Isn’t that the truth, unfortunately? We ignore evidence like this, think it’s irrelevant, or even inappropriate to consider – especially, as you noted, in the face of otherwise commendable credentials.

And as you also say, when it makes its presence felt, it does so in concrete ways that harm, or can even destroy, an organization.

It’s a shame the organization you are working with is suffering from this person’s shortcomings – and from their own unwillingness to address them frankly, upon making the hiring decision or subsequently.

It’s only fortunate that you are there to help them sort it out and recover.

Thanks, as always, for your thoughts and your illuminating example.

This is so poignant. Am currently involved in a situation whose foundational issue is one of character. As I look at the history, there were indicators and even evidence along the way. Yet no one wanted to address “character,” as it was “too nebulous and “unconfirmable.”

Hardly. The impact of the deep character flaws have now affected the performance of others. What could have been nipped early on has now literally reached global proportions.

I had to ask myself, “What is it that stopped people from noticing these indicators at the outset?” The only answer I can come up with: They didn’t want to see them. They wanted to fill a key position with someone matching certain criteria. And they wanted to “get it done.”

Sadly, the explicit criteria were all technically behavioral and achievement-related. Matters of character were never discussed overtly. As so often happens, it was assumed that anyone with “that kind of a career-history and academic background” would certainly have “everything else.”

Instead of going to the well, they went to the inkwell.

Thanks for the post, Jim.