Timeline for How to disclose negative information about a candidate when I'd rather not reveal its source?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 10:15 | comment | added | smci | @AllTheKingsHorses: nowhere did OP state the other interviewers were "a bunch of guys". Another assumption. Either way, in the real world, the candidate is already the preferred candidate. Other than customary background checks and bringing in a female HR contractor for assisting future interviews, there's nothing non-questionable that could be done. (Obviously they could tighten up their handbook so if he (/anyone else) does this after being hired, they can get rid of him.) Other than actual facts, manipulating the outcome post-hoc from 'hire' to 'no hire' based on guesses is a no-no. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 10:01 | comment | added | AllTheKingsHorses | @smci I agree that if she vetoes she should disclose something - but be very careful about what she says, because she's gonna face bias. About the background check: Having more information on the candidate is always good. But I have doubts about the likelihood of it unearthing non-obvious sexist behaviour. Reports of that are often explained away and called into question. Also, it still blows my mind how a bunch of guys spending an hour in an interview room with the candidate on his best behaviour obviously gives an accurate evaluation of character but a one night stand doesn't... | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 9:43 | comment | added | smci | ^^ Interviews and background checks already give plenty of consideration to matching personalities, based on facts. Not guesses. If OP wants to change the interview process in future to include an external female HR contractor, if it's the case that she's the only woman interviewing him, that's also a suggested practice I've heard of (a second opinion). But since this guy has already been interviewed, it would look weird to do it to to him now, after-the-fact. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 9:41 | comment | added | smci | Otherwise, coaching her on how to deliberately inject hiring bias without any defensible facts, indeed without any work-related facts at all, is insane. Also reckless, since she's a senior member or director. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 9:37 | comment | added | smci | @AllTheKingsHorses: you're totally misrepresenting what I said, also what the OP said. 1,2. "He put up a smooth [interview] performance and is the other board members' favorite candidate". I already said here multiple times that background-checking is likely a solution. Make decisions based on facts, not beliefs or assumptions. Remember, however, that the OP knows nothing about the guy's workplace attitudes, so if the board's final decision is still to hire him and she still wants to veto it, she'd need to disclose the special circumstances somehow. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 9:26 | comment | added | AllTheKingsHorses | @smci Well, there's the ideal and the real world... 1: If you completely disregard aversions between candidates and future colleagues because the candidate looks good on paper, you're heading for trouble. The team has to be able to work together, you've got to give some consideration to matching personalities. 2: There are still a number of boards like that out there that ultimately decide against applications on "gut feelings". It's just that here it's a man who's decided against by a woman for a change, not the other way round as is traditional. | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 5:09 | comment | added | smci | @AllTheKingsHorses yeah that's a better wording, the point is OP can't pass off their guesses or assumptions about how the candidate behaves in the workplace with a mere "I'm not comfortable with this person being around me"... "None of your business", and any board that would rubberstamp that is prone to bias, mistakes and costing the company $$$. If you can't distinguish between facts and guesses/beliefs, you don't deserve to be involved in the hiring process. (e.g. "Fact: X worked at company Y for Z years in position W, with no complaints"). I can't believe this answer got +51-8 votes. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 9:33 | comment | added | AllTheKingsHorses | @smci I agree that "None of your business" may not be useful because it may lead to the board questioning the OP. But "I was previously in a relationship with him, I just didn't recognize the name." likely also raises questions - you were in a relationship (which sounds rather more serious than what it really was) with somebody and don't remember their name? I'd be way more unspecific in describing the situation. Something like "I happened to met the candidate socially before the interview and saw some behaviour that would make me feel quite uncomfortable working around him." | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 2:20 | comment | added | Kilisi | @Wtower if it's going to turn sour, it will turn sour, at least this way there is a chance to make sure it never happens. | |
| Feb 28, 2017 at 23:08 | comment | added | smci | "I'm not comfortable with this person being around me"... "None of your business" is not an objective process, and any decent board would challenge your basis (Imagine if a male interview board said this about a female candidate, or minority, or disabled). If challenged, I'd expect you to say "I was previously in a relationship with him, I just didn't recognize the name." In any case, you don't actually know what his attitudes in the workplace are: so you don't have 'information', just guesses. If you genuinely want to check what his attitudes in the workplace are, recommend background check. | |
| Feb 28, 2017 at 22:18 | comment | added | Wtower | You got a point here, but I think that if she points out that she is not comfortable with that person so early, and eventually that person gets hired and the truth comes out the situation will not turn too nice for her. | |
| Feb 28, 2017 at 13:48 | history | edited | Kilisi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 39 characters in body
|
| Feb 28, 2017 at 13:47 | history | answered | Kilisi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |