5 ms·

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, per the article: He also said that often, lukewarm or bad reference checks can cause delays in the process, and recruiters may no

by vanusa 5y ago

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, per the article: He also said that often, lukewarm or bad reference checks can cause delays in the process, and recruiters may not be willing to explain this to candidates in order to protect the people who gave references. So in other words -- some bright sparks inside the hiring pipeline at Stripe sat down and consciously decided to give candidates "offers" -- with the full appearance of being, you know, actual real, true, final offers -- knowing perfectly well that they were still in due diligence phase. To make things, you know, "faster". I guess that's just the way Stripe is, as a company.

arez 5y ago
what background checks are they running even? I never heard about that, other then maybe calling your reference but that's about it (I'm not from the US if that matters)
- exhilaration 5y ago
  Criminal record, terrorism watchlists, sex offender lists. I just got a new job and the company used these guys for the background check: https://www.goodhire.com/ https://www.goodhire.com/
matthewmacleod 5y ago
As far as I am aware this approach is basically universal. It's impractical to check references before the offer stage, since the majority of candidates will not want their existing employer to be contacted for a reference until they have accepted the offer.
- MAGZine 5y ago
  I have the opposite experience: reference calls are done BEFORE giving an offer, so you don't have to undo the offer or put yourself in an awkward situation like stripe has done. Yes, you should be careful about which references you use, and if you're going to use current colleagues/managers, to let them know you're searching ahead of time (normally you should ask before selecting someone anyhow--so it shouldn't be a surprise).
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Who even collects references nowadays?
  - aliswe 5y ago
    In swedish we call them "consultant brokers", like the huge company eWork, require two references to receive your application. Well they did when I was active with them, more than 10 years ago. Which was very frustrating, as I needed to check with my references before sending, and often they were never contacted.
  - throwaway19937 5y ago
    I interviewed at Tableau a few years ago; they collected and called my references.
- quelltext 5y ago
  > the majority of candidates will not want their existing employer to be contacted for a reference until they have accepted the offer. That's even more of an issue, no? You accept the offer but don't yet resign (as others have said one should) until final confirmation, they tell your employer that you are joining, then rescind the offer, and now what?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Which is why no employer has ever checked my current company. They check with my past managers.
- playpause 5y ago
  Then the offer should be "pending reference checks" so the candidate knows it's not a final offer yet.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Exactly. But for some reason this extremely obvious (and universally applied) fix the the problem never occurred to to hiring folks at Stripe. Or it did occur to them, but they cynically chose against it. To make things, you know, "faster".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vanusa 5y ago
  As far as I am aware this approach is basically universal. It is definitely not universal practice to offer candidates, as Stripe did, "contingent" job offers while presenting them as "final" offers.
  - matthewmacleod 5y ago
    I have literally no insight into the actual text used by Stripe for offers, so I can't say if they misrepresent their nature or not. The point was just a general one – that in most cases, I would expect an offer to be contingent on references and for those references not to be contacted until I'd accepted the offer. The expectations around this could, of course, vary from region to region.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      I have literally no insight into the actual text used by Stripe for offers, so I can't say if they misrepresent their nature or not. I think we can safely assume the candidates interviewed for the article were reasonably intelligent, and would not have missed language in the offer letter indicating that it was "contingent" and subject to due diligence still in progress.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      > in most cases, I would expect an offer to be contingent on references You work in tech in the Bay Area and this is your expectation? It's certainly not mine - I don't expect them to call anyone at my current employer and would be annoyed if they did.
