I recently received a phone call I from a senior executive asking for I an employment reference on an individual he was about to hire. He started off by saying: “I’ve offered the job contingent upon a satisfactory reference check and medical examination.” I carefully pointed out the strengths and positive qualities I had observed in this individual over our 2-year employment relationship. Attempting to be as realistic and objective as possible, I also felt it important to point out areas that required further development or improvement. My caller’s response to this was quite disconcerting: a series of strong defensive statements that attempted to rationalize and qualify each point in my critique. The fact was that this person really wasn’t interested in negative feedback — he only wanted to hear the positive comments. My suspicion is that the hiring decision had already been made. This executive was not seeking an objective employment reference, but rather a confirmation of his actions. The call reminded me of an unbelievable incident that had occurred several months earlier. We had just completed a thorough reference investigation of the finalist candidate in a senior executive search assignment. Two of the references contacted had independently confirmed that the candidate had had a serious drinking problem which affected his job performance. I dutifully reported this to our client, who responded by saying: “everyone has a drink now and then, and in this business it’s almost mandatory. It’s only natural to overindulge once in a while.” Try as I did, I could not make the point that there is a tremendous difference between an alcoholic and a person who overindulges from time to time. Again, this executive was hearing only what he wanted to hear. The decision had already been made and the dye was irrevocably cast.
It seems such a simple thing, the notion that you should not hire an employee until you have checked employment references. The reality is that far too many managers become so intensely involved in the initial stages of candidate screening and interviewing that, by the time the stage for reference-checking has arrived, they seem to have lost the energy or enthusiasm to complete a proper reference check. In other cases, the pressure to hire additional help is so great and the time available to be thorough so short, that managers rationalize a perfunctory reference check as being an acceptable risk.
Still others fancy themselves as amateur psychologists and simply cannot believe that, after three personal interviews, there is anything more to know about a candidate for employment. In each case, these managers are guilty of bad judgment. There is absolutely no substitute for a thorough and detailed reference investigation and absolutely no justification for not complet ing one.
In our firm, a striking example of the surprises that can lie within a reference check occurred. We recently conducted a search for a management consultant with a most unusual skill set and, after many weeks of searching, identified an individual who, on paper, was a perfect 10] We were even more heartened when, after spending considerable money to bring this person to Vancouver for a day of interviews, we discovered him to be a natural management consultant. Six different people from all levels of our consulting practice met with this candidate and conducted interviews ranging from 60 to 90 minutes in length. All six people concurred: a brilliant man with the right mix of experience, education, personality and business savvy: in short, a perfect addition to our consulting staff. And then we checked the references. Despite all of these qualities being confirmed by former employees, the candidate had not performed well on the job. It seems there were tremendous ego problems, a highly political behaviour pattern that only emerged after this person was employed long enough to “size up” the organization. Also, it was unanimously viewed that the candidate was a brilliant salesman. We had been sold a bill of goods. Had we not gone through the task of making four telephone calls, we would have hired the wrong person for the job.
Rick Roberts, national co-ordinator of executive search services at Coopers & Lybrand and principal in charge of executive search for British Columbia, has some very simple tips of reference-checking. “The obvious thing,” Roberts contends, “is that employment references should be just that — the family doctor, the church minister, or prominent personal friends will not do. Start with recent direct superiors. Forget the personnel department; they are usually under instruction to give out very limited facts such as positions held, dates of employment, and so on. If you are unable to speak with previous employers, try to identify referees who were frequently in close contact with the candidate on a working basis. Other department heads, suppliers, customers, lawyers, auditors, and even subordinates will all have some opinion as to how the individual behaved on the job and what accomplishments were made.”
Naturally, the questions you ask are as critical as your choice of referee. Here are 10 quick dos and don’ts for reference-checking: DON’TS
* Do not use leading questions such as: “He is a good manager, isn’t he?”
* Don’t forget the obvious, to check dates and times that the person giving the reference worked with (or supervised) the candidate. Also, determine if there is a personal relationship.
* Do not describe the position until the end of the check so as not to bias the person giving the reference.
* Don’t allow the person giving the reference to focus exclusively on the positives. Probe and ask where the individual would need support if he or she were working under the conditions you expect would prevail in the position in question.
* Don’t rely on personnel departments. They are usually restricted by policy to verifying information only.
