Asked to add someone who got their last manager fired to my team, am I right to be concerned?

Question

I am a team leader* of 3 teams in a quite big company (about 1500 employees around the world and about 300 in my office, the headquarter).

Recently I was asked to add a person (call them X) to one of my teams. The history of X is troubled and I am a bit concerned. A few months ago X went to the HR accusing a manager (call them M) of harassment. After a brief investigation, the HR fired M, but:

• X went directly to the HR, bypassing the internal procedure and the chain of command
• The investigation and the people involved should have been remained confidential, whereas in the office (and in other offices, even abroad) everyone knows the fact, the people involved and the outcome
• The nature of the accusation should also have been remained confidential, but again this information is public domain
• We don’t know if the accusations were true or not: M was fired but M also received a huge amount of money upon their dismissal (in this case, a big part of the document with the agreement was leaked to the public by an unknown source). X does not received any compensation
• X was removed from the original team

X was proposed to 3 other team leaders, all refused to add X: all have put forward technical/technological reasons, but the real motivation is this story. They had only a single gap to fill in their teams, so it was easy to refuse, but in one of my teams I have 4 gaps.

I am concerned because I see the first step (going directly to the HR bypassing the internal procedure and the chain of command) as a potential sign of anarchy, disrespect for the superiors and allergy to the rules. In addition, some team members told me that they are very uncomfortable to work with someone so keen to contact HR. Whereas other team leaders told me they have the real fear to be falsely accused or to be involved in HR investigations based on accusation by X (one team leader said he is 100% sure that now that X found how to get a manager fired, X will use this power for their own advantage every time X needs).

Are my concerns valid? Am I right to be worried about adding such a person in one of my teams? Are concerns from other team leaders real?

*= A small note: I'm a team leader not a manager. I coordinate all technical/technological aspects of IT projects. I take part to all communications between the teams and the clients, I do interviews to candidate for my teams (and my opinion is, usually, binding), I can move people among my teams, I usually define the project roadmap, I can propose employees for promotions/rises. I cannot hire, fire or discipline employees, I cannot move an employee to teams I'm not leading, I cannot sign contracts, I cannot take employees from other teams, I do not have control on project economics/financials, I cannot promote an employee or give them a rise.

---

After about 10 days from the request to add X to my team (period during which I simply waited and tried to avoid making a decision) I've decided to not decide: today I wrote to my manager asking him to decide if I have to try to let X enter or not. He took time in turn and told me he will organized in the following weeks a meeting with HR to discuss this topic. I'll update this question with relevant outcomes

---

Update: After more than a week, my manager informed me that the meeting with HR was unproductive, so he decided to wait for his boss's decision. In the meanwhile X was transferred from their office to a single office in another building where there are no people from our division (this decision came directly from upper management). I filled 2 of the 4 gaps in my team (an internal transfer and a new hire that will begin soon).

---

Update 2: today I was informed by my manager that his boss and the HR had decided to arrange an interview with me, my manager and X for next week (yet to be scheduled). Some team members wrote an email to me and my manager repeating their discomfort to work with X

---

Update 3 (final update): No interview will take place, yesterday an email from HR informed that X resigned and is returning to their home country: in agreement with the company, X will not serve the notice period. Strange enough this email: HR has never announced a resignation as in this case, especially addressing the email to 60+ people (including the member of my team). But I think this is a very special case. I think I dodged a very big bullet.

---

Real final update: M has been hired back as soon as X left the company. M invited a lot of people (including me) to a small party next week to celebrate their re-join.

Answer 1

I am concerned

Great, you are telling us what you are concerned about! Let's go through it.

because I see the first step (going directly to the HR bypassing the internal procedure and the chain of command) as a potential sign of anarchy, disrespect for the superiors and allergy to the rules.

Anarchy? Seriously?

It should give you pause that apparently, HR did not tell X to go back up the chain of command. If straight up escalating to HR was unjustified, they could have told X "Please talk to [other person in chain of command] first, and if that doesn't work, come back to us". There will have been a reason why they didn't - maybe X already had tried and you are not privy to that detail, because as you are aware, you don't have the full picture. Maybe the grandboss or whoever was complicit in the harassment, but managed to avoid blame. Or a thousand other things you are not privy to.

