Who would you hire?

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Wanna help me with a pro/con list to make a hiring decision:

Candidate A: presented well in the interview. Won't be re-hired by previous department because of a personal relationship with a colleague affecting their work. Prior to that relationship, all was pretty much good with the employee at the previous employer until the personal relationship started. 

Candidate B: has completely flamed out at their last two positions because they tried to move up the ladder. Moving up the ladder didn't go well. This position is back down the ladder. Did not present nearly as well during interview as other candidate. Did openly state that they understand that they would be moving back down the ladder and would "stay in their lane". 

Both candidates have the necessary education level to do the job. 


I can keep the position posting open, but I do need to hire at some point. 

[mary2029]

Based on what you posted, if I had to choose between A or B, then A.  The personal relationship could be viewed as a slip in judgement or that not everyone likes everyone else. Since you mentioned that the position is down the ladder, then maybe Candidate A is young?   How is YOUR rapport with the person? 

Candidate B - I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. He/She may be stating something now, but if it has happened twice before, I would expect it to happen again. If I was to hire B, I would expect a knife to be inserted in my back at some point.  


Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me twice, shame on me. 

[busymom]

I agree with mary2029.  Just based on interactions with former coworkers, it sounds like Candidate A would be a better fit.  Unless, of course, you're worried they may get promoted if they have a fling with the boss.  

[Deleted]

I'd take A and if in the same room as B would be watching my back. Ew. Not B.

[sesfw]

I have to agree with candidate A versus B.  The co-worker relationship could have been an embarrassing 'oops' and they learned their lesson.  But keep an eye on the situation.

B won't be happy long term with the position.

Any chance on a couple more candidates?  If not needed immediately, you have time to continue looking

[mary2029]

Since you wanted a pro/con list, here is a start.


Candidate A

Pro: Already knows the company's programs/systems, so less time needed for training on the company
Pro: Has made positive contributions in the past
Pro: Interviewed well, so does have people skills


Con: Previous relationship; may have questionable judgment skills


?:  Rapport with manager

[kadee79]

Neither one, time for new blood!

[buystoys]

I'd hold out for someone else if I could.  Workplace relationships are just a big "no".  It's OK if they were in different departments/on different shifts, etc.  But it sounds like they worked together?  If her previous department wouldn't hire her back, I'd hesitate to hire her myself.

Staying in your own lane is good, but it shouldn't take two tries to come to that conclusion.  Not in today's world, anyway. 

[TheOtherMe]

As a person who had more than one relationship with a co-worker (not management, an equal), as long as it's not affecting their work. I would go with it.

I requested and received a transfer when I knew my work was being affected by the first relationship and it was a step backwards.  After healing, I applied for a promotion back to my former position and got it.

Of course this was at the IRS where it's like Peyton Place.  People seemed to think because of the privacy issues and no one to talk to who understood what we were going through, people had relationships with each other.  I know many people who married and have been married for over 30 years.

[stillmovingforward]

These days, it's assumed a relationship at work isn't frowned on (at my jobs I've had) unless there is something problematic . Such as up/down the hierarchy, not accepting no, something similarly inappropriate.

The 'learned to stay in my lane' comment would make me worry this person will have a bad attitude.

I would keep looking! A warm body isn't worth the trouble these two would be.

[stillmovingforward]

But if you hire one, come back in a few months and tell us how it goes!

[toomuchreality]

Oct 24, 2020 23:45:11 GMT -5 stillmovingforward said:

But if you hire one, come back in a few months and tell us how it goes!

Agreed! Curious minds. 😁

[NoNamePerson]

Oct 24, 2020 23:44:04 GMT -5 stillmovingforward said:

These days, it's assumed a relationship at work isn't frowned on (at my jobs I've had) unless there is something problematic . Such as up/down the hierarchy, not accepting no, something similarly inappropriate.

The 'learned to stay in my lane' comment would make me worry this person will have a bad attitude.

I would keep looking! A warm body isn't worth the trouble these two would be.

And going down a one way "lane" the wrong way came to mind. That may be their lane so to speak. I would think long and hard before hiring this person

ETA: I'm old and very jaded concerning this type of stuff 

[laterbloomer]

What does "the relationship affected their work" mean? And what kinds of problems happened when B got promoted? And what is the pay scale of these jobs? I've found the lower the pay the more we have to tolerate.

[happyhoix]

Oct 25, 2020 12:01:56 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

What does "the relationship affected their work" mean? And what kinds of problems happened when B got promoted? And what is the pay scale of these jobs? I've found the lower the pay the more we have to tolerate.

I have the same questions. When you say relationship, do you mean a romantic relationship with a coworker, or do you mean the working relationship between two coworkers? I would be less concerned if she had a fling with a coworker than if she’s a person who can’t get along with other coworkers to the point she has to change departments.

