Getting a reference from a candidate for a job is almost as deeply engrained in charity sector thinking as equal opportunities. Yet the value to the recruiting organisation is deeply questionable. Not sure you believe me? Ask yourself these two questions:
- How many times have heard you of a job offer being withdrawn on the basis of references?
- How many times have you told the whole truth about a candidate as a referee?
My guess is that most people reading this article will have to scratch their head and think before answering the first question and will probably say ‘on many occasions’ in answer to the second.
The psychology of references for a job is all wrong. For starters, references tend to only be taken up once the job has been offered. The referee knows this and so does the candidate. So if you think a candidate is brilliant and they are still working for you, you have a good reason to downplay their skills. If a candidate is poor and still working for you, you have a reason to say the person is wonderful. Is this a recipe for getting honest answers?
Even when a candidate is no longer working for a referee, the problems don’t disappear. From the potential employer’s point of view, a candidate gets to pick their referees, so you couldn’t expect a completely unbiased view. As a referee, I also wonder how long is too long for my views to be valid? I have done references for people I have worked with more than ten years ago. I may have thought they were great – but that was ten years ago...
To pick an example of another problem, many of our candidates for nfpSynergy’s intern programme have academics for referees. Whether somebody is brilliant at essays is not necessarily a good guide to their brilliance in the world of work.
Even if the relevance and validity of referees is overcome, another problem is that a referee knows that they are all that stands between a person and a job. What reason, what motivation could I have to say negative things about a person months or usually years after I have worked with them.
My view is that jobs are like marriages; just because one job may not have worked out doesn’t mean that all subsequent jobs won’t. So having worked with somebody, I usually feel a greater sense of allegiance to the candidate than an organisation I don’t know at all. (Of course I should make clear that most of the people I have worked with have been utterly brilliant and so I have no problem in giving them glowing references).
Even if the relevance and neutrality of a referee is sorted, then what gets asked and when it’s asked are still important.
There is no doubt that asking for references once a job offer has been made is fairly pointless. Human psychology is such that the prospective employer hears what they want to hear. I have told prospective employers some pretty strong stuff about candidates, but they still get appointed. If a job is offered subject to references, then it is as good as offered unconditionally.
What people ask for in references is often delightfully useless. I always chuckle when some I get asked to comment on people’s time-keeping, their honesty or their sickness record. Sometimes, it is even the exact dates they worked for us. Is this the information that separates the good candidates from the bad?
In contrast to the form where I am asked to rank mundane features of past colleagues’ working lives, there are the phone calls. I strongly feel that if you want my honest opinion, you need to ring me up when there are still half a dozen candidates in the running. That way, if I do have something bad to say I feel able to say it without snatching a job out of somebody’s hands when they’ve already been offered it. Equally, use LinkedIn or Facebook to see if you know somebody that has also worked with the candidate.
When I told somebody I was writing this blog, they commented ‘Isn’t it now illegal to say anything negative about somebody in a job reference’. Now that to me sounds like an urban myth*. However, it does probably represent what many people have known for some time; in very few cases does a reference ever get near the truth of anything other than brilliant candidates.
So going forward, here would be my five rules of using references:
- Treat any reference from a current employer with deep scepticism
- Take up references at the interview stage, not the job offer stage
- Pick up the phone, don’t use a form
- See if you know anybody who might not be chosen by the candidate
- And sometimes, it may be better to trust in a thorough interview process including the team that the person will manage, rather than references
Could you apply our views to your own? Or do we need to call a referee in on this one? Leave us a comment below.
*Our lawyer would like to make clear I know nothing about employment law. Try https://www.gov.uk/work-reference for proper info.
Spot on. There's maybe a
Spot on. There's maybe a point to verifying the bare facts of a candidate's previous employment history, but in the end there's no replacement for a probationary period. As a manager you do need to use that probationary period well - provide good induction and support, then, if you have concerns, take action to help your worker improve... or say good bye.
We gave up taking references
We gave up taking references eight years ago after recruiting someone with glowing references (on the phone and in writing)which turned out to be useless as the person was moving into a different role for which they turned out to be entirely unsuited. I think they are a waste of space. It's what people can achieve in the future in your organisation that matters not what they did in the past in a different organisation.