Instead of sending X through the chain of command, they preferred to fire a manager with an NDA and a very generous settlement payment. Think about that.

In addition, some team members told me that they are very uncomfortable to work with someone so keen to contact HR.

Let's skip that one for now and come back to it later.

Whereas other team leaders told me they have the real fear to be falsely accused or to be involved in HR investigations based on accusation by X (one team leader said he is 100% sure that now that X found how to get a manager fired, X will use this power for their own advantage every time X needs).

These concerns of other team leaders should not factor into your decision for yourself. You said in the comments that you do not agree that X has gained anything by it. Instead, as @Eric said, X is finding themselves repeatedly blocked in their career with flimsy excuses, has had no other gain whatsoever (except getting rid of M), has a negative reputation throughout the company, and you can bet they are aware of it. In fact, I would bet that X was aware that would happen, and yet decided to go to HR despite of it. So what possible motivation could X have to frivolously bring an accusation against you? You have standing to gain with X if you take them on, not to lose.

Let's get back to that other one:

some team members told me that they are very uncomfortable to work with someone so keen to contact HR.

That is a problem, yes. You need to find out what precisely their concerns are. Do they believe X will drag them to HR over some petty disagreement on business processes? Do they believe you will not be able to adequately protect them from aggressive behavior by X? Is it simply a matter of principle ("if I have to obey the chain of command, so should X")? Does your HR have a reputation that supports those other concerns?

Then you need to think about whether you find those concerns valid, and if not, how to quell those.

And even though you did not ask for it: I would think hard about whether the current policy of "go up the chain of command even in cases of blatant harassment" is sensible, and if you have enough standing, campaigning for changing it.

Answer 2

I suspect you're not going to like this answer, but I'm going to write it anyway: you are part of the problem. X was harassed and there was enough evidence for your employer to terminate M's employment. You are now attempting to use the fact that M was a bad person as a reason to avoid having X on your team. There's a term for that, and it is victim blaming.

You, and your fellow managers, are making it harder for other victims of harassment to stand up for their basic right not to be harassed. They'll see what happened to X who made a legitimate complaint and was then discriminated against by the rest of the organisation.

Answer 3

I am concerned because I see the first step (going directly to the HR bypassing the internal procedure and the chain of command) as a potential sign of anarchy, disrespect for the superiors and allergy to the rules.

Like it or not, these are the new rules. A victim of sexual harassment has every right to avoid the chain of command and go directly to HR.

Are my concerns valid? Am I right to be worried about adding such a person in one of my teams? Are concerns from other team leaders real?

Yes, your concerns and worries are valid.

But what are you going to do? You shouldn't even have that information in the first place. Did the chain of command give it to you? Whoever leaked this information in the first place is the real person that needs to be fired.

Understand this. Right now, it's in the interest of your company to put this person on your team (the team with the most gaps). If your company doesn't find a place for that person, it will be perceived as retaliation.

Take that person in. Give that person a chance. Avoid events with alcohol. Follow the HR rules. Focus on what you can control. And forget about the rest. And if you do get fired for some reason, I'm pretty sure that you'll be able to bounce back and get a new job somewhere else anyway.

Answer 4

Let's take out the skills set out of the equation.

Maybe that X person actually had a real problem with M, which would make sense with most of the arguments you said. In this case, and no matter what, I don't see why you should be "worried". X went to HR because something with M made them feel uncomfortable enough to think that the problem needed escalation.

Plus I don't find it "fair" to judge someone on a previous bad situation they found themselves in.

Just act correctly and professionally and see how it goes.

Answer 5

I would re-phrase the question.

Instead of "Asked to add someone who got their last manager fired to me team, am I right to be concerned?" I would phrase as "Add someone to my team who's last manager was fired for harassment?"

The previous manager was fired for their choice to behave unprofessionally (in this case some form of harassment). Your new report didn't cause the manager to be let go - it was the managers behavior that lead to the action.

As for how you and your team treat the new employee - treat him/her as any other new employee (inside transfer or outside hire) - set goals & expectations and treat them as any other professional.

Answer 6

Yes, you are right to be concerned, as should anyone in your position.

All you know is that this employee was in a conflict, and that the other person was fired, and you don't know any details. The fact that the person let go was let go with a generous package is also concerning.

