Am I justified in giving this guy a bad reference?

[surfsatwerk]

Example, guy could be a suck-up to his superiors but a dick to his fellow colleagues and helps to verify his story. I don't take hiring lightly and don't want to have to find a replacement down the road if things don't work out. I know our HR dept uses an Investigation Service to verify the applicants background.

Well then the boss is at fault for not having some kind of peer review system in place to have a broader view of how each employee is getting along with the rest of the staff.

Where I work there is a yearly peer review. How well I get along with the rest of the staff is documented.

 

[surfsatwerk]

yes

lesson: don't be a dick.

That's stupid.

 

[Mark R]

Just be grateful that you are being asked 'off the record'. As it's an unofficial phone call, then it's very unlikely that anything can be pinned on you whatever you say, as the recruiter isn't supposed to be talking to you (as that could be regarded as bias).

Even so, it's good practice to be absolutely truthful and open when giving a reference. Giving a reference where the inference is to read between the lines like "I would have no hesitation in making a hiring decision regarding Mr. X." is inappropriate and unhelpful. However, you should only say those facts that are clearly documented and provable on your end. Remember, you're not defaming someone if what you say is provably true.

For example a reference which reads "Mr X worked at ABC Inc from 1/2/3 until 4/5/6. During that time Mr X received both a verbal warning following a disciplinary hearing for persistent lateness and a final written warning following a disciplinary hearing for sexual harassment of a client's wife." is perfectly fine and no one can criticize you for it (assuming that it's true and you have written proof on file).

Indeed, if the employee really is inappropriate for the job that they are applying for, you have a duty to say so. E.g. in the above case, failing to mention the sexual harassment could be regarded as negligence, or deception, on your part - and the new employer could sue you for it, if they find the employee unsuitable or a liability.

 

[Ns1]

That's stupid.

Not as stupid as hiring guy with known personality issues/conflicts

 

[surfsatwerk]

Not as stupid as hiring guy with known personality issues/conflicts

One guy saying the dude is a dick does not make it "known".

 

[Ns1]

One guy saying the dude is a dick does not make it "known".

lol

we'll have to agree to disagree then.

(don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from)

 

[slayer202]

for realz guyz?

the guy sucks, your company is thinking of hiring him, and you aren't sure whether you should say something? wow

 

[surfsatwerk]

lol

we'll have to agree to disagree then.

(don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from)

I see the sense in what you're saying. For my situation I can't do anything regarding a new hire without having a piece of paper that justifies the action. If I want to pass someone over because of personality issues I need documentation in case of litigation.

It is a royal pita.

 

[Ns1]

I see the sense in what you're saying. For my situation I can't do anything regarding a new hire without having a piece of paper that justifies the action. If I want to pass someone over because of personality issues I need documentation in case of litigation.

It is a royal pita.

"jackass during interview" doesn't cut it? lol

definitely see where you're coming from re: litigation

 

[thegimp03]

I would decline on giving the reference. I wouldn't vouch for him as he's obviously lying on his resume, but I wouldn't point out the blatant lie either, as I wouldn't want to put negative things about the guy out there in the public and have them attached to my name.

 

[Bignate603]

One guy saying the dude is a dick does not make it "known".

The fact that the guy making the decision about hiring is asking the OP means that he trusts his opinion. It's not like the hiring manager is calling up some random person out of the phone book. If you have a way of checking up on the person you're hiring through a person you know and trust that's significantly better than anything you'll find on a resume.

 

[torpid]

Misunderstood this at first; I thought it was a different company asking you. If it is the company for which you currently work and it was off the record, seems fine to me. If a third party company called with this question, I would be very hesitant to give an answer.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Well then the boss is at fault for not having some kind of peer review system in place to have a broader view of how each employee is getting along with the rest of the staff.

Where I work there is a yearly peer review. How well I get along with the rest of the staff is documented.

Ha? That's a little too late since you've already hired him. You need documentation? You can't ask for a copy of his reviews from his previous employers. So, you're going to believe everything on his resume and says in an interview not try and verify it if you could from an unbiased source?

I don't want to hire someone, have to deal with firing him and going thru the process of hiring a new person. I want to get it right the first time.

 

[Ns1]

Ha? That's a little too late since you've already hired him. You need documentation? And you can't ask for a copy of his reviews from his previous employers. So, you're going to believe everything on his resume and says in an interview not try and verify it if you could from an unbiased source?

