Hiring

My company is in the process of hiring for 3 different positions: a claims/accounting person, an admin, and an intern/broker trainee.  We interviewed two candidates this week for the admin position.  Both are qualified and both seem like they would be good employees.  

In trying to decide which one to hire, we had two clear points of view emerge.  One candidate was a great communicator, expressed interest in learning new things, staying busy, wanting to take on more, and getting bored when she feels like she has maximized the bounds of the position.  We loved her gung ho attitude, feel she would take ownership of the role, and be a self-starter.  We can easily see her learning and growing into a valuable asset for the company and moving into bigger roles than the admin position.  She was personable, fun, outgoing and would fit seamlessly into the team.  

The other candidate would also be a wonderful employee and do well at this particular position.  As a group, we did not see a desire/interest from her do or be more than an admin.  That isn't to say she doesn't want that, but we couldn't see it in her.  She would be a stable and reliable employee.  She was also a good person, though is more timid so hard to tell if she'd really bond with the team.

It's obvious in my description which one I want to hire (in fact, I started the meeting chanting her name quietly into crescendo).  I fully appreciate the appeal of hiring someone who will do a job well and can stay in that position for some time.  Then you don't have to go through the work of hiring again.  Personally though, I think it makes far more sense to hire someone who has capability to bring even more to the company over time than just the immediate (and entry level might I add) position that is open right now.  Don't you build a great company by hiring great people?  She will outgrow the admin position in a few years and go on to provide far more value to us than processing expense reports and filing contracts.  Yes, the down side is that we then have to hire a new admin.  

What do you think?  Do you hire someone good for a specific job or someone good for your company?  They often aren't mutually exclusive, but in this case that is definitely the perception.  One candidate is a clear winner...except one camp of people know she will outgrow the position and want to do more and then we'll have to hire a new admin so they would rather hire the other candidate who they don't see moving onto bigger and better roles.  That seems ass backwards to me, but I get what they are saying.  

Does your opinion change at all if you are the one that has to train the new admin each time?  Or share job responsibilities with the admin?  Do you favor someone with less growth potential and stability or favor the "best" candidate?  

OMG--I wrote a blog entry NOT about boys!!!  I am impressed with having something else besides boys to ponder on, but at the same time, it's not nearly as interesting as my posts about Tinder swinger couples and men who tell me their favorite bar is Sneaky Pete's.  Am I right?!?!