4 ms·

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

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 4y 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 4y ago
> Does it follow due process? No. But does it empirically have high correlation? Definitely yes. The same argument justifies hiring the most privileged candidates - rich parents, white, and has political connections and your boss's wife goes has been at their barbeque. It does work - people who've been given the best in life are more likely to be competent and less likely to have issues. If something does happen to them or their family, they are more likely to have resources to cope. It's less likely to affect their work But somehow as a society we've generally agreed that this isn't good enough of a rationale.

ehnto 4y 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 4y ago

> Does it follow due process? No. But does it empirically have high correlation? Definitely yes. The same argument justifies hiring the most privileged candidates - rich parents, white, and has political connections and your boss's wife goes has been at their barbeque. It does work - people who've been given the best in life are more likely to be competent and less likely to have issues. If something does happen to them or their family, they are more likely to have resources to cope. It's less likely to affect their work But somehow as a society we've generally agreed that this isn't good enough of a rationale.