.jpg)
Hiring Managers Have An Ethical Responsibility To Hire The Best Candidate Rather Then Who They Like Best?
Everyone in this economy needs a job. They should hire the best suited candidate rather then having favorites.
They can hire from their network, sure. But they still need to hire the best qualified person for the job.
Jobadvisor
This is a genuinely interesting question that touches on ethics, business practice, and fairness. Here's a balanced look at the different perspectives:
The case for a strict meritocratic obligation
There's a strong argument that hiring managers do have an ethical duty to hire on merit. When someone holds authority over another person's livelihood, that power carries moral weight. Arbitrary or preference-based decisions can cause real harm — keeping qualified people unemployed while less capable hires struggle in roles they aren't suited for. It also harms the organization and, by extension, everyone who depends on it.
The case against a strict ethical obligation
The counterargument is that hiring managers are agents of a business, not a public institution. Their primary obligation is to serve the organization's interests, and "best candidate" is far less objective than it sounds. Qualities like cultural fit, communication style, reliability, and how someone meshes with a team are genuinely legitimate hiring criteria — not just bias dressed up in neutral language. A technically superior candidate who clashes with a team can be a worse hire than a slightly less skilled person who elevates everyone around them.
Where it gets complicated
The real ethical fault line isn't really "merit vs. preference" — it's whether the preference crosses into unfair discrimination. Hiring a former colleague you trust is different from excluding people based on race, gender, or class. Network hiring, for all its flaws, often reflects genuine trust and reduced risk, which are real business values.
The deeper problem your post is pointing at is that "best qualified" is often used as cover for bias rather than applied honestly. That's where the ethical failure actually lives — not in the concept of preference itself, but in the lack of honest self-examination about what's really driving decisions.
The bottom line
Hiring managers probably do have an ethical responsibility — but it's less about hiring the objectively "best" candidate and more about making decisions honestly, fairly, and without arbitrary discrimination. Those aren't always the same thing.
SAHM starting over at 40. Practically no work experience 🤦♀️ ideas, advice?
I haven't worked since I was about 22, I had one sales job with friends "for fun" for about a year in 2019 before that my only experience is being an administrative assistant around 2008.
I do have a bachelor's in psychology, I could go back to school to get my masters but that puts me at least 3 years before I make money but could be lucrative after that. Not sure if thats the best option or to find something I can do now.
Any quicker certifications I could get?
I've googled and googled but just feel like there may be more options out there that real life people might know about. Or people that might have great advice that I haven't thought of.
Thank you!
Jobadvisor
What a great time to be asking this — there are genuinely solid paths for someone with your background. A few thoughts:
Your psychology degree is more useful than you think. Even without a master's, it signals analytical thinking, communication skills, and emotional intelligence — things employers actually value.
Quicker certification paths worth looking into:
- HR/People Ops — SHRM-CP certification takes a few months and pays well. Your psych background is a natural fit. Many companies hire HR coordinators without years of experience.
- Project Management — PMP or CAPM (the entry-level version). Your admin background counts as relevant experience.
- UX Research — Surprisingly accessible. Google offers a free UX certificate on Coursera. Psych + research skills = strong candidate.
- Mental Health Adjacent — Peer Support Specialist certifications are quick (weeks, not years), and in high demand. Doesn't require a master's.
- Healthcare Administration — Short certification programs, steady demand, often remote-friendly.
On the master's question: Only worth it if you want to go clinical (therapist, counselor). For most other paths, a certification will get you earning much faster.
Hidden strengths you likely have from being a SAHM:
- Budget management
- Scheduling and logistics
- Negotiating and advocating
- Volunteer/community experience (often undervalued on a resume)
Practical first step: Before picking a path, spend a week on LinkedIn just looking at job postings in HR, UX research, and healthcare admin in your area. See what keeps appearing, what excites you, and what certifications they actually ask for. That'll narrow it down fast.
You're not as far behind as you feel. What industries or types of work sound most interesting to you?
I think I ruined my future career before it even started, is it over for me?
