How do I ethically hire people at a company that is failing?
August 14, 2015 7:11 AM
I work for a small, but somewhat prominent in its domain, company that has issues. These issues are not entirely apparent from the outside due to the company's excellent PR and HR offices. I don't want to leave the company right now for my own reasons, but I also find it difficult to try to convince people to work for the company without stretching the truth further than I'm comfortable with. How do I handle interviews when I believe that the company will fail?
I like the company I work for. The work is interesting, the coworkers are good, the pay is decent, and the stress level is pretty low. However, it's evident to me (and to most of my coworkers) that the company can't deliver on its promises and will fail sometime in the indefinite future. I don't expect this to be an imminent event - my guess would be somewhere between a year from now and two years from now. Further, the company is unorganized and has leaders that seem to make arbitrary and capricious decisions to the detriment of the company. This has lead a significant number of employees to quit and a smaller number of employees to be laid off.
The company is hiring a significant number of people to maintain its staffing levels. Although I don't know so, I expect that these people will be paid reasonably (I believe I am paid above the norm). From an external perspective, the company is exciting and has excellent opportunities. In fact, the majority of candidates so far have been highly competent people with jobs right now. However, from my perspective, if I was told what I know about the company now, I probably wouldn't work here. Further, to some extent, I regret quitting my previous position.
I have a somewhat unique cross-functional position that results in me attending many interviews. As would be expected, interviewees are interested in my view of the company and its future. I try to allude to the challenges of the company as much as I can without saying, "don't work here", but I think my statements are being perceived by interviewees (and now newly hired coworkers) as being significantly more positive than I intend.
I've contemplated simply telling my management that I won't lie to people about my perspective on the company and that they probably shouldn't have me in interviews. However, I don't think that'd go over very well, since the company needs to hire more people to sustain itself in the short term. That option also seems like a bit of a "nuclear option" and that there are probably better solutions.
So, my question: How do you ethically interview a candidate when you think that the candidate taking the job would be a bad idea for the candidate?
I like the company I work for. The work is interesting, the coworkers are good, the pay is decent, and the stress level is pretty low. However, it's evident to me (and to most of my coworkers) that the company can't deliver on its promises and will fail sometime in the indefinite future. I don't expect this to be an imminent event - my guess would be somewhere between a year from now and two years from now. Further, the company is unorganized and has leaders that seem to make arbitrary and capricious decisions to the detriment of the company. This has lead a significant number of employees to quit and a smaller number of employees to be laid off.
The company is hiring a significant number of people to maintain its staffing levels. Although I don't know so, I expect that these people will be paid reasonably (I believe I am paid above the norm). From an external perspective, the company is exciting and has excellent opportunities. In fact, the majority of candidates so far have been highly competent people with jobs right now. However, from my perspective, if I was told what I know about the company now, I probably wouldn't work here. Further, to some extent, I regret quitting my previous position.
I have a somewhat unique cross-functional position that results in me attending many interviews. As would be expected, interviewees are interested in my view of the company and its future. I try to allude to the challenges of the company as much as I can without saying, "don't work here", but I think my statements are being perceived by interviewees (and now newly hired coworkers) as being significantly more positive than I intend.
I've contemplated simply telling my management that I won't lie to people about my perspective on the company and that they probably shouldn't have me in interviews. However, I don't think that'd go over very well, since the company needs to hire more people to sustain itself in the short term. That option also seems like a bit of a "nuclear option" and that there are probably better solutions.
So, my question: How do you ethically interview a candidate when you think that the candidate taking the job would be a bad idea for the candidate?
People accept jobs with incomplete or wildly misinterpreted information all the time. They recognise the error of their ways and move on. If part of your role is to interview that's what you do. You can stay with the guarded messages and make yourself unlikeable, making candidates wonder about whether they would like to work with you. But one of your problems is that by staying in the job you are not being consistent with the message you're trying to send. So if you really perceive the medium/long-term prospects of your employer to be so dim why aren't you actively looking to leave? Surely that'd be the best way to both secure your long-term future and remove yourself from this situation?
posted by koahiatamadl at 7:31 AM on August 14, 2015
posted by koahiatamadl at 7:31 AM on August 14, 2015
How do you ethically interview a candidate when you think that the candidate taking the job would be a bad idea for the candidate?
If you believe people shouldn't work there to the extent you consider it a question of ethics? you shouldn't work there.
I don't know how involved in the hiring processes you've been elsewhere but you know how you spin things in an interview and on your resume to make them seem ideal? The company interviewing you is doing exactly the same thing.
