Providing references
Paul in Cannon Beach
4,703 Posts
How honest and forthcoming are you when providing references for past employees?
Paul in Cannon Beach
4,703 Posts
Comments
At my last job we were not to volunteer information but could answer honestly any questions, so.......if the termed employee was a real ding dong, I would say to the prospective employer "Ask me if I would ever hire so and so again". Then I would answer with a big fat "NO!!! Not ever in this lifetime!"
If someone asks me if we would rehire the employee and I certainly would not I will say no hoping that they get the point that they were not the best of employees. I know it is not fair to the future employer but sometimes our hands are tied in what we can disclose on a reference check.
Have any of you or do you know any company that was actually sued over a reference provided?
Since most of our employees leave because they want to, it is not usually an issue anyway (we don't get calls for them, at least not for a few years.)
At a employment law class from the DOL the instructor said that in Oregon, an employer can give truthful references without being sued for liable. There was an employee that was displaying very odd and threatening behavior, i.e. writing on the bathroom mirror what he would like to do to another employee in terms of hurting him, etc. They let him go (I forget why) but when they were called for a reference they didn't disclose what he had been doing. They even went so far as to say he was a good employee because that was their policy and also because they were afraid of him.
At the new job, he started displaying the same kind of threatening behavior. They fired him and he came back and shot people. When this company found out he had been displaying this same behavior at his previous place of employment, they sued and won. I have never forgotten that story.
It is unfortunate that we can't give or receive complete references!
For the bad employees (and they are less frequent) I will be honest but I stick to whats documented in the file or just answer whatever questions I am asked. Often, I am only asked to give dates of employment.
Recently, I was grateful for a courageous employer who took the time to provide me a carefully worded reference that stopped me from making a big mistake by hiring someone in a fairly critical position.
One of her comments was "This person sometimes had a problem with what she says being what was."
My response "Hmm.. that sounds alot like lying".
Her response "Yes, that would be accurate."
This is mostly a liability invented by Labor Attorneys and consultants. I've dug into this several times in the past, and as near as I can tell, the only employers who have been smacked for giving bad references were clearly malicious.
As long as the employee has signed an authorization that you can provide me, I will tell you anything as long as it meets these criteria: It is documented, I believe it to be true, and It is work-related.
We owe that to each other.
We like to scare ourselves in HR with the boogeyman of potential liability when the real dangers of hiring disruptive or even harmful employees is a far greater (and real) liability.
Her theory is this: It's the applicants' job/responsibility to provide you with references that will talk to you -- not your responsibility to track down someone who will talk about the applicant.
While this may not be a viable option in some cases, it does seem like it should work for the most part. The way Carol explains it, a good employee should have a good enough relationship with a past supervisor, coworker, etc. to be able to go to them and say "I'm applying for a job. They are going to call you. Please talk to them." Unless there are company rules that expressly prohibit them from saying anything, that should be enough to have them talk to you.
Carol pointed out that there will always be excuses like "people at my current job don't know I'm looking" (red flag cause you may be treated like that later, but also, there should be another job or even school that the employee could find someone from), "they went out of business" (easy enough to confirm/disprove -- and with the age of Google, you can track down almost anyone), "I've lost track of them" (see previous Google comment).
But really, someone who has been a good employee should have people willing to vouch for them. If they can't come up with at least one or two people for you to talk to (Carol says she requires 4), are they going to be a good employee for you?
What Carol said really resonated with me. Every job I've ever applied for, I called the people I put down as references and asked them beforehand if it was OK. For my first "real" job at a newspaper (I'd worked at restaurants and other jobs that weren't really in the field), I called one of my graduate instructors (who had been my mentor when I was teaching as a graduate assistant) and asked her to be a reference. When I applied for my job here, I didn't tell everyone where I was working that I was looking for a new job (not trying to be sneaky, just avoiding the gossip bug), but I did tell my immediate supervisor and asked him to give me a reference. He actually gave me his home # to use b/c the newspaper policy was not to give "official" references.
It really does seem to me that Carol is right: If you've been a good employee (or student, volunteer, etc.) there should be people willing to give you references. Especially right now when so many of you are seeing 100s of applications for one job, it would seem to me that if someone can't come up with references that will talk to you, that should be an easy way to eliminate them from the running.
What are your thoughts on Carol's theory?
Celeste
Its the negative or semi-negative references that are difficult to find. Sometimes your choice isnt between a "good" applicant and a "bad" applicant. More often its between "good" and "better". So you really need references that offer specific information on what the applicant is ACTUALLY like in the workplace.
I have found that some of the worst applicants are the ones that provide the most written "positive references". They try to overwhelm you with copies of positive references. Its generally a red flag for me.
So my only problem with Carol's theory is that you often have two good applicants who can both provide good references. That's not difficult. What is difficult is finding the person who is willing to speak honestly and specifically about the individuals strengths and shortcomings.
Also, some companies will ask you to leave as soon as they find out you are looking.
I agree though, that good people should be able to come up with good references. There are always ways to get around those kinds of policies if you are determined. At our company what I have done in the past when an employee asked me to give a reference was agree to give a personal reference. Personally, I can attest to whether someone is reliable, honest, etc. I just can't speak for the company about whether the person followed company policy, etc.
Under Carol's solution, the most important job skill you could have is the ability to curry favor with glib co-conspirators. I'd rather hold out for people who have shown they can do the job, and left a tangible, documented record of that ability.