I don't want to hire someone, have to deal with firing him and going thru the process of hiring a new person. I want to get it right the first time.

this is my train of thought as well.

 

[Capt Caveman]

this is my train of thought as well.

Plus, think how it will reflect on you for hiring someone that might have conflicts/issues with other coworkers and then having to fire and replace him.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Plus, think how it will reflect on you for hiring someone that might have conflicts/issues with other coworkers and then having to fire and replace him.

Lots of companies have policies that dictate only the most qualified applicants will be hired. If you want to start throwing personalities into the mix then there will be litigation from the "most qualified" person when they aren't hired.

Race card, sexism, you name it. This is the world we live in.

 

[Ns1]

Lots of companies have policies that dictate only the most qualified applicants will be hired. If you want to start throwing personalities into the mix then there will be litigation from the "most qualified" person when they aren't hired.

Race card, sexism, you name it. This is the world we live in.

I'd argue that personality is part of qualifications...

seriously, the ONLY thing your company hires on is based on what's written down?

 

[surfsatwerk]

I'd argue that personality is part of qualifications...

seriously, the ONLY thing your company hires on is based on what's written down?

I don't make this shit up. Is it that surprising that people can and do win lawsuits all the time because they didn't get hired for a job.

The employer has to have a reason they passed over a more qualified applicant. "I don't like the guy's attitude" will get turned into "they didn't hire me cause I'm some protected class" in court. If there is documentation that they had personal conflicts at a prior job then we're safe.

 

[Ns1]

I don't make this shit up. Is it that surprising that people can and do win lawsuits all the time because they didn't get hired for a job.

The employer has to have a reason they passed over a more qualified applicant. "I don't like the guy's attitude" will get turned into "they didn't hire me cause I'm some protected class" in court. If there is documentation that they had personal conflicts at a prior job then we're safe.

what about "ABCD is more qualified based on soft-skills and communication abilities"

 

[thebomb]

what about "ABCD is more qualified based on soft-skills and communication abilities"

Are these things quantifiable and measurable?

 

[surfsatwerk]

what about "ABCD is more qualified based on soft-skills and communication abilities"

If it is a job that requires those skills and those skills are included on the job description then yes. But for my purposes I only hire technicians so I'm shit out of luck.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Are these things quantifiable and measurable?

Bingo

 

[Ns1]

If it is a job that requires those skills and those skills are included on the job description then yes. But for my purposes I only hire technicians so I'm shit out of luck.

oh lol

 

[thebomb]

I used to work with a guy who had personality issue, specifically anger management issues. Nobody really like this guy, and few people got along with him. I was amicable enough to work with him, but I really hated him. Besides the personality issues he really is not qualified for this job, and he is lying on his resume.

He didn't put me as a reference, but the person interviewing him asked me if I knew of him from my previous job at company X.

Dick move or justified?

TBH I think you would be needlessly exposing yourself by providing this sort of information "for free". I don't know the exact environment that you work in but there's just no reason for you to divulge anything. Is the interviewer your friend or close colleague? If not, I wouldn't say anything and stay neutral. You don't know where you'll be 2-3 years from now. Maybe the guy you don't like will get promoted and be your boss - you don't want things like this to come back and bite you later down the road.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Lots of companies have policies that dictate only the most qualified applicants will be hired. If you want to start throwing personalities into the mix then there will be litigation from the "most qualified" person when they aren't hired.

Race card, sexism, you name it. This is the world we live in.

Personality is not a protected class.

Personality is a large component if an individual is qualified. Do you want to hire a Project Manager who may have their PMI Certification, MBA, etc to find out that person doesn't have a strong enough personality to manage a project team of strong personalities? If the most qualified person, interrupted the interview with a phone call from his headhunter about another position and took the call in front of you, would you hire them? And yes, I've had this happen.

And in regards to legal issues, you are under much more legal scrutiny trying to terminate an employee than hiring one.

In this economy, I can find dozens of people that are qualified for the position. The most qualified person is also going to be the individual that also fits into the company's culture, team dynamics, enthusiasm, eagerness to learn and be a quick learner.

And like I've already stated, you can't ask an applicant for previous employers reviews. The more information I can gather to make an informed decision the better.

Companies perform drug testing, google your name on the internet, run a credit report and other background checks but that still doesn't mean that one is going to be a good fit for a position.