taking on the extra tasks even though it may not mean being buddies with everyone.

I'm sure he will understand and with the way things are out there in the work force be amp'd to prove you that he was the right choice.

 

[jellyrug]

If you know the internal candidate well enough to be confident that he will succeed, hire internal. The new candidate from outside will pose some risk, as you will only know his true values six months from now, talk is talk, but can he walk the walk?

If you decide to hire the external candidate, it is only fair to explain fairly and honestly to your internal candidate why he did not succeed and what he needs to do for personal growth towards qualifying for the next opportunity.

At the end of the day, whatever you do, your own personal success will depend on the outcome.

Good luck.

 

[Dino]

Not enough info really. Hiring within brings the We have always done it this way attitude and possibly no fresh thought, but it is a known quantity and an example of guys getting promoted. Bringing someone from the outside provides fresh ideas but requires socialization to the corporate culture of your organization.

Personally I would try to promote the guy from within if he deserves it but I would not really want him promoted over people he was just working side by side.

 

[Zoinks!]

Hiring from the outside is not always a good idea. Where I used to work we had a mannager who everyone liked, he got along with everyone, and on top of that, he was dang good at the mannagment portion of his job, as well. As for why he got replaced is a very long story, but they hired a man from the outside who had loads of experience with service departments, (I worked at a chevy/cadillac dealer as a service tech), had owned his own shop several years earlier, along with some other management experience since then. Well, he was hired, he came in wanting to change all kinds of things (which would have been ok, if they were good changes, but they weren't), he was horrible with customer service, took every opportunity to screw customers and his employees out of money. . . The list goes on and on. And on top of all that, despite the fact that he had owned a shop in the past, he knew VERY little about the mechanics of a vehicle. Lord help him if you had to explain something technical. Anyway, long story to say that just because an outsider looks like the better candidate, it doesn't always ring true. If you know you've got a good one on the inside who knows the company, has ambition to move up, and has a good personality for the mannaging possition (or supervising, or whatever you said it was), I'd definitely go with the guy on the inside. As another member stated, how's he going to get the experience if he's never given the chance?

 

[Mojo]

Promote from within.

 

[pbghost]

If you're confident on the capabilities of the internal one, promote him. another risk of new blood running things is you don't know seeded habits that won't come out in an interview. once the newness wears off, it could bring down morale. the idea of promoting him and bringing in the newhire to replace him sounds the best. that way you have a capable backup to cover if need be.

 

[memorex]

as bad as this sounds I would hire the guy with the experience. This would mean that you get a resource that is qualified and you don't have to fill any other positions. With the way things are I can't imagine the guy who didn't get promoted walking out the door. The other option would be to promote from within, and not replace his old position. Shift the work load among the remaining resources and save the costs from the position elimination.

I know I hate these kinds of tactics myself.

He might not leave right away. BUt I bet he will start applying other places and you will have to hire somebody eventually. Not to mention work place harmony. Expecially if the new hire doesn't really know as much as he says.

 

[mrsBusawhipped]

Sounds like a dilemma. But hiring from within would be more beneficial for you, your company, and the workers environment. The only thing I would do is instead of having a talk with the new supervisor about what you expect of him, have a talk with the whole crew and announce that so and so is their new supervisor and you expect them to respect his new position. Maybe lay out his duties in front of everyone. So that way they all KNOW and hopefully no feelings will get hurt when he may have to exercise some of his supervisory duties.

Believe me it is hard trying to supervise a group of people that were once your peers. Jealousy and friends trying to get away with stuff were just a few of the things I had to deal with. And Lord don't get me started on having to do quarterly reviews on your former peers. ???

Good luck!!

 

[skydivr]

From within unless you think the guy can't handle the job, or you can't help him grow into it. Loyalty is a 2-way street.