If it’s a romantic relationship and a one-off, that probably would not influence my choice. I did work with a woman who had serial sexual relationships with different senior managers and used those relationships to try to advance her career- very disruptive to the business- but that’s not what this sounds like.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Candidate A started seeing “Jamie” after Jamie was hired in the same Dept. Jamie turned out to not be a good employee and caused many public problems. There was an uprising against them by many employees and customers. Candidate A publicly sided with Jamie and lost their position and was demoted. A would now like to switch organizations because they realize they’ve burnt too many bridges. Jamie will likely not be hired in a similar position within the geographical region. candidate A could salvage their career if someone gives them a chance.


Candidate B’s two attempts at leveling up went super badly. Now, they just need a job at the original level from seven-ish years ago. Whether or not they think they can get back into management, I’m not sure.

Choose potential drama or choose potential back-stabbing?

[andi9899]

Oct 24, 2020 15:32:37 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I'd hold out for someone else if I could.  Workplace relationships are just a big "no".  It's OK if they were in different departments/on different shifts, etc.  But it sounds like they worked together?  If her previous department wouldn't hire her back, I'd hesitate to hire her myself.

Staying in your own lane is good, but it shouldn't take two tries to come to that conclusion.  Not in today's world, anyway. 

This. I always say "don't get laid where you get paid". Coworker relationships are never a good idea.

[laterbloomer]

Oct 25, 2020 14:42:39 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Candidate A started seeing “Jamie” after Jamie was hired in the same Dept. Jamie turned out to not be a good employee and caused many public problems. There was an uprising against them by many employees and customers. Candidate A publicly sided with Jamie and lost their position and was demoted. A would now like to switch organizations because they realize they’ve burnt too many bridges. Jamie will likely not be hired in a similar position within the geographical region. candidate A could salvage their career if someone gives them a chance.


Candidate B’s two attempts at leveling up went super badly. Now, they just need a job at the original level from seven-ish years ago. Whether or not they think they can get back into management, I’m not sure.

Choose potential drama or choose potential back-stabbing?

Getting in a relationship is not a big deal to me. Publicly siding with a bad employee is a huge problem.
I don't understand how a promotion to management can go horribly wrong and not result in the person being fired.
The fact that these 2 are even getting serious consideration makes me wonder what's wrong with your company that you can't attract better candidates.

[Tiny]

Oct 25, 2020 14:42:39 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Candidate A started seeing “Jamie” after Jamie was hired in the same Dept. Jamie turned out to not be a good employee and caused many public problems. There was an uprising against them by many employees and customers. Candidate A publicly sided with Jamie and lost their position and was demoted. A would now like to switch organizations because they realize they’ve burnt too many bridges. Jamie will likely not be hired in a similar position within the geographical region. candidate A could salvage their career if someone gives them a chance.


Candidate B’s two attempts at leveling up went super badly. Now, they just need a job at the original level from seven-ish years ago. Whether or not they think they can get back into management, I’m not sure.

Choose potential drama or choose potential back-stabbing?

I'd go with Candidate A.  It sounds like less drama (or no drama).  It sounds like A is not coming into the position with a lot of baggage UNLESS they need to work with the people on the other side of the burned bridges.   Is there a career path for Candidate A and do you think Candidate A will be working towards moving along that path? 

Candidate B sounds like they will be bringing baggage - the failed attempts at moving up the ladder.   Especially if the career path for the position is to move up the ladder.   If it's a position that's a stepping stone to other paths in the organization - I would expect Candidate B to not stay for very long.  If it's a position they can stay at forever - I would expect Candidate B to not stay very long.   

Candidate A might be a better long term (as they grow with their job) choice.   Candidate B sounds like they won't be happy staying long term and to "grow" may mean they need to move on to a new employer. 

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Oct 25, 2020 16:29:41 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Oct 25, 2020 14:42:39 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Candidate A started seeing “Jamie” after Jamie was hired in the same Dept. Jamie turned out to not be a good employee and caused many public problems. There was an uprising against them by many employees and customers. Candidate A publicly sided with Jamie and lost their position and was demoted. A would now like to switch organizations because they realize they’ve burnt too many bridges. Jamie will likely not be hired in a similar position within the geographical region. candidate A could salvage their career if someone gives them a chance.


Candidate B’s two attempts at leveling up went super badly. Now, they just need a job at the original level from seven-ish years ago. Whether or not they think they can get back into management, I’m not sure.

Choose potential drama or choose potential back-stabbing?

Getting in a relationship is not a big deal to me. Publicly siding with a bad employee is a huge problem.
I don't understand how a promotion to management can go horribly wrong and not result in the person being fired.
The fact that these 2 are even getting serious consideration makes me wonder what's wrong with your company that you can't attract better candidates.

