Riff raff references and the reality about referees
The whole reference thing never fails to amaze me. When we need a plumber or mechanic or other solution provider we ask those we trust if they can recommend someone to undertake the work for us. We don’t ask complete strangers to recommend someone to fix our car or unblock our drain, yet when we employ someone we ask them to provide the names of people who will hopefully tell the truth about their ability to do a job, get on with work mates and generally add value to the organisation, but they are usually complete strangers to us and we still trust them. Spot the difference?
Naturally whoever is selected to be the referee is usually chosen because the job candidate likes them and thinks they will say all the right things, and generally they do. Why else would they ask them to be referees or provide references? However for the new employer the last thing they want to hear is spin, though there are a few employers out there who like to have their tentative first choice confirmed as they’ve already made up their mind about who they want to employ, though most would never admit to it.
A smart employer uses a reliable check list or template of questions when talking to former employers about the short-listed candidate to ensure nothing is missed or skewed, but sometimes it’s the comments that are made over and above the questions asked that reveal the most about a person. If extra info is provided without prompting, and it’s of a negative nature you need to establish why it’s being offered – maybe the former employer saw the candidate differently to how the candidate thought they did, or maybe the employer feels obligated to be brutally honest or provide a warning to save other employers from learning the hard way.
Of course the converse side to this is the employer who gives a glowing reference in order to get rid of their problem child, though there have been a few court cases over this so it doesn’t happen as frequently as it used to, fortunately.
If employers could choose who they seek references from instead of relying on referees being provided by the candidate they might be able to learn more, however this breaches the privacy laws of our country. They might know their former employer through another part of their life but they can’t quiz them on the candidate unless they seek and are given permission from the candidate to do so. And doing it casually or covertly is very dangerous, though it does happen but is usually impossible to prove.
Candidates can ask random people (friends, work mates, colleagues and others whose paths they’ve crossed) to vouch for them (and they do) but employers can’t legally approach someone the candidate reported to or worked closely with to do the same without the necessary permission. Seems a little unbalanced doesn’t it? Though I’m sure the civil liberty police wouldn’t agree.
These days savvy employers or recruiters insist on talking to someone the candidate has reported to recently, and insist on establishing the true relationship between candidate and referee thank goodness, but for the candidate who is quietly seeking a new job it isn’t always possible to supply the name of their current manager or boss without giving the game away. Wouldn’t life be a lot easier for everyone if the departing employee could come clean to their boss, tell them they are planning to leave and ask if they could be a referee for them, without risking dire consequences if they don’t get the new job and have to stay in their old one for a bit longer? Usually by this stage the employee in question has already made the psychological move from the organisation anyway so it’s just a matter of time until they actually leave. If they’re reasonably clued up they’ll be on their best behaviour during this phase anyway as they’ll be mindful of the value a former employer will play in any future job application process.
Many years ago my name was given as a referee by a former employee who was the employee from hell, a real problem child of the first order who hadn’t performed and who would have been pushed if they hadn’t jumped first. They hadn’t sought my permission to be a referee for them, nor even had the courtesy to discuss it with me first. I spent many a long phone call answering the usual questions until the recruiter got to the last one which asked if I’d employ the person again if a suitable vacancy existed, to which I said no, absolutely not, never in a million years, not even when hell freezes over. If they had asked this question first they could have saved us all a lot of time. Eventually I suggested to the recruiter that they should tell the former employee to use someone else as a referee as I could be considered a ‘hostile witness’ who would never be able to help them into their next job if I was expected to be honest. But it amazed me that it ever got this far in the first place and I wonder if I actually saved any other employers from a life of misery.
I wonder what happens to difficult employees who can’t find anyone to say a good word about them. Do they become one of the long term unemployed, do they find someone who’s prepared to lie for them, or do they manage to convey a convincing reason for why their last boss can’t be used as a referee. Maybe leopards do change their spots or do they turn into a chameleon where they blend into their new environment in order to survive?
I have many friends who are employers or managers and they all have stories to tell about employees who just didn’t get the need to leave on a good note, part on friendly terms, or value the relationship they had with their former boss. When I short list candidates for a job I’m really interested in who they’ve chosen as referees and why, but I’m even more interested in who they left out and why. Am I alone in this?
