3 ms·
No, if you read the article, the author ultimately suggests that you proceed with the hire in an open and transparent way -- giving the potential hire a way to
by aaronblohowiak 16y ago
No, if you read the article, the author ultimately suggests that you proceed with the hire in an open and transparent way -- giving the potential hire a way to back down if they would be uncomfortable with you doing a reference check. The (imho) important part of the article is this:
> "... the best way to deal with these situations is openly and transparently. Once the you become aware of the conflict between hiring the superstar employee and double-crossing your valued friend, you should get the issue onto the table by informing the employee that you have an important business relationship with his existing company and you will have to complete a reference check with the CEO prior to extending the offer. Let him know that if he does not want that to happen, then you will stop the process now and keep the process to date confidential. By speaking with your friend before making the hire, you will be able to better judge the relationship impact of hiring her employee. In addition, you may avoid making a bad hire as often candidates who do well in interviews turn out to be bad employees."
- metageek 16y agoTo me, that sounds like threatening the candidate to get him to waive his legal rights. I don't like the idea of working for a CEO who would do that.
- aaronblohowiak 16y agoAh, I hadn't looked at it that way -- interesting perspective. I looked at it as someone who was between two desires and seeking resolution by increasing communication (which is generally a strategy that I condone,) however this might adversely impact the candidate so the hiring ceo gives them the opportunity for an out first. I didn't take this as a threat at all, but rather a measured approach that allows all parties to be on even ground and have their input heard.
- metageek 16y agoRight, but the employee is not on equal ground with the two CEOs.