If you are at all willing to play ball say this:
I like the company I work for. The work is interesting, the coworkers are good, the pay is decent, and the stress level is pretty low.
posted by French Fry at 7:33 AM on August 14, 2015
If you believe people shouldn't work there to the extent you consider it a question of ethics? you shouldn't work there.
I don't know how involved in the hiring processes you've been elsewhere but you know how you spin things in an interview and on your resume to make them seem ideal? The company interviewing you is doing exactly the same thing.
If you are at all willing to play ball say this:
I like the company I work for. The work is interesting, the coworkers are good, the pay is decent, and the stress level is pretty low.
posted by French Fry at 7:33 AM on August 14, 2015
To me, the flaws you mention wouldn't necessarily scare me away from accepting a position at your company. Maybe I'm coming at this from a jaded perspective -- I was recently laid off from a job through no fault of my own, as a direct consequence of bungled decisions coming from the top of the organization. So in my experience, that sort of problem isn't all that rare, and it wouldn't set off any alarm bells. And the positive aspects that you mention, "the work is interesting, the coworkers are good, the pay is decent, and the stress level is pretty low," well, that all sounds GREAT, haha. That's pretty much all I want in a job. I'd feel differently if you expected the company to fail in a matter of months, but 1-2 years? Eh, I'd gladly take my chances.
That said, I wouldn't bring any of those negatives up in a job interview situation. Write a candid review on Glassdoor if you haven't already, any interviewee worth her salt these days should be heading over there for retcon.
posted by darkchocolatepyramid at 7:59 AM on August 14, 2015
That said, I wouldn't bring any of those negatives up in a job interview situation. Write a candid review on Glassdoor if you haven't already, any interviewee worth her salt these days should be heading over there for retcon.
posted by darkchocolatepyramid at 7:59 AM on August 14, 2015
Damn short edit window. I meant "recon," of course.
posted by darkchocolatepyramid at 8:05 AM on August 14, 2015
posted by darkchocolatepyramid at 8:05 AM on August 14, 2015
The interview is a performance. You expect candidates to put the best possible spin on their background, right? So much so that you'd see it as a bit of a red flag if a candidate were completely candid (imagine them saying "my last boss was a real jerk.") Just like you expect them to put the best possible spin on their background, they expect you to do the same thing about your company, because that's the professional thing to do when you're on the clock. Any halfway-intelligent candidate will view your responses through that lens.
I do think you have an ethical duty to avoid lying - so if they ask you directly what you think the company's prospects are for the coming years, you may have to evade slightly by saying something like "well, I think we have really interesting challenges to take on in X and Y areas..." Again, a smart candidate can read between the lines and will seek out more open feedback in other ways.
I used to work in recruiting in a company that didn't treat its employees very well. When asked directly about issues like employee burnout, I tried to be honest while putting a positive spin on it. Now that I no longer work there, I have actively warned multiple people not to take job offers there and have outlined the problems at the company. And you know what? Every single person took the job anyway. So - people have their own reasons for doing what they're going to do, and usually a warning from a person in a position to know isn't going to change their course.
posted by leitmotif at 8:54 AM on August 14, 2015
I do think you have an ethical duty to avoid lying - so if they ask you directly what you think the company's prospects are for the coming years, you may have to evade slightly by saying something like "well, I think we have really interesting challenges to take on in X and Y areas..." Again, a smart candidate can read between the lines and will seek out more open feedback in other ways.
I used to work in recruiting in a company that didn't treat its employees very well. When asked directly about issues like employee burnout, I tried to be honest while putting a positive spin on it. Now that I no longer work there, I have actively warned multiple people not to take job offers there and have outlined the problems at the company. And you know what? Every single person took the job anyway. So - people have their own reasons for doing what they're going to do, and usually a warning from a person in a position to know isn't going to change their course.
posted by leitmotif at 8:54 AM on August 14, 2015
This is a thing that happens. You should continue on as you have been doing and as other commenters say: be evasive as needed, do not lie straight-on, but also do not actively disparage your employer.
More specific to the situation you mention, you actually can be pretty direct: if asked where you see the company in five years, try "Well, we have some very challenging targets to hit around the two-year mark. If we can achieve those we should see a meteoric rise in uptake and may be in a market leader position in five years." `and if those targets are missed?` "That would have a markedly negative impact, so we have a lot of work ahead of us to avoid that!"