* Don’t focus exclusively on task- related questions. Attempt to solicit unbiased comments concerning issues such as commitment, sense of urgency, priority-setting, attention to details, style of supervision, and the like
* Don’t forget the other obvious point: verification of compensation, benefit, and perquisite arrangements.
* Don’t gloss over the context in which the candidate performed his or her duties. Attempt to confirm the achievements claimed, and what the boss, peer, subordinate working relationships were.
* Don’t use personal relationships as referees; concentrate on business/ professional relationships.
* Don’t allow biases to creep in. The biggest risk in reference-validation is in the bias that can be expressed by supportive referees. It should be stressed that it is in the best interest of both the company and the candidate to ensure that the “fit” is right. It’s far more preferable for both parties to learn of any weaknesses or personality attributes that might affect job performance prior to hiring, when proper and realistic expectations can be established. DOS
* Do ask the person with whom you are speaking who else could comment on the candidate. Perhaps someone who could give another point-of-view.
* Do ask the person giving the reference to compare the individual with other people he or she has supervised. Comparative ratings serve to provide a clearer perspective and also tell you something about the individual giving the check.
* Do ask about the individual’s long-range potential and where the referee could see that person at the peak of his or her career.
* Do talk with other referees to check on any person giving negative information. Learn the other side of the story.
* Do be careful if the check is lukewarm rather than negative. A lukewarm check can point to problems.
* Do suggest that the referee “call right back” if you encounter resistance. Sometimes people will be more open if they can verify your authenticity.
* Do search for people who have left past companies with which the candidate has been associated. There are always some available.
* Do ask the candidate to call in advance and introduce you and your reason for calling.
* Do use ratings. For example: “On a scale of one to 10, how would you rate Pat versus other supervisors? Why?”
* Do verify the university degree. If a candidate is a “phony,” this is where the first fabrication will occur. (But remember, universities can goof as well.)
Finally, remember that the single most important question you can ask of a referee is whether or not the candidate would be eligible for rehire. While every individual has his specific set of assets and liabilities, the answer to this question is both the bottom line and the last work in a reference investigation report. William Stanley is director of national mine services at Coopers and Lybrand Consulting Services.
I recently received a phone call I from a senior executive asking for I an employment reference on an individual he was about to hire. He started off by saying: “I’ve offered the job contingent upon a satisfactory reference check and medical examination.” I carefully pointed out the strengths and positive qualities I had observed in this individual over our 2-year employment relationship. Attempting to be as realistic and objective as possible, I also felt it important to point out areas that required further development or improvement. My caller’s response to this was quite disconcerting: a series of strong defensive statements that attempted to rationalize and qualify each point in my critique. The fact was that this person really wasn’t interested in negative feedback — he only wanted to hear the positive comments. My suspicion is that the hiring decision had already been made. This executive was not seeking an objective employment reference, but rather a confirmation of his actions. The call reminded me of an unbelievable incident that had occurred several months earlier. We had just completed a thorough reference investigation of the finalist candidate in a senior executive search assignment. Two of the references contacted had independently confirmed that the candidate had had a serious drinking problem which affected his job performance. I dutifully reported this to our client, who responded by saying: “everyone has a drink now and then, and in this business it’s almost mandatory. It’s only natural to overindulge once in a while.” Try as I did, I could not make the point that there is a tremendous difference between an alcoholic and a person who overindulges from time to time. Again, this executive was hearing only what he wanted to hear. The decision had already been made and the dye was irrevocably cast.
It seems such a simple thing, the notion that you should not hire an employee until you have checked employment references. The reality is that far too many managers become so intensely involved in the initial stages of candidate screening and interviewing that, by the time the stage for reference-checking has arrived, they seem to have lost the energy or enthusiasm to complete a proper reference check. In other cases, the pressure to hire additional help is so great and the time available to be thorough so short, that managers rationalize a perfunctory reference check as being an acceptable risk.
Still others fancy themselves as amateur psychologists and simply cannot believe that, after three personal interviews, there is anything more to know about a candidate for employment. In each case, these managers are guilty of bad judgment. There is absolutely no substitute for a thorough and detailed reference investigation and absolutely no justification for not complet ing one.
