If I had to hazard a guess at how many reasons I’ve heard for not considering someone for a role, I honestly don’t even know if I could come up with an accurate count. The number 487 springs to mind. Give or take a dozen. Or fifty.
I’ve heard everything from “they were too qualified” (what a scandal) to “they used Comic Sans on their CV” (fair, but still). But of all the excuses, justifications, and oddball red flags that seem to spook hiring managers, I’m not sure I’ve come across anything quite as self-defeating as rejecting someone based on where they’ve worked previously.
Yes, I know, some companies have, let’s say, reputations. And yes, some of those reputations are thoroughly earned through years of questionable decisions, toxic leadership, or ethics that make your skin crawl. I’m not suggesting we all turn a blind eye and sing kumbaya around the campfire with folks fresh out of the latest corporate scandal. But what I am saying, loudly and maybe with a slightly exasperated sigh, is that tarring every single former employee with the same brush is not just unfair. It’s lazy. And frankly, it’s costing you good talent.
Let’s unpack this.
There seems to be this automatic assumption that if someone worked at Organisation X (one of those companies) then they must be guilty by association. Complicit. Tainted. Somehow corrupted by the mere exposure to dodgy decision-making or questionable company culture. As if working at a place automatically means you’re aligned with every choice the leadership team ever made.
It’s ridiculous when you actually stop and think about it.
I know there are companies that do things a certain way (and by “a certain way” I mean ethically questionable, legally grey, and morally bankrupt), and I understand the fear that hiring someone from that background might mean importing those bad habits. No one wants to bring in someone who’s going to rock the boat, or worse, sink it.
“But here’s the thing: some people work at these places because they didn’t know better when they started. Maybe it was their first job out of uni. Maybe it was a company that used to have a great rep before it all went cactus. Maybe they took the role because, shock horror, they had bills to pay and mouths to feed and a lack of better options at the time. And crucially ,this is the kicker, maybe they’re leaving because they no longer want to be part of that, or never did.”
That, to me, is the definition of a red flag in reverse. It’s a green flag. Possibly even gold.
Take a moment and really consider that. If you’re concerned about the way an organisation operates (its values, its ethics, its treatment of people) then shouldn’t you be actively interested in people who saw the same issues and decided to get the hell out? Isn’t that the type of character you want on your team? Someone with a moral compass intact, someone who looked around and thought, “Nope, this isn’t it,” and decided to do something about it?
We saw a real-world example of this not all that long ago. Cast your mind back to 2024, when PwC Australia found itself front and centre of a scandal that had more legs than a centipede. There was no shortage of headlines, public outrage, government scrutiny, you name it. The whispers turned into shouts, and before you knew it, the company name was shorthand for “don’t even go there.”
“In the wake of all that, we had clients come to us and say outright, “We don’t want anyone from PwC.” And I get it. I do. There’s a stink, and people are afraid of it wafting into their business like the ghost of decisions past.”
But here’s the twist: at the very same time, we had current PwC employees coming to us with the exact opposite sentiment. They were trying to get out. They wanted distance. Some disagreed, ethically, with the decisions that had come to light. Others were concerned that even if they had nothing to do with the drama, they’d be judged by association and have it cling to them like a bad smell for the rest of their career.
And what did those candidates do? They took proactive steps. They started having the hard conversations. They asked for help. They wanted to find roles where their values would align with the company’s, where integrity and transparency weren’t just PR slogans on the website.
Now tell me… how is that not a sign of the kind of person you want to hire?
If there was an organisation out there that did things in a way we fundamentally disagreed with, say, treated people like disposable assets, or cooked the books, or had an office culture that made 1950s Mad Men look progressive, and someone applied to work with us having come from that environment, the first question I’d want to ask is: why are you leaving?
Because that answer tells you everything.
If the reason is, “I’ve grown, I’ve learned, and I’m not okay with how things were done there,” that’s not a red flag. That’s someone holding up a flare saying, “Get me out of here, I want to work somewhere that actually values decency.” I don’t know about you, but I’ll take that over a vanilla, play-it-safe, never-had-a-bad-day-in-my-career type any day.
Of course, it’s important to acknowledge that not everyone leaves for noble reasons. There will be people who absorbed the worst traits of their previous workplaces, who drank the Kool-Aid and came back for seconds. But that’s what interviews, reference checks, and probation periods are for. You can separate the sheep from the wolves if you’re willing to ask the right questions.
This is why it’s so important to be aware of our own biases as recruiters, hiring managers, and business leaders. Whether you’re internal or external, whether you’re hiring one person a year or a hundred, we’ve all got to work actively against the knee-jerk reaction to judge a book by the logo on the front cover of their CV.
Because let me tell you, those logos don’t always tell the full story. Sometimes, they’re the setting, not the plot. Sometimes, they’re just the backdrop to a much more interesting narrative about resilience, growth, and someone’s determination to be better than the environment they were handed.
In recruitment, we talk a lot about talent shortages. Skills gaps. The war for talent. And yet, sometimes we make it harder than it needs to be by writing people off based on things they couldn’t fully control. Worse, we risk missing out on exactly the kind of people we say we want: self-aware, values-driven, capable of adapting to a new and better way of working.
So, here’s a gentle (read: mildly exasperated) plea to those making hiring decisions: don’t make it harder than it has to be. Don’t slam the door shut on someone purely because their last employer made headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Instead, open the door to the conversation. Ask the questions. Give people the opportunity to show who they are now, not just where they’ve been. You might just be surprised by what you find.
And who knows? That person walking away from a questionable company might be exactly the one who helps yours become even better.
Deon Haar is a regular contributor to Hire Note.
Deon Haar
Global Practice Leader – ICG Search | Co-Founder – Talent United | Recruitment Innovator
Deon Haar is a seasoned recruitment strategist with over 18 years of experience in talent acquisition, employer branding, and recruitment innovation. As the Global Practice Leader at ICG Search and Co-Founder of Talent United, he has been instrumental in reshaping recruitment practices across Australia, New Zealand, and beyond.
Deon’s expertise spans diverse sectors, including accounting, finance, IT, government, and fintech. He is renowned for his strategic approach to talent attraction and acquisition, delivering innovative, technology-driven solutions to clients ranging from startups to large enterprises .
A recognised thought leader in the Australian recruitment industry, Deon has co-founded seven recruitment brands under the Talent United banner and served as an Area Leader for NPA Worldwide, the world’s largest recruitment cooperative. His commitment to ethical recruitment practices and his advocacy for mental health awareness reflect his dedication to both professional excellence and community engagement.
