3 ms·
Provided references are at the core the worst way to judge if someone can do the job and the laziest way. If you want to rely on references you have to get the
by wolco 8y ago
Provided references are at the core the worst way to judge if someone can do the job and the laziest way. If you want to rely on references you have to get them yourself through background check or the risk of gamification is huge.
Get a sense of the projects they have worked on if those skills relate to the position. Make a decision based on that.
Random coding tests, whiteboarding, buzzword dropping are only helpful to a point.
- hluska 8y agoGood points - provided references are shit, simply because they can be gamed. If you work for me and I dislike you but don't have the courage to pull out the fire hammer, I can give you a great reference. If I really like you because you're extremely good (and make me look good), I can give you a horrible reference and hold onto you. However, OP was talking about internal references. This would be a situation where I work at Company A, but I know you and trust your work. Therefore, I refer you to Company A, big up you a little and suggest that they pursue hiring you. The difference is that if you suck, it reflects poorly on me (and quite likely kills my dreams of upward mobility). Normal provides references don't have the same motive to be truthful!
- yowlingcat 8y agoWhat? Is this just conjecture? If you give a bad reference to an employee you are directly putting you and the company in harm's way in terms of litigation. Usually, you just don't give a reference other than confirming tenure existence and duration if you won't go into positive detail.
- hluska 8y agoThat's a textbook answer, but in actual practice, the probability of litigation is extremely low.