What Would You Do? Responses to “Is it a Red Flag?”
By John West Hadley
The Stepping Stone, May 2024
In the November 2023 issue of The Stepping Stone, I presented a situation where an actuarial candidate pushed for the hiring manager to upgrade the role for which she was interviewing by two levels. The question posed was this: Would you consider Samantha’s “push” a red flag, or a professional negotiation to seek an upgrade? (You can read the full situation at the link above).
Here are selected responses and excerpts, edited for space and clarity, followed by the real-life conclusion. (Please note that inclusion of responses should not be taken as an endorsement by either the Leadership & Development Section Council or the Society of Actuaries of the positions presented.) Send your own ideas for situations to pose in upcoming issues to SteppingStone@JHACareers.com.
Thanks to everyone who responded! There was quite a range of reactions, though the majority did see some serious red flags. These two did not:
Samantha is ambitious, which should not be held against her. I see no red flag and commend her for seeking an upgrade. Franklin needs to consider whether there is a future path on his team for an ambitious employee. If so, he should welcome the fact that Samantha wants to take on this challenge, and ensure that he will be able to provide support for her ambitions. If he believes he cannot provide such support, he should at a minimum say so, and at maximum recommend or sponsor her for another open role in the company that will suit her ambitions.
I would consider this a professional negotiation from a promising candidate. At the end of the day, Franklin does not have to upgrade the role, but there is nothing inherently wrong with her push for a higher role. None of her words or actions are unreasonable or overtly aggressive. I would actually be impressed by her confidence and willingness to speak up.
This actuary didn’t see a red flag, just food for thought and a need for honest dialogue:
Sometimes it’s difficult to find a good fit for a team. Since all the other interviewers seemed to like Samantha, if she is worthy of the promotion, then possibly the job description could be rewritten to reflect that in the job duties. Franklin should discuss this possibility with the team and HR to make sure it is possible and practical. If there is no wiggle room with the title and compensation, Franklin should let Samantha know she is overqualified, and if a higher position becomes available later, she would be a top contender and contacted to apply.
Being honest about the position and with Samantha should negate any red flag. It is ok for Samantha to ask for something, but it doesn’t mean Franklin has to comply. Stick to what is needed for the team and organization and be honest. Do not promise Samantha a future promotion that may not materialize just to get her now. Do not raise the position without reconsideration and a rewrite.
This respondent saw Samantha’s push as simply another data point in the decision process:
Samantha’s push is not so much a red flag, but an important data point in making the hiring decision. Franklin should first consider if he is staring a good opportunity in the face. Would his organization benefit from Samantha’s suggestion? If it would and the budget is there, perhaps reconsideration of the posting is in order.
If there is not sufficient budget, or the organization doesn’t need the position she is suggesting, then Franklin needs to candidly lay out the facts for Samantha. She may drop out of the candidate pool on her own accord. At the very least, Franklin should keep all of this in mind if he wants to offer her the position. She may well not have long-term potential and instead be a flight risk, which can be quite costly. That risk may push other qualified candidates ahead of Samantha in the recruiting pool.
This actuary felt there were serious red flags:
There is a statistic[1] that men apply for a job when they feel 60% ready while women wait until they are 100% ready. While I think women often need to be more ambitious in the workplace, this doesn’t feel like the appropriate way to do that. This is a red flag that would result in conflict if Franklin were to hire Samantha. I find it beneficial to work with people who are honest and trustworthy. I find these qualities essential to have a team that works well together.
Samantha has done a few things throughout the process that were neither of those things:
- She applied for the job under false pretenses and through her actions wasted many people’s time through the interview process, which costs the company money.
- She also wasted the recruiter’s time, as I don’t know any recruiter who would put forth a candidate looking for a position two levels higher than the posted job.
- She had interviews with other people and did not raise this issue, so even if Franklin would consider her proposition, the interview would need to be repeated, now targeted at a higher-level position.
The negotiation that Samantha is making would fit better at her current company, and I would encourage her to go that route rather than trying to pull a fast one on Franklin, his coworkers, and a recruiter.
And these as well:
I would want to know why Samantha applied for this job instead of ones with direct reports or higher-level jobs. Why should I rearrange my actuarial department? Industry-known experts who are brought in to reorganize departments don't apply for lower or intermediate level positions. If Samantha is looking for career advancement, I would not expect her to move to a new company for a job lower than her current position (or stay long if she did), so Samantha needs a better explanation of why she wants to move. I've seen some actuaries move for personal reasons (which can work out), others did not disclose that they were terminated as low performers (not so good for hiring company).
I have to focus on whether the candidate can do the job well, they have to focus on whether the job is right for them. But if they refuse to understand what the job is, I have to think there is a problem. If I hire this person, how long will they stay? Will they be a team player? Will they drive others away? It isn’t about hiring one person, but doing what is right for the team. It is fine to think highly of yourself, but that should come through as “what growth opportunities are there?” If this person is so great, why apply for a job at a lower level? Seems like a really bad choice to me.
It is a red flag regardless of how well Samantha interviewed. Assuming that she knows what the company needs by requesting they change their strategy so she can get her pay raise is a little arrogant. While a candidate is free to request their worth, Samantha's seeming approach is a bait and switch. That's not a sign of a team player but a person focused on self-gain. The pattern of using the strategy for multiple roles is a strong indication of it. Moreover, the move is a little condescending: the interviewer is a senior actuary, so what makes Samantha think they aren’t familiar enough to know that if a candidate is worth it, there are means to make it happen? Intentionally applying for a lower role, to then suggest combining other roles so she can get a higher title and pay raise is a selfish move. If I was the interviewer, I would have questioned her motives immediately and likely taken her out of consideration because that's a self-focused move that is bound to harm team dynamics.