That's more than a bit harsh. 

[laterbloomer]

Oct 25, 2020 17:25:48 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Oct 25, 2020 16:29:41 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Getting in a relationship is not a big deal to me. Publicly siding with a bad employee is a huge problem.
I don't understand how a promotion to management can go horribly wrong and not result in the person being fired.
The fact that these 2 are even getting serious consideration makes me wonder what's wrong with your company that you can't attract better candidates.

That's more than a bit harsh. 

Hear it with a casual tone of voice.

Really, how are these two even being considered?

[justme]

If candidate A is otherwise great except the episode of siding with the person they were in a relationship with I don't think I'd hold it against them.

My reasoning is that I highly doubt that someone that creates that much chaos in their professional life isn't at least that bad in their personal life. There's pretty much no way Jamie didn't at least lean on them to take their side, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than just saying "hey baby I love you you have to take my side". If the person now realizes what a bad situation it was, I'm not sure I can fault them for finding themselves in it. Falls a little too close to blaming the victim to me, but that's a bit of speculation based on how you described Jamie's at work actions.

[tcu2003]

Did you have a better rapport with one or the other? Feel like one fits in better with the culture and team she’d be working with (I’m assuming it’s more than just you)?

From what you presented, I’d go with candidate A.

From what you’ve shared, my read is that B won’t be happy with the position, may try to go around/above you, may leave if given another opportunity elsewhere, and I haven’t seen you say that you feel confident she can do the job (I might have missed that).

Are you still in education, chloe? If so, would it be easy(ish) to get rid of whoever you hire if she doesn’t work out? Because if so, that I think makes the making a decision a little easier.

I’m also a little bit eye rolling at those who are naysaying the work relationship. In many places, it’s not a big deal unless it’s an up-down relationship as others have said. And I’m also biased since I met my husband at work. 🤷‍♀️

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Oct 25, 2020 19:53:11 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Oct 25, 2020 17:25:48 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

That's more than a bit harsh. 

Hear it with a casual tone of voice.

Really, how are these two even being considered?

All right, in an effort to maintain discussion and not be offended: 

My industry has a very clear hiring season that runs from spring through summer. I posted this job the second week of October.  The only people who are applying at this time are those who did not secure employment during hiring season. An ethical employee would not switch jobs at this time of year; they'll wait until spring time. 

I can hire one of these two or I can not hire anyone--leaving my current staff severely burdened. 

I did receive another application today. I had a secretary call to confirm the applicant understood this was an on-location job and not remote work. 

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Thoughts in response to more than one comment: 
I don't have any issue whatsoever with a work-place relationship that doesn't affect the work-place. It's that the partner--Jamie-- caused a work-related problem for the customer base. Candidate A was also employed by the same organization and did not cause the problem. They just publicly their support for Jamie. Again, Jamie will not be hired in the region in this industry due to their job behavior that caused enormous trouble. Candidate A can be given another chance, just not with his previous employer. 

I did find out today that Candidate A and Jamie married over the summer time. 


Regarding rapport with Candidate B. No, not a strong positive feeling there. It's actually small world. I found out today that I was hired over him about a decade ago. I didn't realize that. I was told by a coworker it would be naive of me to pretend that wasn't important information. 

[stillmovingforward]

Sounds like the big question is 'burden your staff with a poor employee choice' or 'burden your staff with too much work'? Which would they prefer, too much work or a strong potential of a problem child co-worker?

[flan327]

Oct 25, 2020 14:45:01 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

Oct 24, 2020 15:32:37 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I'd hold out for someone else if I could.  Workplace relationships are just a big "no".  It's OK if they were in different departments/on different shifts, etc.  But it sounds like they worked together?  If her previous department wouldn't hire her back, I'd hesitate to hire her myself.

Staying in your own lane is good, but it shouldn't take two tries to come to that conclusion.  Not in today's world, anyway. 

This. I always say "don't get laid where you get paid". Coworker relationships are never a good idea.

In general I agree

But I got involved and married my coworker

We've been together for 20 years

[mary2029]

So Candidate A chose his future / now spouse over the company. Sounds like he is loyal.
It also sounds like you don't like him.
I would wait for the Spring.

If still undecided, get input from the team on which they would choose... Candidate A or to work more the next five months? My company asks for my input on new coworker hires.

[andi9899]

Oct 27, 2020 6:57:29 GMT -5 flan327 said:

Oct 25, 2020 14:45:01 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

This. I always say "don't get laid where you get paid". Coworker relationships are never a good idea.

In general I agree

But I got involved and married my coworker

We've been together for 20 years

That's great that it worked out for you. It usually doesn't unfortunately.

[andi9899]

What about a recruiter? Have you tried that? Maybe they can help in the search.