Well, well, look who finally decided to remember how much fun it is to blog!
To say it has been one of those weeks sounds so very cliché, but quite true. To say I minded would be a lie, though. Work has been an absolute whirlwind of activity in the last few days and I'm glad to have hardly had the time to justify taking a peek at my guilty pleasure that is RBC.
Those of you who have read my previous material know I'm a big proponent of the candidate's experience, taking care of them, and generally doing the right thing. I know, all warm and fuzzy already, right? I still hold strong to that belief, but something that happened yesterday stood to very nearly shake me from that foundation. Before we go there, though, a little back story.
I have been doing some recruiting for a notoriously tough to please manager on a position which is strategic and has job requirements that seemingly change with the wind. We've all had orders like this, so when you finally get a candidate on the line it makes things even more exciting. As of last week, the leading candidate was flown in for an interview and knocked it out of the park. Without wanting to get too far ahead of myself, I allowed a brief moment of elation before terror struck.
Less than 24 hours after the interview was complete some announcements were made that stand to alter (although not significantly) the candidate's pay and bonus structure. Over the next three days I played a delightful game of phone tag day and night calling across several time zones without success until yesterday afternoon. Because accepting the position will involve a major relocation and a small step back in annual salary I swallowed hard and delivered the news knowing it could well lead the candidate to reconsider or decline.
I held my breath and waited for what seemed like five or six minutes...underwater.
Luckily, she appreciated the candor and honesty, but will now need more time to consider in lieu of these new details. Of course the most positive light possible was shed on the subject, but that was essentially limited to touting the virtues of a company willing to be honest even if it wasn't the greatest of news so long as it is in the best interest of the candidate. The conversation ended quite nicely with me feeling quite a bit better about it than anticipated.
That is, of course, until another party involved heard what had been done.
I won't name this person, or even make mention of their relationship to me be it professional or personal, peer or superior. The fact is, it is somebody whose opinion I generally trust, and they went bananas on me. I was appalled. The second this news came out I put myself in the shoes of my candidate and knew I had to tell her. After all, I would be extremely upset to accept a job and find out afterwards that the terms had changed! My lector was unrelenting, though. I should have left it alone to ensure the hire was secured and let things get sorted out later.
I spent the better part of the evening with my head spinning, but finally came to the conclusion that I did the right thing. I haven't gotten an accept or decline notice from my candidate yet, but communication has been open which encourages me further that things are still going in the right direction.
Although things have not come entirely to their conclusion in this mini-saga, I am curious to know what others here think. Is it better to be honest and allow the candidate to make the most well-informed decision possible, or hold the bad news close to the vest and let them accept on false pretenses? Of course, my position is obvious, but then again, I'm also no longer on the agency side and I have to deal with the drama after the fact if I opt to withhold...