Ethical Issues in Nursing Hiring Decisions

Introduction

This paper examines a nursing hiring dilemma in which a charge nurse must rank three candidates for a position. The scenario presented is not unique to nursing—it could arise in virtually any industry or hiring context. However, the nursing profession carries a heightened responsibility, since patient lives are directly at stake and the best-qualified candidates should always be selected.

The central ethical issue involves how to handle personal knowledge about one of the candidates when that knowledge is based on rumor, innuendo, and the questionable credibility of the person providing it. Although this information might tempt the charge nurse to rank John lower, he is clearly the most qualified of the three candidates. Given his strong professional experience and references, and the complete absence of hard evidence of any personal misconduct, John should be ranked first.

Analysis of the Hiring Dilemma

As introduced above, there is some personal knowledge about John that might sway the charge nurse against selecting him. However, the two pieces of information in question are both grounded in perception and conjecture rather than established fact.

First, the charge nurse's friend claims that John had or has a drinking problem. Even if this were true—and there is no evidence that it is—such a problem would almost certainly manifest in his professional record in the form of absenteeism, poor performance, or disciplinary action. Because John's work history and references are reportedly strong, the allegation appears highly unlikely to reflect reality.

The second concern is that the charge nurse personally recalls John having a troubled relationship with this same friend. While that may be accurate, it raises several problems. The characterization of the relationship as "stormy" is itself a matter of subjective opinion, and it stands in direct contrast to multiple professional data points that present John as a capable and ethical professional. Furthermore, the friend may have been the primary source of the conflict rather than John. It is worth considering, for example, whether the drinking allegation is itself a form of deflection—that is, whether it is the friend, rather than John, who struggled with alcohol.

Ethical hiring practice requires that decisions be made on the basis of verifiable, job-relevant criteria. Equal employment guidelines consistently caution against allowing personal bias or secondhand accounts to influence candidate evaluation, particularly when the documented record of a candidate contradicts those accounts. In this case, John's qualifications speak clearly and should take precedence.

Conclusion and Final Rankings

In the end, the rankings of the three potential hires are not difficult to determine. John should be ranked first—and it is not close—the second candidate mentioned is second, and the third candidate should be ranked last. The other hiring manager will in all likelihood also select John, as he appears to be the strongest candidate by a significant margin.

When presenting the rankings, the personal rumors and secondhand knowledge about John should not be raised as factors, because no verified facts exist that would legitimately call his character or fitness into question. It would be appropriate, however, for the charge nurse to disclose that she knows John through a mutual acquaintance—but to make clear that this relationship has not affected her professional assessment and that John remains the strongest candidate.

References

Cornell. (2015, February 7). Defamation. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

University of Oregon. (2015, February 7). Human resources: Guidelines for recruitment and selection. Retrieved from http://hr.uoregon.edu/recruit/recruitment-and-selection/guidelines-recruitment-and-selection