An impressive resume. A manufactured reputation.
An employer hired an executive whose employment history appeared exceptional. His experience suggested a strong track record, and glowing references reinforced the impression that the company had secured a valuable addition to its leadership team. He also brought intellectual property that he represented as his own, offering what appeared to be another advantage for his new employer.
After the executive joined; however, the employer began to sense that something was wrong. The confidence created during recruitment was giving way to questions about his background and the credibility of his claims. Rather than dismissing those concerns, the employer retained us to establish what lay behind them.
Our investigation examined both the executive’s employment history and the people who had vouched for him. The references initially appeared to provide independent confirmation of his abilities and accomplishments. Closer examination revealed hidden connections to the executive, undermining their independence and establishing that they had helped present a misleading picture to support his hiring.
Further inquiries established a spotty work history that differed materially from the exceptional record presented during recruitment. The reassuring narrative began to unravel as we tested the claims against information from his previous employment.
The intellectual property required particular scrutiny. The executive had claimed ownership, but inquiries with his former employer established that the material belonged to that company and had been stolen. What the new employer had understood to be an asset brought into the business was, in fact, another employer’s property.
The investigation gave our client a clearer understanding of both the person they had hired and the material he had introduced into their organization. Fortunately, the employer had recognized the warning signs and came to us seeking independent verification rather than continuing to rely on the assurances that had supported the appointment.
This case illustrates why executive due diligence needs to examine more than an impressive resume and a collection of enthusiastic references. Employment claims need verification, reference relationships need context, and intellectual property presented as a candidate’s own needs a credible explanation of its ownership and origin.
A reference is only as useful as its independence. A claimed asset is only an advantage when the person offering it has the right to bring it.
When hiring an executive, how do you verify that their references are independent, their achievements are genuine, and the assets they promise to bring are actually theirs to offer?
Explore the investigative services used to uncover the facts in this case:
