Background: I’ve recently been given a team at work. 4 headcount, two of which are filled, two of which are open and need to be hired. Team is based in CA.
2 weeks ago I interviewed an internal candidate. It was a 30 minute chat. He seemed qualified. I cleared him for round 2, and asked him if he would be willing to interview with a panel of other people with whom he would be working should I hire him. I let him know I would be traveling the next few weeks, but that this would keep things moving.
Other pertinent facts: this young man, the candidate, is based in Australia. The position requires that he moves to the US. He is also apparently in a mentoring relationship with my VP.
While I was out, the candidate went to my VP, explained (complained?) that all of this interviewing was very stressful for him and his fiancee, and couldn’t we just go ahead and make a decision without further interviews? The VP sent an email to me and my manager, telling us to go ahead and hire him. (That’s it as far as layers between us, btw - my manager, then the VP). I’ve not interviewed any other candidates at this point. The req was just opened. The fact that no one else on my panel has even talked to the candidate leaves me very uncertain that he can in fact fill the role.
One further point that makes me very uncomfortable - the VP then went to the division head, his boss - and said that the candidate was MY favorite candidate, the only one I would consider, and that we should therefore spend the $35-50K needed to relocate him.
Now I am faced with managing someone who seems perfectly willing to go over my head when he is unhappy with my choices, rather than put the work in. And my VP has misrepresented my position to our division head.
TL: DR - My VP is telling me to hire a candidate who is apparently something of a teacher’s pet.
What are my options - refuse the hire? Have a “table-clearing” with the candidate? Go to the division head? Sit back and take it? Everything I look at seems career-limiting…
Does your manager know about this?
Have you been officially told you love this person? If not, you can send out a status report on filling the positions which makes it clear you are still looking.
If the VP has told you that you love the guy, make sure your manager knows you don’t have a choice and hope for the best. But make your boss aware that this new guy will go over both of your heads in a second. That might make your boss more willing to stand up.
My manager told me to go along. She was copied on the email telling us to just hire him. I’ve been out of the country, so I couldn’t walk into her office and spell it out, but I’ll do it tomorrow. It’s hard to imagine she doesn’t see it, but you never know.
I did go back and forth with her on email, but there’s only so far I’m willing to take that.
Sorry. I missed that you mentioned that. Obviously you need to find a delicate way of letting the division head know that he’s not your favorite candidate.
The fact that he misrepresented your opinion, is, I think, more troubling than him telling you to hire the guy. I’d have no trouble with being over-ruled (or prior-ruled) on hiring decisions by people over my head, but I’d have a LOT of trouble with having someone tell someone else I said something I did not say.
I think you need to find a way to let your superiors know that being misrepresented is **not **acceptable. Otherwise this manipulation can go on and on in the future, too.
Everything is potentially career limiting. Odds are hard to assess without knowing the personalities involved. I’m of the face it head on type for something like this. If my boss two levels up was not the type to accept candid discussion focused on the good of the company, I’d be looking for a new job anyway.
It’s possible to be polite, professional and loyal while still raising concerns. If the VP still wants the guy you can make a show of being loyal by visibly committing to making it work. There’s a potential for career upside in this route as well. Handled well you can look competent, candid, and committed to the welfare of the company regardless of the final decision. Some don’t like subordinates that are competent and candid… which goes back to finding a new job anyway if that’s your VP.
Just eating the guy seems like a no-win. If he’s bad you eat it. If he takes a lot of work to make effective, it’s not seen since he was a great choice. If he works out perfectly… well of course the VP knew that so you get no credit.
this is part of where I get stuck - talk to HR - go to the head of division? I just don’t see any way this ends well for me. I’m trying to figure out how to get the information to HOD without seeming like a kid tattling and/or without ticking off my VP. Because my HOD will go straight back to my VP.
Arg. You’d think after 20 years in business I’d get over being surprised at how much it’s like high school.
i think the VP is the wild card here. My manager is generally level-headed and a straight-shooter. The head of division is the same.