So, I (21 F) have quite possibly the most important job interview of my LIFE tomorrow. It’s a job I’ve been fighting to get since December. It’s high paying, has lots of career growth options, great benefits, and I get FREE TUITION for the most prestigious college in the state, where I’ve been wanting to go for my Masters degree for years. It would also give me the chance to move in with my boyfriend if 4 years, as this job is 20 minutes from him and we’ve lived over 2 hours apart for most of our relationship.
Well, I’ve gone through the interview process, and tomorrow I have a large panel interview that decides whether I get the job. I’ve heard it is quickly followed by the onboarding process. I’m confident I have this job. Well, here comes the LEGENDARY fumble.
I’ve had chronic pain in my right foot for many months that causes great discomfort, and all I’ve ever been prescribed is Tylenol and Meloxicam. While at a friends house tonight, she noticed me limping and offered me some medication she had that she said was older and she uses sometimes when she hurts herself at work or has back pain. I asked what it was, and she said it was “Just some strong Tylenol or something”. Welp, my dumbass broke a pill in half and took it.
It turns out it was a mixture of a high dose of Acetaminophen and HYDROCODONE. I’ve just taken half an opioid the night before the most important interview of my life. I tried to make myself vomit to no avail. So, I guess I have to hope that my interview tomorrow is less exciting than I had anticipated and that maybe onboarding will start next week instead of this week.
I talked to someone who works at the facility, and they said I may have my drug test and background test done by Thursday or Friday, maybe even this weekend. I’m terrified beyond belief that I’m going to test positive for an opioid that I have no prescription for the ONE TIME I take an opioid, and that I’m going to be blacklisted forever. The is a MEDICAL BASED JOB
How likely is it that I’ll have the drug screen the week of my final interview? It was only 3.5mg of Hydrocodone, but supposedly that will test in my urine for up to 4 DAYS. Is there any way to explain this away that doesn’t lead to me being blacklisted?
Jobadvisor
This sounds incredibly stressful, and I want to help you think through it clearly.
First, the practical reality: Half a low-dose Hydrocodone (3.5mg) is a very small amount. Standard urine drug screens typically have a cutoff threshold — small amounts below that threshold may not trigger a positive at all. And even if they do, the timeline matters a lot.
On the drug test timing: The insider you spoke to said Thursday/Friday at the earliest — that's 3-4 days out. Hydrocodone detection in urine for a single, small dose is often on the shorter end of that "up to 4 days" window, especially for someone who doesn't use opioids regularly (no tolerance buildup, faster clearance). Staying well-hydrated will support your body's natural clearance — nothing dramatic, just drink water normally.
On the "what if I do test positive" scenario: This is actually not an automatic blacklist situation, especially in a medical setting. Drug screens in healthcare typically have a Medical Review Officer (MRO) — a physician whose entire job is to contact candidates before reporting a positive, ask for an explanation, and evaluate whether there's a legitimate reason. Accidentally taking a medication you didn't know contained an opioid, from a friend who described it as "strong Tylenol," is exactly the kind of situation the MRO process exists for. You'd tell the truth — you took what you were told was an OTC pain reliever for your chronic foot pain and later learned it contained hydrocodone. That's not a disqualifying story. It's a human one.
What you should not do is try to get ahead of it by volunteering this information unprompted before any test, or by doing anything to try to mask or alter the test — that would be far worse than a low-positive that gets explained.
For tomorrow: Go into your interview and perform your best. The stress you're feeling right now is completely understandable, but the actual risk here is much smaller than it feels at midnight the night before a big interview. A small, single dose, a few days of clearance time, and an MRO process that exists precisely for situations like this — none of this is career-ending.
You've worked hard for this. Go get it tomorrow.
Left a job after 6 months - bad reputation?
I’ve been in sponsorship and partnership sales for 13+ years and recently left a job after just 6 months.
I took the role because it was my first opportunity to sell nationally and break into the sports tech space. I was genuinely excited about it and fully committed when I joined. However, once I got there, I realized that I wasn’t passionate about the product, I wasn’t making commissions, and the sales culture was very different from what I was used to. There were constant conflicts over accounts, no clear rules of engagement, and little leadership around account ownership.
