Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Interen]

Recently I got phone interviewed for a patent agent type of position. I learned during the phone that the position is new. The guy on the position left. If I do get an onsite chance, which seems I will, would it be too much to ask why the earlier employee left? I guess I may never find the actual reason, unless I suddenly find the quitted guy and become his close friend.

[blakesq]

I think you probably can find out  who it was through the USPTO roster, and give the former employee a call to see why he left.  Its a good Idea.  I took a position once, and if only I had found out why the former employee left, I never would have taken it. 

[Interen]

Thanks, Blak. Good idea! I can find the latest person from the firm who registered at PTO is Oct, 2010. I assume this might be the person who left. I will try to see whether I can get a hold of him...

[ascent4man]

Maybe it depends on your personality but I'd just ask.
Ask at the interview ; I believe it's a fair question and the worst they can say is that it's
none of your business.  Of course you may choose your words carefully such as
"how did this position open up" rather than "why did they leave".
I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the explanation if you like the company and the people, however.
It might have just been a personality conflict, which wouldn't necesarily correlate to another new hire.
  Also - you may learn more by what they don't say in reply.

[UVAgal4]

I don't know, I certainly wouldn't ask during the interview. It is nosy. There are plenty of reasons for someone to leave that have nothing to do with the job itself.

[plex]

It is pretty easy finding the former employee and you would also get the most honest answer from him/her. It would be, at the very least, an uncomfortable question for the employer to answer during an interview, and you would likely only get a diplomatic answer.

[smgsmc]

It is pretty easy finding the former employee and you would also get the most honest answer from him/her. It would be, at the very least, an uncomfortable question for the employer to answer during an interview, and you would likely only get a diplomatic answer.

I don't think this is a good assumption.  What if the employee were fired for incompetence, theft, or sexual harassment?  Would the ex-employee give you an honest answer?  Unless you have a close friend in the firm who knows the details, I don't think you will get a straight answer.  The ex-employee is not likely to 'fess up to a stranger, and the employer may be concerned about getting sued if he bad-mouths the ex-employee.  Similar considerations would apply if the fault were to stem from the employer's actions.

[blakesq]

Smgsmc, is your solution to not ask questions then about why former employees are no longer there??  I think more information is better than less. 

It is pretty easy finding the former employee and you would also get the most honest answer from him/her. It would be, at the very least, an uncomfortable question for the employer to answer during an interview, and you would likely only get a diplomatic answer.

I don't think this is a good assumption.  What if the employee were fired for incompetence, theft, or sexual harassment?  Would the ex-employee give you an honest answer?  Unless you have a close friend in the firm who knows the details, I don't think you will get a straight answer.  The ex-employee is not likely to 'fess up to a stranger, and the employer may be concerned about getting sued if he bad-mouths the ex-employee.  Similar considerations would apply if the fault were to stem from the employer's actions.

[smgsmc]

Smgsmc, is your solution to not ask questions then about why former employees are no longer there??  I think more information is better than less. 

Unless I had a trusted source, I wouldn't ask.  I would rather have no information than be influenced by invalid information.  How many execs truly resign "to pursue other interests"?

[smgsmc]

 In a previous life, I supervised lab techs.  Here are four real scenarios in which techs left.

(1) Tech was competent and hard working.  She became pregnant and was concerned about possible exposure to toxic chemicals used on the job.  (Safety precautions were strictly enforced, but there's never a 100% guarantee.)  I transferred her to  a job which did not require chemical processing.  Threw her a baby shower. Amicable resolution.

(2) Tech was competent and hard working.  But she was becoming bored.  In the current org, she couldn't advance to a principal investigator without a PhD.  I encouraged her to apply to grad school to get a PhD, and she did.  Wished her future success.  Amicable resolution.

(3) Tech was very sloppy.  His yields were much lower than other techs'.  He was cautioned several times and given additional training.  He continued to be sloppy.  I gave him the boot.  Not so friendly parting of the ways.

(4) Tech was very competent, but he was running several businesses on the side ... on company time (and I mean at the detriment of his assigned duties throughout the day, not during lunch).  I warned him several times to knock it off.  He didn't.  I gave him the boot.  Not so friendly parting of the ways.


In (1) and (2), there is no stigma attached.  If you ask me and the techs why there's an opening, you'll likely get straightforward, consistent , accurate, candid reasons.  In (3) and (4), that's not likely.

[asdfasdf]

I've been able to get away with asking what kind of turnover rate the firm had.  The one time I had a negative reaction I was sure it was a 'bad place.'  This doesn't ask questions about the agent in particular, but it could provoke discussion as to why he left.