In our firm, a striking example of the surprises that can lie within a reference check occurred. We recently conducted a search for a management consultant with a most unusual skill set and, after many weeks of searching, identified an individual who, on paper, was a perfect 10] We were even more heartened when, after spending considerable money to bring this person to Vancouver for a day of interviews, we discovered him to be a natural management consultant. Six different people from all levels of our consulting practice met with this candidate and conducted interviews ranging from 60 to 90 minutes in length. All six people concurred: a brilliant man with the right mix of experience, education, personality and business savvy: in short, a perfect addition to our consulting staff. And then we checked the references. Despite all of these qualities being confirmed by former employees, the candidate had not performed well on the job. It seems there were tremendous ego problems, a highly political behaviour pattern that only emerged after this person was employed long enough to “size up” the organization. Also, it was unanimously viewed that the candidate was a brilliant salesman. We had been sold a bill of goods. Had we not gone through the task of making four telephone calls, we would have hired the wrong person for the job.
Rick Roberts, national co-ordinator of executive search services at Coopers & Lybrand and principal in charge of executive search for British Columbia, has some very simple tips of reference-checking. “The obvious thing,” Roberts contends, “is that employment references should be just that — the family doctor, the church minister, or prominent personal friends will not do. Start with recent direct superiors. Forget the personnel department; they are usually under instruction to give out very limited facts such as positions held, dates of employment, and so on. If you are unable to speak with previous employers, try to identify referees who were frequently in close contact with the candidate on a working basis. Other department heads, suppliers, customers, lawyers, auditors, and even subordinates will all have some opinion as to how the individual behaved on the job and what accomplishments were made.”
Naturally, the questions you ask are as critical as your choice of referee. Here are 10 quick dos and don’ts for reference-checking: DON’TS
* Do not use leading questions such as: “He is a good manager, isn’t he?”
* Don’t forget the obvious, to check dates and times that the person giving the reference worked with (or supervised) the candidate. Also, determine if there is a personal relationship.
* Do not describe the position until the end of the check so as not to bias the person giving the reference.
* Don’t allow the person giving the reference to focus exclusively on the positives. Probe and ask where the individual would need support if he or she were working under the conditions you expect would prevail in the position in question.
* Don’t rely on personnel departments. They are usually restricted by policy to verifying information only.
* Don’t focus exclusively on task- related questions. Attempt to solicit unbiased comments concerning issues such as commitment, sense of urgency, priority-setting, attention to details, style of supervision, and the like
* Don’t forget the other obvious point: verification of compensation, benefit, and perquisite arrangements.
* Don’t gloss over the context in which the candidate performed his or her duties. Attempt to confirm the achievements claimed, and what the boss, peer, subordinate working relationships were.
* Don’t use personal relationships as referees; concentrate on business/ professional relationships.
* Don’t allow biases to creep in. The biggest risk in reference-validation is in the bias that can be expressed by supportive referees. It should be stressed that it is in the best interest of both the company and the candidate to ensure that the “fit” is right. It’s far more preferable for both parties to learn of any weaknesses or personality attributes that might affect job performance prior to hiring, when proper and realistic expectations can be established. DOS
* Do ask the person with whom you are speaking who else could comment on the candidate. Perhaps someone who could give another point-of-view.
* Do ask the person giving the reference to compare the individual with other people he or she has supervised. Comparative ratings serve to provide a clearer perspective and also tell you something about the individual giving the check.
* Do ask about the individual’s long-range potential and where the referee could see that person at the peak of his or her career.
* Do talk with other referees to check on any person giving negative information. Learn the other side of the story.
* Do be careful if the check is lukewarm rather than negative. A lukewarm check can point to problems.
* Do suggest that the referee “call right back” if you encounter resistance. Sometimes people will be more open if they can verify your authenticity.
* Do search for people who have left past companies with which the candidate has been associated. There are always some available.
* Do ask the candidate to call in advance and introduce you and your reason for calling.
* Do use ratings. For example: “On a scale of one to 10, how would you rate Pat versus other supervisors? Why?”
* Do verify the university degree. If a candidate is a “phony,” this is where the first fabrication will occur. (But remember, universities can goof as well.)
Finally, remember that the single most important question you can ask of a referee is whether or not the candidate would be eligible for rehire. While every individual has his specific set of assets and liabilities, the answer to this question is both the bottom line and the last work in a reference investigation report. William Stanley is director of national mine services at Coopers and Lybrand Consulting Services.
Be the first to comment on "Managing THE RIGHT STUFF (November 01, 1988)"