This is helpful. From this I am positing a possible path (5 times fast anyone), of raising my concerns (candidate not fully vetted, candidate must work with me not take advantage of mentor relationship, etc), agreeing to take candidate should that be the final decision after further discussion.
I also think I need to have a desk clearing with candidate. He can’t expect to work this way moving forward.
And I need to start looking for a job. Not at all sure how the VP will receive any conversation I have with him. I am sure VP believes he is the soul of reasonableness, but… this wasn’t. And it won’t shock anyone that this wasn’t the first time something “off” has happened. Definitely time to start looking.
And, I need to figure out how to tell head of division what’s going on. Good times.
If this was happening to me, I would clear the air in one fell swoop. Simply send all three people over my head the same email, addressed to all of them clearly (no cc or bcc, and no HR).
Something like:
“I have not made any decisions, have only interviewed a single candidate, and have not yet found anyone I consider suitable at this time. If there is a candidate hired without full interviewing with the rest of the panel, that’s fine by me, but I’m making it clear I have had nothing to do with the decision making process and cannot guarantee there will be a good fit with the rest of the team.”
If anyone had a problem with me saying something like the above, I would probably not be able to work there long. Straight shooting is my game, and a clear email to all three at once takes away any talking behind closed doors or changing the story. That’s how I do email, make sure all parties involved are in on it, and if someone replies to me individually I will likely copy that and the others in my reply. I use email like I’m talking to everyone in the same room. Keeps it simple and keeps the issue straight.
If you were copied on the email that said he was the only candidate you’d consider, I’d respond to that.
“While I am really excited about Bob and eager to give him a second interview to see what the team thinks, he is not the only candidate I’d consider - I haven’t even had the opportunity to interview anyone else. And I’m not setting my heart on him because its my understanding we’d need an H1-B Visa for him and he’ll only be available if I can’t find a U.S. employee qualified for the team. My understanding of the legal requirements are that I at least need to do due diligence and look for a U.S. based candidate to be able to document that one could not be found as good as Bob.”
I also would be very, very leery of working with someone who would go over your head about the hiring decision because it’s “stressful” (!), because that just screams “I’m a special snowflakes and will be a pain in the ass forever!”.
If he’s terribly stressed by a perfectly normal interview process, what will happen if there is a crisis at work? Every team I’ve managed has been temporary, I’ve never been in a position to make decisions about other people’s vacations, but I’ve been in situations in which the difference between getting it right or screwing up meant millions. One time there happened to be almost-identical incidents in two of our factories: in one of them, cleanup took less than 48h; in the other, two weeks - because one person made the right decision, one did not. Is the new position one in which that might happen?
I too am mostly concerned about the misrepresenting of your feelings, which looks to me very much like setting you up to take the fall if the guy doesn’t work out.
Yep. I am worried about the special snowflake. And I don’t know if he CAN do his job, because we’re skipping the whole process where we find out. And yes, there’s a lot riding on the position - high visibility, global company.
You’re screwed. The new employee, and he will be the new employee, has more clout in the company than you do. The VP has some sort of personal relationship with the new guy. The VP is telling people that the new hire is your choice. Your manager, who knows how the VP operates better than you do, has told you to go along and to just hire him. So hire him. Don’t trust him and assume that whatever happens in your department will be relayed to the VP, but if you don’t hire him, someone else will. And the VP will make it known that you’re not a team player.
Get your resume in order and start shopping it around.
It’s an assumption on my part, but I suspect that the VP will take your reluctance to go along as a personal affront to his authority. Your budget, or your manager’s budget, may be reduced? Your project may be cancelled?
One way to play the game, which you may find as unpleasant as I do, is to welcome the new guy with open arms. Assign him some small part of your project. Something that could easily be corrected, or completely redone, by the rest of the group before the deadline. Find out exactly what his relationship is with the VP. That tidbit may come in handy in the future. Only feed him information that you want the VP to hear. Hopefully, the new guy will be promoted to another group and not given your job.