I've contemplated simply telling my management that I won't lie to people about my perspective on the company and that they probably shouldn't have me in interviews. However, I don't think that'd go over very well, since the company needs to hire more people to sustain itself in the short term. That option also seems like a bit of a "nuclear option" and that there are probably better solutions.
Do not do this. You will/should be let go. If you don't believe in the company enough to be at least diplomatic in an *interview* setting, they will very reasonably worry about your effect on morale at large, about how you discuss the company with outside parties, etc. If you are having doubts this severe, ethically it is on you to A) quit or B) get let go in the process of fighting hard to fix what you see rather than complaining, and thinking it's enough to be a pessimistic individual contributor.
posted by pahalial at 10:19 AM on August 14, 2015
More specific to the situation you mention, you actually can be pretty direct: if asked where you see the company in five years, try "Well, we have some very challenging targets to hit around the two-year mark. If we can achieve those we should see a meteoric rise in uptake and may be in a market leader position in five years." `and if those targets are missed?` "That would have a markedly negative impact, so we have a lot of work ahead of us to avoid that!"
I've contemplated simply telling my management that I won't lie to people about my perspective on the company and that they probably shouldn't have me in interviews. However, I don't think that'd go over very well, since the company needs to hire more people to sustain itself in the short term. That option also seems like a bit of a "nuclear option" and that there are probably better solutions.
Do not do this. You will/should be let go. If you don't believe in the company enough to be at least diplomatic in an *interview* setting, they will very reasonably worry about your effect on morale at large, about how you discuss the company with outside parties, etc. If you are having doubts this severe, ethically it is on you to A) quit or B) get let go in the process of fighting hard to fix what you see rather than complaining, and thinking it's enough to be a pessimistic individual contributor.
posted by pahalial at 10:19 AM on August 14, 2015
I've never taken a job assuming it would be my last. Shit happens, companies fail, what seemed like a great, meaningful job turns out to be awesome except you lost your funding. All of your candidates, if they are reasonable candidates, think they will get something out of the company they can't get at their places now, and that's true over both the short and long term. It's the responsibility of working adults to make backup plans for themselves-- corporations don't have your best interest at heart, just their own, and you have to plan for that. Your candidates are all thinking "What will I do if a meteor hits HQ?" and balancing what they know about the industry against what they're getting out of it.
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:28 AM on August 14, 2015
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:28 AM on August 14, 2015
I agree with most of the others that you owe your employer your continued professionalism in recruiting, and all you owe the candidates is not to outright lie. The risk is theirs to judge, and a natural part of the marketplace.
I think I might make an exception, though, for any candidates who you have reason to believe might be exceptionally screwed over by mass layoffs. H-1B candidates, for instance, potentially face having to leave the country if the company suddenly goes under.
posted by kickingtheground at 11:03 AM on August 14, 2015
I think I might make an exception, though, for any candidates who you have reason to believe might be exceptionally screwed over by mass layoffs. H-1B candidates, for instance, potentially face having to leave the country if the company suddenly goes under.
posted by kickingtheground at 11:03 AM on August 14, 2015
You're there and I'm not, so I don't mean to dismiss outright your estimate of the company's prospects, but the idea that it's bound to fail in 1-2 years seems kind of pessimistic, given how you describe situations today. Unless you're reporting to the C-suite, a lot of solutions might be in the works that you just don't know about.
Further, all companies have problems. When I wrote case studies about Fortune 500 companies in college, part of the assignment was ALWAYS "what gawdawful cliff are they about to fall off of?" and if I didn't answer that part of the equation, I was advised to keep digging.
I'd focus on the positive in these interview situations, and if you can't find anything positive to say, you might have an ethical duty to quit the company. What I mean is - you can't have it both ways. You can't take a company's money to work there and be part of the hiring process if you are so down on it that you feel you can't ethically recommend it to others.
posted by randomkeystrike at 1:02 PM on August 14, 2015
Further, all companies have problems. When I wrote case studies about Fortune 500 companies in college, part of the assignment was ALWAYS "what gawdawful cliff are they about to fall off of?" and if I didn't answer that part of the equation, I was advised to keep digging.
I'd focus on the positive in these interview situations, and if you can't find anything positive to say, you might have an ethical duty to quit the company. What I mean is - you can't have it both ways. You can't take a company's money to work there and be part of the hiring process if you are so down on it that you feel you can't ethically recommend it to others.
posted by randomkeystrike at 1:02 PM on August 14, 2015
I disagree with the general consensus. As a hiring manager, I want new employees coming in with a good understanding of the pros/cons of working here. I will proactively tell candidates all of the bad things about the role and the company. If those are deal breakers for them, that is fine. If they were not told ahead of time, and they accepted a job offer, they would still have those deal breakers, except discover them once they are in the job and that will lead to dissatisfaction, poor performance, or bad attrition and having to go through the hiring process all over again.
