Ask a Manager: Job Candidate Got into A Fight With My Wife

[minoanmiss]

Twists and revelations!



#2 at the link

I am on the hiring committee for a position that will interact closely with mine but won’t be on my downline. The hiring manager is my colleague Freddie, who is good friends with my wife. The third member of the hiring committee is Samara, who has a history of causing problems when she doesn’t get her way. Because the position is so specialized, the applicant pool is extremely small and can only really be filled via head-hunting.

Freddie brought in a candidate, Jason, who had been recommended to him by a friend. Jason’s background and skillset aligned really well with what we are looking for, and the interview gave me the impression that he would be really good at the job, but I wouldn’t be super excited to work with him. He struck me as a consummate professional and very diligent, both qualities that we need, but he was also a little bit abrasive and a few of his answers gave me the impression that he could be argumentative. So, not a candidate I’m excited about, but perfectly serviceable for the role.

Samara hated him, she thought he was horrible, and refused to work with him. When asked why, her answers ranged from “I just don’t like him” to “I don’t think he would fit in here.” Freddie loved him! He thought he was a great fit and wanted to bring him in for a second interview. I have to be the tie-breaker.

I go home and explain all of this to my wife, to get her advice, because I don’t want to piss off Samara but I also know that Jason is our best candidate and I really want this role filled (if we don’t hire Jason, it will sit empty indefinitely). I mention that Jason was recommended to Freddie by a mutual friend of him and my wife, and she goes, “Wait, Jason as in Jason LastName?” and tells me that she has met Jason before, five months ago, and they got into a huge, blow-up fight that was so bad she had to leave. Jason had said something wildly offensive to her and then doubled down when she called him on it, and she hadn’t hung out with the mutual friend since.

I know that I can’t hold this guy’s political opinions against him (the comment was political in nature) but I’m also even less thrilled to work with him now. On top of that, moving him forward as a candidate would mean going to bat for him against Samara and potentially causing conflict with her, but I really need someone to get hired, because I have to pick up everything that this position is supposed to handle until we fill it. Do I pretend I didn’t hear about the fight? Do I drop it? Do I have any particular obligations here?

Well, depending on the nature of the political opinion, you can hold it against him in hiring and in some cases should (for example, if he said something bigoted).

But why not just be up-front with both Freddie and Samara? “His skills are really aligned with what we’re looking for, but he was a little abrasive and gave me the impression he could be argumentative, so I have mixed feelings. Also, it turns out my wife knows him and X happened, which reinforces my initial worry about his interpersonal skills.” You’re not any more the deciding vote than Freddie or Samara are; you just happen to be weighing in last, but that doesn’t require you to say “and so we should do X.” You can just give your opinion, and then the committee as a whole should decide what to do.

If the committee is stuck and can’t agree, then suggest doing the second interview to see if that changes anyone’s assessment. There’s nothing wrong with getting more information; it doesn’t obligate you to hire him. And if the three of you still can’t agree after that, then it really comes down to how the hiring committee is supposed to function: is it majority-rule? Does the hiring manager have the final call? You, as a single committee member who is not the hiring manager, don’t have the final say on your own, and there’s no reason for you to frame this to yourself as “going to bat for Jason” or “going against Samara.” You don’t need to go to bat for anyone or push any agenda at all; just be honest about your evaluation.

That said, for Samara to argue so vociferously against a candidate who others like, she really needs to push herself to come up with something concrete beyond “I just don’t like him.” You could say something like, “I’d be hesitant about any candidate who you oppose so strongly, because I assume you’re picking up on something concerning. Can you use the next interview to try to pinpoint what it is that’s setting off alarm bells for you so that we have something more concrete to work with?”

Also! It’s not necessarily irrelevant that the one person on the hiring committee who’s strongly opposed to Jason is also the one woman on the committee … and Jason also had a “huge, blow-out fight” a few months ago with someone who, oh look, is also a woman. Push Samara to better articulate what’s setting off alarm bells for her, but keep that aspect in mind too.

Additional info #1: LW is a woman
Additional info #2: description of the fight:


Ehhhh…. It was sort of about the big beautiful bill? Like – Unrelated Other Guy: “I’m sad that they passed the Big Beautiful Bill.” Jason: “It’s actually good that they passed the Big Beautiful Bill!” My Wife: “The big beautiful bill includes legislation that removes my human rights and makes it very difficult and scary for me to exist in this country.” Jason: I will sacrifice any and all human rights for the sake of the Big Beautiful Bill, because it will benefit me financially.” My Wife: “That’s pretty -phobic” Jason: “CALLING A MAN -PHOBIC IS THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO IN WHOLE WORLD” (paraphrased, obviously)

ETa also check out how Jason resolves conflicts: https://www.askamanager.org/2025/06/i-fell-asleep-in-an-on-camera-meeting-candidates-resume-is-all-lies-and-more.html#comment-5124894

Comments

[cimorene]

Well. That's a tough one. So many of us would kneejerk, I think, to "don't hire this loathesome creep" about this sort of political issue, and with very good reason, but it's got to be too decide how to feel for LW when the only alternative is doing their own work as well as this prospect's... .

[green_grrl]

I know LW wants to get work off her plate, but having someone in the workplace who is argumentative and a jerk just creates more work of a different kind, and spills out negatively all over. Not worth it, honestly.

[castiron]

Once LW revealed that he'd said in the interview that he deals with conflict basically by arguing the other person into submission, I went "drop him from consideration; not worth it".

[conuly]

Guy sounds like an asshole. His conflict resolution is a hard NO.

[ysobel]

Also

Okay, so, this is actually the sticky part. I didn’t include this in the letter but maybe I should have – I’m like, 98% sure that Jason is autistic (my wife, Freddie, and the mutual friend are all autistic and tend to socialize primarily with other autistic people). Samara has a history of really bristling at autistic people, especially autistic men, so my first instinct was to assume that she was picking up on that and that was why she didn’t like him. However, yes, the rest of the comments have made a very good point that I don’t like him and hiring someone “fine” isn’t a good idea.

And from Alison

You absolutely are allowed to weigh that info. Always, but especially when it happens to be reinforcing concerns you already had!

(Also, sorry about getting your gender wrong! I don’t think that changes the advice, other than it removes the “oh look, the two people who have a bad feeling about him are the only two women involved.” But now we have three women, rather than two, feeling some degree of uneasy about him.)

What does change my advice is the detail you added above about him saying he argues until he gets his way. Don’t hire this guy.

And LW again, in response to

LW #2 – In my experience, I have never once had an easier time after hiring someone that I was on the fence about.

I once worked in a position with a remote office in a small town that required some specialized skills (think having a second language). Every time I had to hire for that role, our best candidates were just not great – often they were immature and combative.

During my tenure I had to fill that role three times, and every time it was settling for the best of what was available at the time. And, inevitably, things would go downhill quickly.

I spent so much time trying to get them to do their jobs, coaching them, reviewing their work, fixing messes, and then when it got to be too much, needing to go through the arduous process of termination that they cost me way more time than they saved.

My boss was so convinced we needed someone on the ground despite the constant drain on my time and patience. I eventually left that company in part due to how frustrating that situation became.

Whatever gains you think you might get will likely be balanced by – or even eliminated – having to deal with a bad employee.

says

Oy….. Yeah, I think I was so on the fence and in a twist about this because I really want the position filled but you (and other commenters) are right – it’s better to just leave it vacant than introduce all of this stress and drama.

[ysobel]

Oh goodness --

Actually, the job is almost entirely working with others! He would be responsible for doing a lot of outreach and relationship building with clients and partners, so yeah, even more of a big deal!

[ysobel]

and clarifying why she mentioned autism:

Yeah I feel that people have been misunderstanding my point with that, so to be clear, I was not saying “He acts like an ass because he’s autistic” I was trying to say “My colleague has a history of bias against people with autism and he has autism, so I should take her judgment with a grain of salt.” However, I no longer believe that to be the case, I think he is in fact just an ass.

[minoanmiss]

it can be difficult when someone with a marginalization is being an asshole to disentangle one's response of prejudice from one's response to jerkitude. I think we saw LW #2 do this in real time. (at least she did unlike all the "women be unreliable" sexists in the commnts.