4 ms·

> glowing recommendations and ridiculous endorsement counts I don't know anyone that takes these seriously as a signal for hiring someone. You just do what you

by chaz 12y ago

> glowing recommendations and ridiculous endorsement counts I don't know anyone that takes these seriously as a signal for hiring someone. You just do what you usually do -- call people you know that have worked with them before to get the scoop. But I don't blame LinkedIn for building and promoting these features. They're like Facebook Pokes -- light touch interactions that promote engagement with connections, and revisits back to the site. Anecdotal observations suggest that they work.

michaelochurch 12y ago
You just do what you usually do -- call people you know that have worked with them before to get the scoop. That's even worse. Back-channel references are unreliable and if you ding someone on a back-channel, you better hope it's not someone like me who will litigate just to show the world the right.
- davidu 12y ago
  Back-channel references are crucial. I can't imagine a scenario where I wouldn't do a number of them for a key hire. Hiring managers is very hard. It's important that you make sure it's a good fit. Back-channel references are one really strong way to help make sure it's a great fit for both people. And usually, references help to surface some of the persons' strengths you might not really have known, as well as some blind spots you can code your behavior around. Crucial. crucial. crucial.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Back-channel references are one of those things that seems like a great idea but they quietly cause a world of problems. Long term they create highly insular organisations that overpay for lower levels of talent. Worse, they tend to quickly be gamed by the type of people who tend to be vary good at getting promoted without actually being competent.
    - michaelochurch 12y ago
      People invent "social proof" schemes like back-channel references because they think they'll guard them against unethical people, but they do the reverse. You end up getting more smooth operator types (who can game any social proof system set up against them) and rejecting normal people. Now, I agree that unethical people do an incredible amount of damage and that you want to do everything you can to avoid hiring them. However, the data is extremely clear that once you're beyond 3 or 4 references, you're actually selecting for unethical behavior. If someone has 10 glowing references covering the past 5 years, he probably extorted his way into that. I've done my fair of "fixer" work (nothing unethical) and had a unique view into the ethical underbelly of the corporate world, and I see that shit all the time. If someone passes an intensive back-channel reference check, it's because he's scared the living shit out of people. Do you really want that kind of toxicity in your company?
      - davidu 12y ago
        You're suggesting that 8 people giving references are lying, or are scared of the candidate. I find that hypothesis totally absurd.
    - davidu 12y ago
      How so?

by chaz 12y ago

michaelochurch 12y ago

You just do what you usually do -- call people you know that have worked with them before to get the scoop. That's even worse. Back-channel references are unreliable and if you ding someone on a back-channel, you better hope it's not someone like me who will litigate just to show the world the right.

davidu 12y ago
Back-channel references are crucial. I can't imagine a scenario where I wouldn't do a number of them for a key hire. Hiring managers is very hard. It's important that you make sure it's a good fit. Back-channel references are one really strong way to help make sure it's a great fit for both people. And usually, references help to surface some of the persons' strengths you might not really have known, as well as some blind spots you can code your behavior around. Crucial. crucial. crucial.
- Retric 12y ago
  Back-channel references are one of those things that seems like a great idea but they quietly cause a world of problems. Long term they create highly insular organisations that overpay for lower levels of talent. Worse, they tend to quickly be gamed by the type of people who tend to be vary good at getting promoted without actually being competent.
  - michaelochurch 12y ago
    People invent "social proof" schemes like back-channel references because they think they'll guard them against unethical people, but they do the reverse. You end up getting more smooth operator types (who can game any social proof system set up against them) and rejecting normal people. Now, I agree that unethical people do an incredible amount of damage and that you want to do everything you can to avoid hiring them. However, the data is extremely clear that once you're beyond 3 or 4 references, you're actually selecting for unethical behavior. If someone has 10 glowing references covering the past 5 years, he probably extorted his way into that. I've done my fair of "fixer" work (nothing unethical) and had a unique view into the ethical underbelly of the corporate world, and I see that shit all the time. If someone passes an intensive back-channel reference check, it's because he's scared the living shit out of people. Do you really want that kind of toxicity in your company?
    - davidu 12y ago
      You're suggesting that 8 people giving references are lying, or are scared of the candidate. I find that hypothesis totally absurd.
  - davidu 12y ago
    How so?