I would much rather have a candidate that knows of our warts (and hopefully I know of theirs), and we mutually agree that the pros outweigh the cons.
If the job cons outweigh the pros for most of your candidates, then you need to find more pros. The most obvious one is to increase the pay. If that isn't possible, you may have to settle on a candidate who is less qualified but more hungry for work.
posted by Diddly at 1:33 PM on August 14, 2015
I would much rather have a candidate that knows of our warts (and hopefully I know of theirs), and we mutually agree that the pros outweigh the cons.
If the job cons outweigh the pros for most of your candidates, then you need to find more pros. The most obvious one is to increase the pay. If that isn't possible, you may have to settle on a candidate who is less qualified but more hungry for work.
posted by Diddly at 1:33 PM on August 14, 2015
I wouldn't think it's your job to saying anything negative right now. For all you know, there could be a turnaround at your company, people are working on it now behind the scenes, and sabotaging the interviews for prospective hires would be detrimental to that. Unless you are in on those top-level meetings that talk about company culture, structuring, and overall moral, in which case it might be a different story.
Not saying anything may sound questionable if you are there, but here's another thing: interviews are not supposed to be people making decisions blindly. It's a fact-finding mission for both to see if it's a good match. Interviewees can research a company to the best of their ability, ask questions during the interview, etc., of people who have information about what might happen in the future, what company culture is like, etc. It's ethical to wait for interviewees to ask before offering information, especially if you are not privy to the actual state of your company in a couple of years and can predict the future. The unethical part would be for your company to lie to interviewees about questions that motivate them to move their current life status on incorrect information.
You could probably argue that he above is an imbalance of power, and it's not likely that people will get the information they need in an interview to make a good decision. But I think the fact of the matter is that people don't go into job interviews asking all of the questions that they should, and they consider it to be a bit of a roll of the dice in life (employers also think that way about potential hires for that matter). Also, discouraging people to work there would be pretty incongruous with you actually being there. If you are willing to hold it out for awhile to see what happens, I'm not sure it's your responsibility to make people avoid the same situation.
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:12 PM on August 14, 2015
Not saying anything may sound questionable if you are there, but here's another thing: interviews are not supposed to be people making decisions blindly. It's a fact-finding mission for both to see if it's a good match. Interviewees can research a company to the best of their ability, ask questions during the interview, etc., of people who have information about what might happen in the future, what company culture is like, etc. It's ethical to wait for interviewees to ask before offering information, especially if you are not privy to the actual state of your company in a couple of years and can predict the future. The unethical part would be for your company to lie to interviewees about questions that motivate them to move their current life status on incorrect information.
You could probably argue that he above is an imbalance of power, and it's not likely that people will get the information they need in an interview to make a good decision. But I think the fact of the matter is that people don't go into job interviews asking all of the questions that they should, and they consider it to be a bit of a roll of the dice in life (employers also think that way about potential hires for that matter). Also, discouraging people to work there would be pretty incongruous with you actually being there. If you are willing to hold it out for awhile to see what happens, I'm not sure it's your responsibility to make people avoid the same situation.
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:12 PM on August 14, 2015
Long-term job security is only one thing. The pay is good. Can they get a boost to a title they couldn't have gotten where they are? Is it close to home? Is it a fun job? Will they get to do things that broaden their experience (relative to what they currently do) and help them land the next job or take their career in a new, more interesting direction?
You don't know, you aren't them. Also, you have your opinions, but you can't predict the future. You don't know the company is going to fail. If you did, you might be ethically forced to disclose that. So far though, all you know is you have a bit of a resentment toward management at the moment. Don't let that show, it's unprofessional.
If it makes you feel any better, deflecting questions about the company's future toward the things in the first paragraph every time might give them a hint.
posted by ctmf at 9:42 PM on August 14, 2015
You don't know, you aren't them. Also, you have your opinions, but you can't predict the future. You don't know the company is going to fail. If you did, you might be ethically forced to disclose that. So far though, all you know is you have a bit of a resentment toward management at the moment. Don't let that show, it's unprofessional.
If it makes you feel any better, deflecting questions about the company's future toward the things in the first paragraph every time might give them a hint.
posted by ctmf at 9:42 PM on August 14, 2015
You don't say what sort of level of hires you're involved in.
