4 ms·
This seems like a good strategy but I would only try it if you had a few different good references to check. The danger that the email gets ignored because the
by acgourley 15y ago
This seems like a good strategy but I would only try it if you had a few different good references to check. The danger that the email gets ignored because the person let it slip through the cracks is fairly substantial.
Maybe it could be improved to be super short and only ask for a simple "yes" answer so they can answer it right away instead of flagging and moving back to it.
- michaelochurch 15y agoI wouldn't respond. I would just find it douchey. You should already be convinced that the person is exceptional (in talent) or at least good enough to hire before you start messing around with references. The purpose of a reference check is to make sure the person isn't either (a) lying about his background, or (b) seriously harmful. For (b), I don't think references are the solution but I can't think of anything better. Unfortunately, there's no character test that can be done in a few hours of interaction.
- backjudge 15y agoNot only would I not respond, I'd let my (former) colleague know what kind of potential employer (s)he was considering. I don't know that I've encountered such an ill-conceived idea in quite awhile. Forget all the false negatives this method would be sure to "detect", I wouldn't feel comfortable spamming the candidates contact list.
- michaelochurch 15y agoYeah, all this nonsense about "we don't hire B-players" is ridiculous. Narcissists always think their loyalists are the best people in the world and everyone else is an idiot. Classic sign. If we're going to ignore the douchebag baggage ("douchebaggage"? 'tis a new word) associated with "A-player" and "B-player", I'd say I really want the person who turns B-players into A-players.