Should I hire him?

[Lambstu]

Hi, I work in the pharmaceuticals industry and our HR dept is useless so not sure where to get advice. I am hiring for a position and the only applicant is hated by a current employee. The applicant looks good on paper, and has previously worked at the company so has good experience. I’m inclined to hire him. I know that it will cause an issue for my current employee though as she has told me in the past of the problems she had with him (personality clash, perhaps he did overstep it a few times but I think she should be able to get past that as it didn’t seem like the situations she described were a massive deal) and she has said that she would never be able to work with him again. I know if I hire him she will be unhappy. Would she be able to raise a grievance against me for hiring him? Or go off long term
sick with stress? Can I just tell her it’s happening and ask her to get on with it / make the most of it.

And if they say he's a pretty straight guy easy to get on with?

You did mention that she has issues, do you handle them or ignore them hoping the problem passes?

So she's not very agreeable and is argumentative. So that she didn't get along with him is not particularly insightful about what he is like.

Sounds like she probably doesn't get along will people in general. I've never known an argumentative and disagreeable person to be great with colleagues.

@BigFatLiar she doesn’t have issues, but in comparison to some of her peers she can be more difficult at times, eg none of the rest of them would talk back to a more senior person, but if she thinks they are being rude (which to be fair to her they sometimes are) she calls them out on it. My life would certainly be easier if she were more agreeable. That’s really the only time
she is involved in arguments/tension.

My issue is really that she is very replaceable, where as it is hard to fill this other post as he has a specific qualification that I need.

If they were both on equal footing then it would be different.

You own it to the compnay. If you feel the new person fits the criteria and would be an asset to the firm that does not belong to you, you need to hire the guy.

The other staff may get on, may mange, may leave and its a lot easier to fill a "junior" vacany

If you do decide to employ him please give the junior a heads' up at least a few days ahead of the news getting out. Explain he was the best candidate and state that as they are both different people from a few years ago you are sure they will get on better but if there are problems come to you. Show that you are still supporting her and not ignoring her feelings.

You've said it was a personality clash not that he was a problem person. You said the issues were non issues. This really sounds like your acknowledged argumentative and disagreeable junior just didn't get on with him.

If he's a good candidate I would hire him. If she's unable to develop a professional work manner with different personalities then that's on her.

Thanks yes I think you’re right.

Can you ask HR for any history on this guy?????

What a bizarre and pointless interview process BTW!

I had a similar situation, an employee recognised an interviewee and approached me afterwards with very similar feedback. Without hesitation I declined to take the candidate to next stage because my responsibilities and allegiances lie with current employees if their only major negative is they are argumentative at times. Meh, show me someone who isn't a wet paper towel that isn't argumentative.

Argumentative....funny isn't it how you almost never hear that about male employees. They are forthright, principled, passionate, dedicated....

There isn’t any history except for dates and roles as she never made a formal complaint against him.

Yes, she is argumentative for a woman I suppose, but wouldn’t be considered that way if she was a man. That is so true, how awful is that.

I meant generally, any records of issues with anyone else, performance etc.

Not surprised at all with your second sentence. Women who have opinions and speak up or go against the grain are generally referred to as being argumentative in the workplace.

But hey, fuck her right? You need this guy. Just don't underestimate the long lasting negative influence on culture that an employee who feels and may well have been unjustly wronged can have. But at least you'll have golden boy.

So you're gonna employ someone who is hated and thought of as an arsehole.

Well done.

By one person, no one else seems to have had a problem with him, however a woman has spoken and must not be disagreed with.

Perhaps OP should re advertise and invite the team to meat and interview the prospects.

Something else to consider: if she really dislikes him and you don't employ him is she likely to bring up that she stuck the boot in when he reapplied, if it's a specialist post in pharmaceuticals is it likely that word will get around that he didn't get the job because of her complaint. What happens if she doesn't like the person you do recruit?

If I was the original employee and you hired this more senior person despite my me trusting you with that information I would def walk. However I would be well within my rights to take extended sick leave for job related stress or even go for constructive dismissal depending on what has actually happened and been shared with you. Are you aware for vicarious liability?

Have to say I agree with PP your leadership sucks I would hate to work for you.

@BigFatLiar

By one person, no one else seems to have had a problem with him, however a woman has spoken and must not be disagreed with.^

Not really though is it. Bigger picture is she hires him and he turns out to be a total prick then loses half her team. It's not worth the punt imo.^

Why? Because she won't kowtow to an argumentative and disagreeable staff member who is not only not remarkable but also bitches about past staff members simply because get had a personality clash and is easily replaceable?

@chuggachug No it's because she has no loyalty to her existing staff, can't be trusted with information and does not have their best interests at heart.

I feel very strongly about gradeism in organisations. This junior member of the team could become a key member of the team.There is also the impact that this would have on the wider team, knowing that their leader is willing to toss any of them under the bus.

On the other hand she could hire him and he turns out to be a good worker who gets on well with everyone except her. She leaves and the others say 'thank goodness she's gone'.

But loyalty to existing staff doesn't mean kowtowing to them even when their issues may be self created.

We don't know to be fair but if no one else has a problem with the guy and the junior staff member is accepted as being disagreeable and not the easiest of people to get along with and their work is nothing exceptional then hiring or not hiring someone on the basis if their likes and dislikes isn't loyalty. Its stupidity.
It's like pandering to the pain in the arse friend in a friendship group. That's not being a good friend as you let the group down. This man sounds like a rare and exceptional catch. This will benefit the company. You can't forgo this because one non exceptional and difficult person doesn't like him

OP said she isn’t bothered about the existing staff leaving because they are easily replaceable. Wanting to be a little bit more supportive of existing staff is not “kow-towing”.

Actually when it comes down to it, everybody is replaceable, but to actively be thinking that about your staff is not good.

I think OP needs to take more than one person’s word for it
OP said the woman complaining is argumentative so it is quite likely a personality clash

We also need to remember that she's had difficulty getting even this recruit. She works for a business and not a social club so has to consider what's best for the business.

@chuggachug so essentially we are saying OP has a track record for recruiting lazy under qualified argumentative people and then not managing them properly?

I suppose what I’m still not sure on is if i have a duty of care to her or not.

You do have a duty of care, that doesn’t mean you don’t employ the guy necessarily but in your shoes I’d be thinking about how I’d deal with things if/when there’s another personality clash between the two. He may be someone who thinks it’s fine to be rude to “easily replaceable” junior staff, which isn’t an attitude I’d want in my team and places your current colleague in a vulnerable position.

As the manager it’s yours to manage - and just waiting it out until she leaves (after being stressed out of her job) is shit management. It would be reasonable to think about how you’ll support her to cope with him coming in, not just leave her to sink or swim.