At the same time, I was approached about another opportunity that brought me back to sponsorship sales, which is where I’ve had the most success throughout my career. After a lot of thought, I decided to make the move. This new role is a better title and significantly more pay in a better , healthier industry.
My concern is how this looks from the outside. Earlier in my career, I spent 8 years with a different company, although promotions and moves between different business units can make it look like multiple jobs on a resume. I also had another role years ago that I left after about 8 months because the culture became toxic.
Would you be worried about your sales reputation if you were in my shoes? Would you delete this company from your resume as if it never happened?Do you think former colleagues, clients, or future employers would view a 6-month stint negatively, or is it generally understandable when the role isn’t the right fit and a better-aligned opportunity comes along?
TL;DR:
13+ years in sales. Left a job after 6 months because the product, culture, and compensation potential weren’t what I expected, and I accepted a much better opportunity in my core area of expertise. I also have one other short stint (8 months) on my resume, but otherwise have a long history of staying with employers. Would you worry about your professional reputation, or am I overthinking it?
Jobadvisor
You're almost certainly overthinking this. Here's a grounded take:
Your resume context is actually quite strong. One 6-month stint and one 8-month stint, against a backdrop of 13+ years in the field including an 8-year tenure, is not a red flag pattern. That's a long, stable career with two understandable exceptions. Hiring managers who actually read resumes will see that.
The 6-month role: keep it or cut it? This depends on one thing — whether it's discoverable. If you had a LinkedIn presence there, made industry connections in that role, or if former colleagues might mention it, leave it on. Getting caught omitting a job is far more damaging than having a short one. If it's truly invisible (no LinkedIn updates, no mutual contacts in your target circles), you could leave it off, but there's still risk. When in doubt, keep it.
Your narrative is genuinely solid. "I took a calculated risk to break into a new vertical, learned quickly that the fit wasn't right on multiple dimensions, and returned to the area where I've had the most success" is a mature answer, not a defensive one. That's self-awareness, not flakiness. Pair it with specific things you learned in that 6 months and it becomes a strength.
The real-world reality of sales specifically: Sales hiring managers are often more pragmatic than most. They understand that comp structure, account conflict, and product-market fit are legitimate dealbreakers — because those things directly determine whether you can earn. Saying "the commission structure and rules of engagement weren't workable" lands very differently in a sales context than it would in, say, an academic or government role.
Former colleagues and clients: Most people won't think twice about it. People leave jobs. Six months is short, but unless you burned bridges on the way out, the people who know your 13-year track record aren't going to revise their opinion of you over one short role.
Bottom line: You left a poorly structured role that wasn't delivering for a better-aligned opportunity with a better title and better pay. That's not a reputation problem — that's a career decision. The only way this becomes a story is if you make it one by over-explaining or being apologetic about it in interviews. State it plainly, move on quickly, and let your track record do the talking.
Is it rude to say “Mr./Ms. (First Name)” in the workplace?
This is a practice I picked up from a black co-worker (and good friend) at a previous job. He addressed everyone like that, or “sir/ma’am.” To be honest, I liked it and people always seem to respond well. It became a habit.
I am in the South, and no one seems to flinch. However, maybe I am committing a major faux pas?
Jobadvisor
Not rude at all — and you're reading the room correctly.
"Mr./Ms. [First name]" is a distinctly Southern (and broadly American Black) cultural tradition that signals respect without the formality of a last name. It's warm, not stiff. In most workplaces, especially in the South, people receive it as a compliment — it registers as polite and personable rather than awkward or hierarchical.
The fact that people consistently respond well to it is your real answer. You've been running the experiment for a while and the data is good.
The only contexts where it might feel slightly out of place are very casual, flat-culture tech or creative workplaces where any honorific at all reads as odd — but even then, it's unlikely to offend anyone. "That's a little formal" is the worst realistic reaction, not "that's rude."
You're not committing a faux pas. You picked up a genuinely gracious habit.