4 ms·

> When checking references for a job applicant, employers may be reluctant or prohibited from saying anything negative, so leave or send a message that says, “

by ehnto 5y ago

> When checking references for a job applicant, employers may be reluctant or prohibited from saying anything negative, so leave or send a message that says, “Get back to me if you highly recommend this applicant as super great.” If they don’t reply take that as a negative. Big disagree here, that's not fair at all to the applicant. Some people are just terrible referees and it's hard to know that as the applicant until someone lets you down. Some people mean to reply but forget, some people are too busy to answer and don't get back to you, some people just don't want to even though they think you'd be an excellent candidate. On top of that, with people moving around so much it can be hard to nail down recent contact details. If somewhere I'm applying to work can't get a hold of someone, I'd very much expect them to reach back out to me in order to resolve the issue, if they can't do me that courtesy then I guess I'll be working somewhere else.

CPLX 5y ago
Yeah that advice is horrible. Someone could forget or change voicemail systems or have your email go to spam. It’s not a signal of anything. Doubly so as I’ve had the experience of totally unqualified people with great references. Checking references and figuring out when you’re getting real feedback on topics relevant to the new job is a practiced art.
- 21723 5y ago
  It's not just horrible advice. It's dangerous and unethical. In Silicon Valley or on Wall Street, when people lose jobs on reference checks, people often get hit men sent to their house, and while the objective usually is just intimidation, all sorts of bad things can happen in that situation. Putting someone at risk of getting killed because "his references weren't as enthusiastic as I expect everyone to be" is fucking immoral.
  - golergka 5y ago
    > In Silicon Valley or on Wall Street, when people lose jobs on reference checks, people often get hit men sent to their house What?!
    - 21723 5y ago
      It's not that surprising. Reputation is a big deal in Silicon Valley. The people who won't do whatever is necessary--even end a human life, if it comes to that--to defend their reputations end up having theirs taken away. I'm not saying this is a good or moral thing. It's obviously not.
    - metacritic12 5y ago
      GP comment seems false to me. Being well within both groups, I've never heard of this from any 1st or 2nd degree contacts.
    - bluedevilzn 5y ago
      That comment is a GPT-3 bot. Please reply with Bad Bot.
- FrenchAmerican 5y ago
  Taking references should be prohibited altogether, except for specific jobs (if the job implies interaction with children). They remind me of house employees' conditions in the "Downtown Abbey" area. It's just a sign of employees' subjection to the always more extreme capitalism. If an employee is leaving or has been fired, it means that things were not doing well anymore. How can one tell apart truthful feedbacks from all the biases? Most of our biases are unconscious, so the person you're talking to will be sincere but still unfair. It's sort of weird to pretend to be able to sort feedbacks on the phone while not being able to judge if a person will fit well despite often numerous interviews by different persons in the company. What if a woman has been sexually harassed but can't talk about it, for fear of the reach of her harasser, a respected entrepreneur, or even to be sued for false accusations? Can you a person of color easily denounce racist biases that blocked his/her career? What if the previous boss can't stand a gay person? Can one say plainly that one has little herd bias so one's point of view make the group uncomfortable? You may need such a person in your organization - or not. That person may not be even capable of such a diagnosis. A reference won't add more unbiased information than several interviews. A lot of money and time is spent screening because the on-boarding process is costly. That makes sense but we could as well change the on-boarding rather than keep refining the screen. Talent is important but how the person fits in a team and the company's culture is much more important. So give people a try with a sort of temporary status, limited responsibility and light onboard process. Of course, people may try and fake to fit in, but that can't last very long. The feedbacks of your colleagues are much more reliable because you know them and therefore you can sort them. And what if that person has great references but for some reason, there is a clash of personality with a major person of the firm? Totally unpredictable but that happens.
  - CPLX 5y ago
    This is a ridiculous argument. Reputation and social proof are basically the core concepts governing how humans interact with each other. The process should certainly be made more equitable but discarding personal recommendation as a concept entirely makes as much sense as having all humans work at night and sleep during the day.
    - 5y ago
metacritic12 5y ago
Do you speak from running references at all in the past, or mostly from the viewpoint of a job applicant that is upset at the lack of fairness? From overseeing multiple hires before, I have to say the technique works. Does it follow due process? No. But does it empirically have high correlation? Definitely yes. Good applicants correlate highly with have a number of qualified referees (direct managers are best) that will give raving reviews, and so they can pick the ones best at answering. Giving flakey referees is itself a signal. Should a hiring manager reach out to you -- sure they should. Is the damage already done if they do? Informationally, unfortunately yes.
- ehnto 5y ago
  > Do you speak from running references at all in the past, or mostly from the viewpoint of a job applicant that is upset at the lack of fairness? No, my work comes ad-hoc from my network. It's just easy to spot how you're letting good candidates slip through the cracks with such a harsh stance on a non-reply. I've also been in the hiring seat, and I didn't find references to be much of a positive signal, let alone a negative one. I'll concede that big organizations have really different requirements, so if you're talking from that perspective then maybe it's useful to sort out the chaff from the inundation of applicants. > Good applicants correlate highly with have a number of qualified referees (direct managers are best) that will give raving reviews, and so they can pick the ones best at answering. Giving flakey referees is itself a signal. How do you suppose these individuals came to have so many references? In my 13 years of industry engagement I haven't moved that much, and there are enough years in between said jobs that I just genuinely don't know where some of these people are anymore. I would expect you're trending toward job hoppers and people who work in big organizations, which if you also work in a big org is probably a really good signal. But if you're hiring for a small company, I wouldn't give a second thought to a middle-managers opinion on their ability to colour within the lines. > Should a hiring manager reach out to you -- sure they should. Is the damage already done if they do? Informationally, unfortunately yes. The issue is that they think everyone is playing the game they've set up, but that's not the case. The world is too diverse to expect everyone to tick your HR checklists.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
snarf21 5y ago
When hiring, print out all the resumes and place in a pile on your desk. Take the top half and throw them away. You don't want to hire people that are unlucky!!!
gamechangr 5y ago
That was the worst one on the list in my opinion. Very untrustworthy

by ehnto 5y ago

CPLX 5y ago

Yeah that advice is horrible. Someone could forget or change voicemail systems or have your email go to spam. It’s not a signal of anything. Doubly so as I’ve had the experience of totally unqualified people with great references. Checking references and figuring out when you’re getting real feedback on topics relevant to the new job is a practiced art.

