A reader writes:
Years ago, I became acquainted with Fergus, the head of a local organization with whom I worked at a previous job. Fergus eventually left the organization to pursue other opportunities, and shortly afterward, I had a meeting with other members of my team, including the person who succeeded him. At one point in the conversation, I asked if they knew how Fergus was doing and I got a fairly non-committal answer.
A few days later, I received an email from the new manager that was very clearly written by lawyers, informing me that after Fergus left they had discovered financial irregularities in his running of the organization and had severed all ties with him. This was a surprise to me because, although I had never worked closely with Fergus, he had never given me any reason to question his integrity.
A few months after that, the CEO of my organization told me that he had talked with Fergus about joining our team. I felt it was my duty to let him know about the email I received. I’m not sure how much of an impact it had, but in any case he never came to work for us.
It was last week when Fergus, with whom I’ve kept in touch over the years, asked me for an introduction to the CEO of a company where he’s applying for a job. My tendency is to let bygones be bygones and introductions. It’s been five years and I don’t even know what he was accused of and whether it’s true or not. And as I said, apart from this one incident, I never had any reason to doubt Fergus’s honesty.
Still, I’m wondering, if I felt an obligation to tell my boss about the email five years ago, why wouldn’t the same obligation apply to my professional contacts at this other company? (I know the CEO, but not very well, and he’s definitely not someone I would consider my friend.)
There is also the question of, if I make a referral, should I give Fergus an enthusiastic recommendation or send his resume without comment. Given how difficult it is for job candidates to stand out these days, I almost feel like the latter action would be equivalent to no introduction at all.
Ugh, this is hard. The fact that Fergus never gave you reason to question his integrity does not mean that he was not involved in financial irregularities; In fact, the way many successful embezzlers (to use one example) are able to get away with it for long periods of time is that they seem friendly and trustworthy.
On the other hand, it is a little strange that the other organization felt the need to send you that letter. Did they have any reason for spreading Fergus’s business like this, other than bringing Fergus’s name into disrepute? Maybe there was! Depending on what Fergus did, there may be reasons you/your organization need to know what happened. But if it wasn’t, I would be uncomfortable with it and try to find out why I was being notified.
In any case, when your CEO mentioned that he was considering hiring him, it was right for you to share with him what you were told. You had relevant information which he had a right to consider.
It’s different in this latest situation, where you don’t work for the person they’re applying with, so there’s not such a clear mandate. But Fergus is asking you to use your reputation to confirm him. Before you can do that, I think you need to know more. Would you like to ask Fergus bluntly what happened to the old job? You could say, “Before contacting Joe, can I ask what happened when you left OldOrg? I believed there may have been some problems, and frankly I feel I need to ask you that first. I’m sorry if I’m putting you in an awkward position.”
This won’t necessarily clarify things for you, but it might. Or it could make them dirtier! But I don’t understand how you can make a commitment to him – which you will be doing – at least without asking him about it. If you don’t want to do that, given the information you have, I don’t think you can ethically mention it. And so if he hasn’t done anything wrong, it’s really fair to give him a chance to clarify things.