If you accept this person, you accept any and all risk to yourself, and your team.

Sadly, false reporting is a thing, and it's a sensitive issue right now. Companies would rather pay off an unjustly accused employee than risk that the accusation be true, and they open themselves up for liability.

Note, I am not saying this is right, just that it happens.

Given that reality, you are right to be concerned.

Now, the choice you have to make is whether or not you want to take on the risk.

If you take this person, and this person turns out to be a problem, you're in a tough spot because ANY action you take, even with a solid paper trail, could be called "retaliation". Even worse, this person could just be out to cause trouble, and you could end up with a false accusation leveled at YOU

If you don't take this person, and this person's complaint was legitimate, you are making things worse for this person who will have had their career stymied just for pursuing a justified action.

Either way, you could potentially be the bad guy.

Your concerns are justified, now you have to decide which potential bad action is worse: Taking the risk of bringing in a potential troublemaker, or taking the risk of alienating someone who did no wrong.

Answer 7

I think you should start with by having an interview with X, just as if it was a potential new hire.

Your goal is exactly the same as if this were positions to be filled by external people. You usually want to ascertain their technical capabilities, if they would be motivated by your projects with open positions, if they would ignore their boss orders (some will even outright admit it!), if they would be a good fit in the team, etc.

Exactly as in this case. It is also a perfectly reasonable thing to request before deciding if joining that person to a team or not. You currently don't have enough data. You may never have before hiring someone, but you do what you can. After the interview, maybe your concerns will be gone, or perhaps you will conclude that in the end X is not suitable to join any of your teams.

The usual question "Why did you leave your previous job team?" may need to be left a bit more open than usual, as X may not want to talk about it (or on contrary, X might want to volunteer some of your missing pieces!). Also, I think here you should mention the elephant in the room, and inform X that people in those prospective teams have heard about X.

It is possible that X "being removed from the original team" is actually because they "knew too much" about the story (or were even part of the original problem), and X itself wants/needs a new start (which, sadly, will probably be difficult in your company).

Note that HR must be present in such interview. And you must prepare it with HR in advance.

There will be some questions that can't be asked (and you might not even know that those cannot be asked for this case). It is possible that you may receive some additional data from the preparation session, although HR will be highly constrained on what they can say about what did or did not happen. The preparation with HR may also help to calm down some of your concerns, such as what your company would consider harassment, or the way you should handle interactions with this employee should it end up under your supervision.

Answer 8

Team dynamics is a big factor in the productivity of a team. I'll assume that X will need to collaborate with other team members.

If you feel that other team members under your responsibility may have issue joining the team I would have a one on one chat (or a group chat depending on the dynamic of the team) with them, without X present, and ask them what they think about X joining them. They may welcome it, not care, be doubtful or outright disgusted by the proposition. Whatever the case you will have more data on your side if you want to accept X or not and in the later to justify your choice.

If your decision is purely on the personal side, if you don't feel right to work with X, then try to see it from a purely professional angle. What can it bring to the team, will you be able to manage this person properly. Only you can answer this.

If you want to refuse X, be prepare to be factual and explain the negative outcome to your boss in term of productivity/cost. Refusing someone only because of hearsay and gut feeling may not be welcome in this case.

Answer 9

one team leader said he is 100% sure that now that X found how to get a manager fired, X will use this power for their own advantage every time X needs

It is important to understand that any report of misconduct always includes the two sides: somebody who behaves wrongly and the reporting person. And it is always that the two cases are possible, not just one:

• Somebody behaves wrongly, and the reporting person is correct.
• The reporting person at least partially lies seeking one's own goals.

A term "bad team player" also covers socially skilled team mates that learned how to game the system and move ahead through getting everyone on they way fired or demoted. Real victims of harassment could you please forgive me. Even you should understand that to be falsely accused, it is also not sugar.

I do not know in which degree X could be identified as such a monster, but if there are serious reasons to suspect, I think these may serve as the background to consider other candidates for the open positions.

Answer 10

Official policy can vary but generally speaking it's not unusual for a harassment claim about one's manager to be reported directly to HR.

Details being leaked sounds much more problematic, especially if it was intended to make either party and/or the company look bad.