      - matthewmacleod 5y ago
        You work in tech in the Bay Area I absolutely do not – I work in tech in the UK. That's why I added the proviso that expectations might vary regionally. However, if I were to explicitly provide a contact at my current employer as a reference (which seems to be broadly standard practice in this country) then I'd expect them to be contacted.
- mrkstu 5y ago
  Why would a current company need to be a reference? The fact of your continuing employment should be sufficient. I never use my current employer as a reference and never give notice till the background check fully clears.
- justin66 5y ago
  > As far as I am aware this approach is basically universal. You are poorly informed. > It's impractical to check references before the offer stage, There's a useful distinction here between a verbal, paperwork-pending sort of offer and a written offer, although seriously, contacting references is not that big a deal. You're talking about a few phone calls. An applicant has every right to assume you've done all the relevant work before extending a written offer, unless you inform them otherwise. > since the majority of candidates will not want their existing employer to be contacted for a reference until they have accepted the offer. The majority of candidates are smart enough not to use individuals at their existing employer as references without talking to them about it first. It would be extraordinary for a company to contact someone at the current employer of a potential hire willy-nilly, without permission, as it could put them in an actionable position. Everyone understands the issues involved. Perhaps you're confusing a reference check with a date of employment check. No HR department is going to hold it against an employee if someone calls them asking to verify that employee's date of employment. It's a procedure that's used for a lot of things, not just hiring.
  - matthewmacleod 5y ago
    You are poorly informed. I think it's maybe rather that these processes and expectations can be quite different in different places, and naturally my views are based on my own experiences rather than my position as a single infallible global oracle :) It certainly seems like cultural expectations of what constitutes an "offer" or a "reference" in the US is somewhat different from what I understand in the UK.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Maybe don't use words like basically universal then.
gkoberger 5y ago
This seems to be blaming Stripe for something Coinbase does. It's possible that this is what happened, but Brian is guessing like the rest of us. 1/ it's still no excuse for ghosting completely 2/ there's no indication this was the cause of what happened with Stripe.
- vanusa 5y ago
  This seems to be blaming Stripe for something Coinbase. The quotes were Armstrong's attempt to defend the actions of Stripe. So yes, this is Stripe's actions we're referring to here.
TideAd 5y ago
I think he threw this background check thing out there as a red herring. You're telling me that a standard background check for a candidate succeeded for Google and two other big tech companies but not Stripe? No, what probably happened is that the job opening was for a particular team, but the team got re-orged and some exec took the headcount away from them.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Agreed, that is by far the most likely explanation. What's interesting about his attempted "save" is that (aside from being pure speculation) it just comes off so... snide. Basically what he's saying is: "Yeah, we kind of cut corners with those people, but you know what? They forced our hand - first by having lukewarm references, and second, for being so damned emotionally fragile and oversensitive to the implicit criticism of having this hard truth delivered to them."