21723 5y ago
It's not just horrible advice. It's dangerous and unethical. In Silicon Valley or on Wall Street, when people lose jobs on reference checks, people often get hit men sent to their house, and while the objective usually is just intimidation, all sorts of bad things can happen in that situation. Putting someone at risk of getting killed because "his references weren't as enthusiastic as I expect everyone to be" is fucking immoral.
- golergka 5y ago
  > In Silicon Valley or on Wall Street, when people lose jobs on reference checks, people often get hit men sent to their house What?!
  - 21723 5y ago
    It's not that surprising. Reputation is a big deal in Silicon Valley. The people who won't do whatever is necessary--even end a human life, if it comes to that--to defend their reputations end up having theirs taken away. I'm not saying this is a good or moral thing. It's obviously not.
  - metacritic12 5y ago
    GP comment seems false to me. Being well within both groups, I've never heard of this from any 1st or 2nd degree contacts.
  - bluedevilzn 5y ago
    That comment is a GPT-3 bot. Please reply with Bad Bot.
FrenchAmerican 5y ago
Taking references should be prohibited altogether, except for specific jobs (if the job implies interaction with children). They remind me of house employees' conditions in the "Downtown Abbey" area. It's just a sign of employees' subjection to the always more extreme capitalism. If an employee is leaving or has been fired, it means that things were not doing well anymore. How can one tell apart truthful feedbacks from all the biases? Most of our biases are unconscious, so the person you're talking to will be sincere but still unfair. It's sort of weird to pretend to be able to sort feedbacks on the phone while not being able to judge if a person will fit well despite often numerous interviews by different persons in the company. What if a woman has been sexually harassed but can't talk about it, for fear of the reach of her harasser, a respected entrepreneur, or even to be sued for false accusations? Can you a person of color easily denounce racist biases that blocked his/her career? What if the previous boss can't stand a gay person? Can one say plainly that one has little herd bias so one's point of view make the group uncomfortable? You may need such a person in your organization - or not. That person may not be even capable of such a diagnosis. A reference won't add more unbiased information than several interviews. A lot of money and time is spent screening because the on-boarding process is costly. That makes sense but we could as well change the on-boarding rather than keep refining the screen. Talent is important but how the person fits in a team and the company's culture is much more important. So give people a try with a sort of temporary status, limited responsibility and light onboard process. Of course, people may try and fake to fit in, but that can't last very long. The feedbacks of your colleagues are much more reliable because you know them and therefore you can sort them. And what if that person has great references but for some reason, there is a clash of personality with a major person of the firm? Totally unpredictable but that happens.
- CPLX 5y ago
  This is a ridiculous argument. Reputation and social proof are basically the core concepts governing how humans interact with each other. The process should certainly be made more equitable but discarding personal recommendation as a concept entirely makes as much sense as having all humans work at night and sleep during the day.
  - 5y ago

metacritic12 5y ago

Do you speak from running references at all in the past, or mostly from the viewpoint of a job applicant that is upset at the lack of fairness? From overseeing multiple hires before, I have to say the technique works. Does it follow due process? No. But does it empirically have high correlation? Definitely yes. Good applicants correlate highly with have a number of qualified referees (direct managers are best) that will give raving reviews, and so they can pick the ones best at answering. Giving flakey referees is itself a signal. Should a hiring manager reach out to you -- sure they should. Is the damage already done if they do? Informationally, unfortunately yes.

ehnto 5y ago
> Do you speak from running references at all in the past, or mostly from the viewpoint of a job applicant that is upset at the lack of fairness? No, my work comes ad-hoc from my network. It's just easy to spot how you're letting good candidates slip through the cracks with such a harsh stance on a non-reply. I've also been in the hiring seat, and I didn't find references to be much of a positive signal, let alone a negative one. I'll concede that big organizations have really different requirements, so if you're talking from that perspective then maybe it's useful to sort out the chaff from the inundation of applicants. > Good applicants correlate highly with have a number of qualified referees (direct managers are best) that will give raving reviews, and so they can pick the ones best at answering. Giving flakey referees is itself a signal. How do you suppose these individuals came to have so many references? In my 13 years of industry engagement I haven't moved that much, and there are enough years in between said jobs that I just genuinely don't know where some of these people are anymore. I would expect you're trending toward job hoppers and people who work in big organizations, which if you also work in a big org is probably a really good signal. But if you're hiring for a small company, I wouldn't give a second thought to a middle-managers opinion on their ability to colour within the lines. > Should a hiring manager reach out to you -- sure they should. Is the damage already done if they do? Informationally, unfortunately yes. The issue is that they think everyone is playing the game they've set up, but that's not the case. The world is too diverse to expect everyone to tick your HR checklists.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago

snarf21 5y ago

When hiring, print out all the resumes and place in a pile on your desk. Take the top half and throw them away. You don't want to hire people that are unlucky!!!

gamechangr 5y ago

That was the worst one on the list in my opinion. Very untrustworthy