I've thought this before. I
I've thought this before. I came to the conclusion that it's only done to cover one's arse, particularly as many charities work with vulnerable people. I know CRB should catch these things but can you imagine the outcry if someone abused a beneficiary having done it at the last place and handn't checked? Ironically to get rid of them the last place might not have revealed their suspicions anyway. A waste of time but they aren't going away fast.
In my view references are
In my view references are only relevant where the subject is applying for position 'like for like' and the reference is about their capability of role,or where the subject is known personally by the referee and is a reference regarding the personal attributes of the subject.
Making negative comments IS
Making negative comments IS very dangerous. Firstly, if you write or say "pretty strong stuff" about a candidate which can't be backed up with firm evidence it could easily be deemed defamatory, especially, when someone's livelihood is at stake; doubly so when an offer already made could be withdrawn. Do you really want a letter from a solicitor as a result of your "honesty"? That's why subjectivity e.g. "not a team player", "obstructive", is to be avoided. And yes, there have have occasions where successful legal action has been taken. Secondly - and this applies only to current employers - why, if that employee is so bad are they still working for you? Doesn't make you look very competent or indeed capable of giving a professional opinion that can be relied on. References are only there to prove a person was there at the time they say they were and doing the job they said they had. Otherwise, useless.
Good sense. I haven't sought
Good sense. I haven't sought to verify the truth of it (and thought this might be your urban legend), but have been told that in the US referees have been sued for saying negative things. But got my first job in the sector when the first choice's referee apparently said that he would be delighted to see the back of him, so they're not entirely useless!
Probationary periods of
Probationary periods of employment do not really exist anymore. Someone is either employed or they are not, you can't be a little bit employed. Terminating someone during or at the end of a "probationary period" is just the same as any other termination with the same employee rights.
It's not illegal to say negative things about someone but as people can ask to see their references, referees may have to justify their comments and defend any action arising.
Asking about sickness and other forms of absence is really important. If someone has had 30 days absence in the previous 12 months, you need to know why. Recovering from an operation is one thing, frequent and lengthy stress-related absences are another. Most employers, no matter how progressive, struggle to deal with staff with poor attendance and will happily see them move on. Do you want to inherit their problem?
I still use references. I get the factual stuff in writing and the opinion over the phone. I have often found that the previous employer is the most useful - so long as they are not too previous. I have a basic view that if someone lacks the intelligence to provide two positive referees, then they probably won't do that well working for me.
However in the end references are a tiny part of a selection process which should focus knowing what the role requires, a strong process and a real sense of what the team needs to make it stronger.
In my experience, references
In my experience, references are an valuable aid in choosing amongst applicants. But, and there is a but, you have to manage the process correctly. Ask for a written reference as soon as you havee a short list. After the interview, telephone the referee with specific questions, aimed at breaking through the barrier of kndness of the referee: many people are reluctant to put a spoke in the wheel of someone they know well.
If the reference is homest and objective, it is a great help.
References always assume that
References always assume that the candidate may have the problem, not the employer they left. Why should a good candidate have to give as a referee an employer who has done something wrong? How many of us can list previous referees who have themselves later been sacked for good reason? How many people have been told to do something illegal or you won't get a reference. One of my previous referees was forced out of their role by Government for serious misdemeanours widely publicised in the press. Another employer asked me to get staff to cover up an error he made, and not to give them a not to give them a refrence if they weren't prepared to be involved in the cover up. How many who worked at the BBC, News of the World etc now regret the referees they used? The whole area of references is seriously flawed and needs a wide debate.
Interesting that this entire
Interesting that this entire debate is based on the presumption that this is a wholly employers’ market. For prospective employees who are in need of a job, an employer can pretty much make whatever demands they want that the candidate must jump through. But for the more speculative applications, where a candidate has an existing permanent role that they don’t need to leave, the more barriers the employer puts up the less incentive there is to apply. Arguably it’s these candidates who are the more interesting ones. And no matter how good and honest my relationship with my current employer is, I certainly would think twice about jeopardising that by asking them to give a reference for a job I don’t even know if I’ll get.
Requesting references prior to final selection also makes quite a negative statement about the prospective employer: either that they don’t have much faith in their own judgement, or they have had problems with recruiting good employees previously.
So, you might have a marginally better selection process. But you may be choosing from a smaller pool of applicants.