by vanusa 5y ago

arez 5y ago

what background checks are they running even? I never heard about that, other then maybe calling your reference but that's about it (I'm not from the US if that matters)

exhilaration 5y ago
Criminal record, terrorism watchlists, sex offender lists. I just got a new job and the company used these guys for the background check: https://www.goodhire.com/ https://www.goodhire.com/

matthewmacleod 5y ago

As far as I am aware this approach is basically universal. It's impractical to check references before the offer stage, since the majority of candidates will not want their existing employer to be contacted for a reference until they have accepted the offer.

MAGZine 5y ago
I have the opposite experience: reference calls are done BEFORE giving an offer, so you don't have to undo the offer or put yourself in an awkward situation like stripe has done. Yes, you should be careful about which references you use, and if you're going to use current colleagues/managers, to let them know you're searching ahead of time (normally you should ask before selecting someone anyhow--so it shouldn't be a surprise).
whimsicalism 5y ago
Who even collects references nowadays?
- aliswe 5y ago
  In swedish we call them "consultant brokers", like the huge company eWork, require two references to receive your application. Well they did when I was active with them, more than 10 years ago. Which was very frustrating, as I needed to check with my references before sending, and often they were never contacted.
- throwaway19937 5y ago
  I interviewed at Tableau a few years ago; they collected and called my references.
quelltext 5y ago
> the majority of candidates will not want their existing employer to be contacted for a reference until they have accepted the offer. That's even more of an issue, no? You accept the offer but don't yet resign (as others have said one should) until final confirmation, they tell your employer that you are joining, then rescind the offer, and now what?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
MattGaiser 5y ago
Which is why no employer has ever checked my current company. They check with my past managers.
playpause 5y ago
Then the offer should be "pending reference checks" so the candidate knows it's not a final offer yet.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Exactly. But for some reason this extremely obvious (and universally applied) fix the the problem never occurred to to hiring folks at Stripe. Or it did occur to them, but they cynically chose against it. To make things, you know, "faster".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vanusa 5y ago
As far as I am aware this approach is basically universal. It is definitely not universal practice to offer candidates, as Stripe did, "contingent" job offers while presenting them as "final" offers.
- matthewmacleod 5y ago
  I have literally no insight into the actual text used by Stripe for offers, so I can't say if they misrepresent their nature or not. The point was just a general one – that in most cases, I would expect an offer to be contingent on references and for those references not to be contacted until I'd accepted the offer. The expectations around this could, of course, vary from region to region.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    I have literally no insight into the actual text used by Stripe for offers, so I can't say if they misrepresent their nature or not. I think we can safely assume the candidates interviewed for the article were reasonably intelligent, and would not have missed language in the offer letter indicating that it was "contingent" and subject to due diligence still in progress.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > in most cases, I would expect an offer to be contingent on references You work in tech in the Bay Area and this is your expectation? It's certainly not mine - I don't expect them to call anyone at my current employer and would be annoyed if they did.
    - matthewmacleod 5y ago
      You work in tech in the Bay Area I absolutely do not – I work in tech in the UK. That's why I added the proviso that expectations might vary regionally. However, if I were to explicitly provide a contact at my current employer as a reference (which seems to be broadly standard practice in this country) then I'd expect them to be contacted.
mrkstu 5y ago
Why would a current company need to be a reference? The fact of your continuing employment should be sufficient. I never use my current employer as a reference and never give notice till the background check fully clears.
justin66 5y ago
> As far as I am aware this approach is basically universal. You are poorly informed. > It's impractical to check references before the offer stage, There's a useful distinction here between a verbal, paperwork-pending sort of offer and a written offer, although seriously, contacting references is not that big a deal. You're talking about a few phone calls. An applicant has every right to assume you've done all the relevant work before extending a written offer, unless you inform them otherwise. > since the majority of candidates will not want their existing employer to be contacted for a reference until they have accepted the offer. The majority of candidates are smart enough not to use individuals at their existing employer as references without talking to them about it first. It would be extraordinary for a company to contact someone at the current employer of a potential hire willy-nilly, without permission, as it could put them in an actionable position. Everyone understands the issues involved. Perhaps you're confusing a reference check with a date of employment check. No HR department is going to hold it against an employee if someone calls them asking to verify that employee's date of employment. It's a procedure that's used for a lot of things, not just hiring.
- matthewmacleod 5y ago
  You are poorly informed. I think it's maybe rather that these processes and expectations can be quite different in different places, and naturally my views are based on my own experiences rather than my position as a single infallible global oracle :) It certainly seems like cultural expectations of what constitutes an "offer" or a "reference" in the US is somewhat different from what I understand in the UK.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Maybe don't use words like basically universal then.

gkoberger 5y ago

This seems to be blaming Stripe for something Coinbase does. It's possible that this is what happened, but Brian is guessing like the rest of us. 1/ it's still no excuse for ghosting completely 2/ there's no indication this was the cause of what happened with Stripe.

vanusa 5y ago
This seems to be blaming Stripe for something Coinbase. The quotes were Armstrong's attempt to defend the actions of Stripe. So yes, this is Stripe's actions we're referring to here.

TideAd 5y ago

I think he threw this background check thing out there as a red herring. You're telling me that a standard background check for a candidate succeeded for Google and two other big tech companies but not Stripe? No, what probably happened is that the job opening was for a particular team, but the team got re-orged and some exec took the headcount away from them.

vanusa 5y ago
Agreed, that is by far the most likely explanation. What's interesting about his attempted "save" is that (aside from being pure speculation) it just comes off so... snide. Basically what he's saying is: "Yeah, we kind of cut corners with those people, but you know what? They forced our hand - first by having lukewarm references, and second, for being so damned emotionally fragile and oversensitive to the implicit criticism of having this hard truth delivered to them."