The red flags, as I view them, are:
- If she knew the position was a level lower than her current one, why she is even considering this role? There may be more things going on in her current position where she feels the need to get out of it. It may not be things that reflect poorly on her, but is worth finding out more about her reasons.
- Given similar things had happened in other interviews, there is some potential for future management issues in developing this candidate. My concern would be continual negotiations on other employment related items in the future.
- If Samantha’s motive is solely financial, I don’t see a great likelihood in keeping her as a long term employee. There is usually someone who will pay more for their skills, and it usually doesn’t work out to be in a bidding war for those skills. If the work or the company isn’t enough reason to stay, money can only help for so long before the employee wants to find something new.
I would view it as a red flag. If Samantha were looking for a higher level job than advertised, she should have asked if this was something they would consider offering. I can see the viewpoint that once the candidate becomes a top contender for the position in the eyes of the hiring company, the candidate now has leverage, however, the job she wants and the one she is interviewing for are too different. In addition, since she has done this before I would be concerned. She will not be satisfied with the available job and I would not hire her.
Why would someone apply for a role with a lower rank to start with? While not everyone only cares about compensation, lower title definitely is a more public signal of career setbacks. So I might even just not extend any offer and move on to another candidate.
Here are two who fell somewhere in the middle:
It is common for young actuaries to be ambitious and want to quickly move up the corporate ladder. I don't think Samantha's eagerness to get ahead is the red flag, but her boldness in suggesting that she be hired at a job two levels higher could be. I would ask why she is applying for the current role if she thinks she is qualified for something significantly higher. Would she be willing to stick around or view the role as temporary until something better came along? If the role allows for growth, I would be comfortable hiring her for the current position and letting her know that the role will offer advancement opportunities based on her performance. If the role doesn't allow for future advancement, I would be less interested because I don't think she would be happy.
I think Samantha is throwing up a red flag, but that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be hired. I never have a problem with someone asking what it will take to get a promotion. It’s a good conversation (generally). Sometimes employees don’t understand the rigor around getting a position evaluated and graded. And promotions are rarely up to a manager solely. The red flag comes in when one feels “entitled” to a promotion, rather than seeking to find out what they need to do. The promotion satisfaction is fleeting— shortly thereafter, they are looking for the next promotion because it’s what they feel they earned. Part of that is on me as a manager for not getting to the root cause of why they wanted a promotion. The question for Franklin is whether or not his team structure supports the type of job Samantha has outlined. If so long term, then I would offer her the role I have and build towards that vision. If she’s as great as the rest of the interview went, she can get there quickly. I would think HR and Franklin’s manager would (and should) have a problem with him just pulling down the role and recreating a new one. He should also think about whether there is a long-term path for Samantha beyond even what she’s after today, as I suspect they’ll be having a similar conversation in the not too distant future.
This actuary felt there was mutual responsibility for miscommunication:
Sure it’s a red flag—but not that Samantha isn’t the right candidate. The red flags are that Franklin isn’t perfectly clear on what he is looking for and Samantha isn’t perfectly clear on what role she is looking to fill. The key to successful recruiting is communication. Franklin should go back and be sure what the requirements are for the role he is filling and then take the second step of clearly communicating those requirements (including compensation) with Samantha. This match could still be a win-win, but we don’t know yet because we aren’t all on the same page.
This actuary found fault with both the recruiter and Human Resources:
It takes nerve for Samantha to masquerade as a possible solution to a posted vacancy and then launch such a surprise gambit. Same goes for the recruiter if they had knowledge of Samantha's plan of attack. Even if Samantha did not conspire with the recruiter, I would wonder about any recruiter's decision to present a candidate for a job one level below their present level absent a very good reason. Additionally, how did corporate HR miss Samantha's current level/posted job level incongruity?
This actuary wondered if there might be more to the story:
It might be worth Franklin's while to try to discreetly ascertain whether Samanatha is somehow "connected" with an individual higher up in the organization, and is thereby immune from the consequences of transgressing the usual norms of interview behavior. Possibly someone's spouse using her maiden name, or a sister-in-law or second cousin? Maybe a former babysitter? Or perhaps even a paramour? How else might one account for Samantha's boldness as well as his organization's willingness to consider an actuary who makes it her practice to sail under false colors?
What Actually Happened?
Franklin spoke with the recruiter the next day, who agreed that Samantha following up and suggesting he re-structure the open postings to accommodate a higher level job was a red flag. He then spoke with a peer, who revealed that Samantha had previously applied for a position on his team and had a similar follow-up exchange, pushing to the point where one interviewer cautioned against hiring her. Finally, he spoke with one interviewer in the current round who had rated her highly, who agreed that the comments during the interview, but especially the follow-up communication, was problematic.
Franklin had given a lot of consideration to the job level, and was not inclined to increase it. Ultimately, he decided that the effect on the other team members of hiring Samantha would be very negative. If he hired her at the existing level, she had already revealed she believed she should be two job titles higher. With several other team members wanting to advance, this would put further pressure on the promotion pipeline. Worse, he feared that Samantha might exhibit behavior to maneuver for a more senior role immediately, damaging the team culture. She might also look to leave the role for a more senior role at the first chance.
Franklin decided not make an offer, and was glad he asked the question that surfaced the potential issue. He met the next day with the final candidate, who turned out to be excellent. He made him an offer and he accepted.
Statements of fact and opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily those of the Society of Actuaries, the newsletter editors, or the respective authors’ employers.
John Hadley was an FSA for many years, and now works with job seekers frustrated with their search. He can be reached at John@JHACareers.com or 908.725.2437. Find his free Career Tips newsletter and other resources at www.JHACareers.com. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnwesthadley/
Endnote
[1] https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified#:~:text=You've%20probably%20heard%20the,Code%20and%20dozens%20of%20articles