Scenario: You plan to appoint a candidate to a senior position, but hear a rumour about previous alleged wrongdoing.

Scenario: You plan to appoint a candidate to a senior position, but hear a rumour about previous alleged wrongdoing. Do you go ahead with the appointment or take the safe option and ditch the candidate?

Recently, I interviewed for a senior procurement manager to join my team and decided to appoint a candidate we all thought was by far the best. His references were fine. However, I happened to mention the planned appointment to a colleague who had worked with him in a previous position. My colleague told me, strictly off the record, that he had left "by mutual agreement" after suspicions arose about certain dealing with suppliers.

I have no concrete evidence of any wrong-doing, only the say-so of a colleague I have worked closely with for some time and trust. I am in a dilemma as to whether or not to confirm the appointment, knowing there would be something of a cloud hanging over the new manager.

STEVE PARR - DIRECTOR OF SUPPLY CHAIN, TAYLOR WOODROW

Not making an appointment based upon a third-party’s previous work experience with a candidate is poor judgement. A more balanced approach is necessary.

Perhaps the candidate out-performed the colleague making the assertion, or the colleague may, in some way, have felt threatened by the arrival of this individual?

It could be the threat of the colleague’s responsibilities being diluted or loss of promotional opportunity. Or it could even be that it was the colleague who was potentially colluding with suppliers and the candidate knew about it. Each of these scenarios, if correct, has a significant bearing on the colleague, not the candidate.

I would revisit the candidate and seek more specific information relating to their previous employment, not just the last employer. There are many sources and someone with good forensic skills should be used. I would talk to suppliers, recruitment agencies and so on.

I would seek to verify the levels of honesty and integrity in the candidate’s working and social life, finding out about hobbies, sport and hospitality. I would try to understand the candidate’s views about subjects such as the principles of equality and diversity.

If I wasn’t sure, I wouldn’t offer the role to the candidate. The cost of developing the second positioned candidate will be insignificant compared to the damage to your reputation that you may be risking. Think of what happened to Barings Bank for example.

The capability gap between the leading candidate and the second choice candidate could be small, especially if the lead candidate has misrepresented motives and suppressed inappropriate behavioural traits. Even if this isn’t the case, if the gap is purely a question of development it has much less risk associated with it. Even if the assertions could not be dismissed altogether, this option would present the lowest risk to the business.

If I still wanted to appoint the candidate despite some niggling doubts, then protection must come from two sources.

The first is that the offer of employment must explicitly state how candidate capability and approach to the role will be assessed over the short and longer term.

The second is your line management’s ability to assess performance, which must ensure the new employee is conducting their affairs commensurate with company policy, the contract of employment and the ethics demanded of the role.

It’s an appalling admission of how easily we can be influenced by conjecture and speculation but, as no offer of employment had been made so far and new information was brought to the assessment, I would probably look to the less risky decision of appointing the second-string candidate.

LUC VOLATiER - VICE-PRESIDENT, ROYAL NUMICO

Ethics are not something you should be prepared to compromise on. The slightest doubt is enough for you to pull out a big red card. As a senior procurement manager, this individual should be a role model for his subordinates. Even before he starts, there is a cloud hanging over his head.

The ripple effects of a below-standard manager in an organisation can be devastating. In an environment where the number one differentiating element between companies is the quality of its people, the integrity of procurement people is absolutely paramount.

The average junior procurement officer is responsible for 25 million euros. As you move up the management ladder this responsibility quickly mushrooms into millions and even billions of euros. You certainly want your purchasers to keep a very cool head despite the enormous economic agenda.

Anybody you recruit should be assessed according to the five following criteria:

• Brain power – the ability to grasp complex issues quickly, analyse the pros and cons of different alternatives and recommend or make the best decision.
• Passion – the ability to communicate or sell a vision to others and create enthusiasm.
• Etiquette – the ability to interact and connect smoothly with others regardless of their gender, age, religion, race, educational background and position.
• Business awareness – the ability to remain up to date with the ever-changing rules of business and what is happening in the everchanging business arena.
• Integrity – the ability to adhere to a strict moral and ethical code of conduct.

The last point is the only one from which the least deviation would be an immediate show-stopper. So my advice is, as I said at the beginning, drop the candidate.

Do it for your own integrity and the integrity of your team. Do it for the image of the procurement function. Do it in order to allow the CEO of your supplier to keep his job.

NICOLAS KOURIM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIG FISH

Having doubts about the ethical conduct of a potential team member is certainly one of the worst things you can face, especially in purchasing where business ethics are the basic foundation of our profession.

Having said that, rumours are not always based on the truth. They make no distinction between the innocent and the guilty and they can kill a professional reputation. Imagine you were the subject of the rumour.

Your decision will impact a career and a person’s life. You have several options. You don’t take any risks and reverse your choice for the appointment. In this case you should find some strong rational argument to explain to the candidate why you cannot appoint him. You will make a clean cut allowing both of you to move on without regrets.

Or you can go ahead with the appointment but check very closely any actions of the new manager to confirm your choice or to catch any undesired behaviour early on.

You could stick to your decision but at the same time avoid any lingering doubt that you may have put a rotten apple into your basket. Do this by directly confronting the manager with the rumour and asking him to explain where and how this story could have originated. Then use your common sense to decide whether you want to work with the manager or whether you prefer to decline the opportunity.

There is no perfect solution for this situation as you might never be sure of the truth. This is the very nature of rumours – they are easy to start, but very difficult to eliminate. The only option where you can make certain that you have no impact at all, is to not hire the manager. But there is always the risk that you miss a potential opportunity to add a valuable member to your team.

Personally I would go for the last option. You had a good feeling about the person, otherwise you would not have made the decision to appoint him in the first place.

I would therefore tell him about the rumour and ask him to give me his point of view and explanation. Based on what he says and how he tells it, I would then make a final choice and clearly explain my reasons to the candidate.