If you're talking to experienced, reasonably senior candidates, then they should know enough about the difference between HR/PR-projected corporate image and the reality of life on the inside to ask useful questions about the current state of play. If the company is dependant on a visible strategy with public goals to be met in the future, then an experienced worker will know what should be happening right now. Last time I interviewed (as a candidate) for a job that involved significant levels of strategy input and team management alongside the specifics, I asked around issues of resources, input/relationship with other teams, what workflow they were using now, what their perceptions were about the competitive environment and how they were planning to meet the stuff that went alongside the position but weren't controllable from it.
The job, it became pretty clear, was undoable as described - and I had very strong suspicions anyway from outside knowledge that the company was on the skids - but I reckoned I could still get something worthwhile out of it for myself and the people I would be working with, possibly even the people who'd be getting the results. I was used to operating in those conditions. A year or two of paid work would be nice. And at that point, I'dve been happy with that.
My interviewer didn't lie, precisely, but he certainly span. It's what I expected.
If you're sitting in on low-level hiring of fresh graduates or people who can't be expected to have the appropriate experience to read a company like yours, well... this is how they'll learn for next time; if they're moving from another job, then they're probably capable of doing so again within your projected window of when they'll have to, and who knows how bad it is where they are anyway?
It's hard. Personal ethics do not map onto business ethics in general, and it's part of everyone's life to find the compromises that you can live with. When things are going bad, it's harder. If you can't square your personal ethics what the job's asking you to do, and you can't change either, then sabotaging your own job is an option - but you won't last long. Living in a state of fugue is also an option, but you may not last much longer.
And if you can't or won't get out (the reasons don't matter for the purposes of this discussion, because they're different for everyone), then at least give yourself the consolation that if you _know_ everything you know about the company and you're still not leaving, then it's just as possible that the people you hire will be happier in than out too.
posted by Devonian at 10:31 AM on August 16, 2015
If you're talking to experienced, reasonably senior candidates, then they should know enough about the difference between HR/PR-projected corporate image and the reality of life on the inside to ask useful questions about the current state of play. If the company is dependant on a visible strategy with public goals to be met in the future, then an experienced worker will know what should be happening right now. Last time I interviewed (as a candidate) for a job that involved significant levels of strategy input and team management alongside the specifics, I asked around issues of resources, input/relationship with other teams, what workflow they were using now, what their perceptions were about the competitive environment and how they were planning to meet the stuff that went alongside the position but weren't controllable from it.
The job, it became pretty clear, was undoable as described - and I had very strong suspicions anyway from outside knowledge that the company was on the skids - but I reckoned I could still get something worthwhile out of it for myself and the people I would be working with, possibly even the people who'd be getting the results. I was used to operating in those conditions. A year or two of paid work would be nice. And at that point, I'dve been happy with that.
My interviewer didn't lie, precisely, but he certainly span. It's what I expected.
If you're sitting in on low-level hiring of fresh graduates or people who can't be expected to have the appropriate experience to read a company like yours, well... this is how they'll learn for next time; if they're moving from another job, then they're probably capable of doing so again within your projected window of when they'll have to, and who knows how bad it is where they are anyway?
It's hard. Personal ethics do not map onto business ethics in general, and it's part of everyone's life to find the compromises that you can live with. When things are going bad, it's harder. If you can't square your personal ethics what the job's asking you to do, and you can't change either, then sabotaging your own job is an option - but you won't last long. Living in a state of fugue is also an option, but you may not last much longer.
And if you can't or won't get out (the reasons don't matter for the purposes of this discussion, because they're different for everyone), then at least give yourself the consolation that if you _know_ everything you know about the company and you're still not leaving, then it's just as possible that the people you hire will be happier in than out too.
posted by Devonian at 10:31 AM on August 16, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
I would avoid the topic unless asked directly. If asked, you can say there are some high risk/reward projects going on right now. There are code words like "time of transition" and "new approaches to processes/products" that candidates will understand as code for turbulence. I wouldn't go any deeper into it than that.
Also, you don't know the candidate's situation. I left a leading Fortune 500 company to go to a startup for my own reasons, and even if the startup were to fail I will have gotten what I wanted (in my case it had to do with an opportunity to develop a wider skill set) out of the move. You don't know the inside scoop on the companies they're at, either, or the other places they're interviewing. Other than that you think they won't be around for much longer, you describe your job as actually being pretty plum. It might be for them too.
posted by fingersandtoes at 7:30 AM on August 14, 2015