To ruin someone's livelihood?

[sextherapy]

I am a manager and have a taken on a new team member part time.

They have reduced their hours in another job in order to free up time for this one and it's meant them making some major changes to their life.

It's come to light that they may not be able to obtain the references required to trade - I have the power to potentially overturn the decision BUT, I am starting to doubt if the person will actually be capable enough,

They are amazing in so many ways and it's very early days but I am not convinced. Do I take a huge risk and help them or leave it if my gut is saying if they do become capable it's going to take so much help and support and even then I'm not convinced?

If they did get good however their attitude would mean a team member for life that is loyal.

Wwyd?

Controversial, but how about having an open conversation? Isn't that what management entails?

People often say, attitude over aptitude and there are pros and cons. But you (or your company) are currently responsible for hiring this person and changing the course of their life/career. Personally I'd take that more responsibly and give them a chance to demonstrate that they're either capable of not.

My pet peeve is companies taking people on and then reacting to poor decision making by letting them go, without even trying to make it work. This is precisely why a lot of employees have a 'fuck the company' mentality.

I would do what I could to help them but be very clear what support you are able to provide

If it’s come to light after the fact that their paperwork is not what was promised sounds like that is on the employee. Also sounds like they have a job to go back to. Not sure I’d stick my neck out for this one.

If there's doubt, there's no doubt.

If they can’t get the licences they said they could, then that’s their fault not yours.

If references are a critical requirement for the job why weren't they checked at the pre-employment stage?

Also they are a contractor not employed

@SamanthaCaine you're missing the point - it is a regulatory reason he has to be let go, I'm just the one with the power to challenge the decision (still no guarantees) but I'm torn as to whether to challenge it that's the issue.

@Backstreets yes that's the dilemma here do I stick my neck out you've hit the nail on the head. Not sure I should either

Did you mention this? Sorry but I didn't see that it was regulatory.

But obviously it doesn't matter, and neither does contractor status, if you have the ability to overturn it.

Sounds like it's whether you can be arsed and it sounds like you can't. So it's a bit poor to post 'AIBU to ruin someone's livelihood' as if it's a morally challenging thing for you as it's clear the morality isn't part of your decision making process.

I'm responsible for hiring and firing. If you're going to be human about it, be human. If you're detached then own it. But personally I'd be having an open conversation to lay it on the line. If, as you say, they're a contractor then getting rid will be easy.

I’m not sure what you mean by this?

Every job offer I’ve had has been conditional upon receiving satisfactory references. Now I have to recruit people I say the same.

You can send out an offer letter containing basic terms of employment with a clear note that it only applies if the references are acceptable. If they aren’t, then you have fair grounds to withdraw the offer.

Even for contractors it’s fine to say you aren’t prepared to contract with them unless you are confident they can do the job.

And if they turn out not to be good at the job, it’s fine to terminate them. That’s usually what probationary periods are for for employees, and for contractors it’s even simpler than that.

Don’t over complicate it!

I've re read all your posts OP and I can't see where the issue was regulatory.

However I did read that this is the fifth time you've got recruitment wrong. So I guess the question is why hasn't your superior posted an AIBU about letting their manager go because of the amount of money and time spent getting the right person in. Must've cost a small fortune in recruitment.

So perhaps instead of laughing off your recruitment failings it might be an idea to seek some help to improve this process so you don't have to ruin someone else's livelihood.

The irony is laughable.

@SamanthaCaine ok let's be clear about this - I haven't got it wrong five times as referenced earlier the five instances are a mixture of people leaving/I'll health AND me getting it wrong I just lumped it together.

I cannot help people leaving (reason for leaving is not management before you add the person had a change in circumstances) and getting I'll. but irrespective these still add to the issue that we are struggling with staff

Nonetheless it has still all contributed to the issue

@SamanthaCaine also how would you see it's regulatory you obviously don't know the full story and I'm obviously not going to give detail on MN

This. You are letting emotions cloud your judgement here. Not good for a manager.

I wouldn’t hire them.

It's the not knowing how this will pan out that's killing me it's a risk

Recruitment is always a risk.

What does your gut say?

Can they do the job? Then give it a go.

Well you said I was missing the point, like I should understand. But obviously I didn't so wasn't exactly missing anything.

I did this; and because the hire had such a strong work ethic and was a nice/good person it worked out really well. As you imply they become the sort of person you can build a team round. My hire recognised the effort we put in to developing them, and now are very loyal to me and the business.

They would never push back on responsibilities falling within their job description though. They were very prepared to challenge and stretch themselves. So I'd be asking myself, will this hire will try and try hard if asked?

If you think yes, then putting the effort in to them now (since you've actually already hired them) is less risky than chucking them away without a chance and trying to recruit. By your own admission, it's not like star candidates with staying power just drop into your lap. What if you don't find anyone as promising in the next round?

And do the 4 out of 5 previous hires really reflect badly on you?

I work supervising a team were there is known/expected high turn over. It's a stepping stone role to the much more lucrative and interesting parts of our profession. But my team do really important bits of work it's not profitable for the wider business to do. I think in the last 2 years I've had more churn through my team than you; but my bosses would never say it was my fault team members were leaving. And I'd push back very hard on any suggestion it was. Given I'm the one training them from scratch, it's just as annoying to me as anyone when someone hands in their notice.

Finally, when you say you'd need to challenge the reference requirements, how often are you doing that? If this is the first time, then I wouldn't be too worried about it reflecting badly if it doesn't work out once. But I wouldn't be doing it repeatedly, because then that does reflect more on your judgement.

Yes, that's what I thought - five people in a row who were not a good fit? I feel sorry for the new employees.

To employ one bad egg may be regarded as a misfortune; to do so twice looks like carelessness. Five times: it's definitely the manager and/or organisation who is at fault!

Sorry but all you said was this:

I have literally taken on five people and only one of the five is turning out to be great ( yes I'm starting to question my recruitment too lol) but we are where we are

It's not all me it's a mixture of I'll health/leaving/not being cut out for it etc

Obviously you're not giving any detailed information here but as a hiring manager:

1. one of the key questions is health.
2. not being cut out is also part of the vetting process.

Ok I'll give you people leaving (although prior continuity is also a factor you need to consider) but establishing a fit/healthy and capable workforce is your job. It does sound like you're just trying to make excuses as to why it's not your fault.

Like I say, I hire people and it's precisely my job to work out if people are cut out for it.

You are over thinking this. Give them the job. They will do a reasonable job, you will enjoy their company, and in 3 years they will leave. 30 years on when you have retired you can look back with a warm glow that you helped someone.

I would stick with your gut - 54 years old and every time I have gone against it in hiring I have regretted it !

I'm an employer...

If you are seeing issues now I can guarantee they will only get worse in time. Perfect seeming employees also can have issues but less so.

It is a very red flag they cannot supply references...no, you should not stick your neck out.

I’d take a punt on them. You can always get rid of them later if it’s not working.

I was in a similar position a few years back. Took someone on because they came across really well in the interview, even if they didn’t hit all the criteria (similar role but different sector). They were a really great team member, hard worker and very likeable. Unfortunately they had really talked up their skills in the interview and just weren’t up to the job. To the point where other colleagues started expressing their concerns. We put steps in place to help them get up to speed but ultimately they just didn’t have it in them to fulfil the requirements. They ended up leaving and are now flourishing in a related but less technical and demanding type of role.

I think if your gut is telling you they don’t have the chops I’d trust that - you’ve clearly had plenty of experience which is telling you what to do.