It is an area where, once again, we cannot make decisions without seeking validation elsewhere first. As much as I dislike relying on outside influences, in this instance I really understand. I mean, how else can a prospective employer verify the wonderful tales of accomplishment and demonstrated expertise? Working in human resources I know how readily people inflate the extent of their productivity and the value of their contribution, so I wholeheartedly agree that we must have a mechanism to measure, independently, the truth in such claims. The only issue I have is that the reference checks as we know them, or at least as I have seen them being processed in our employment practices locally, is that they are not always independent checks on a candidate's skill and ability.
Despite the good intentions behind them, reference checks have become an opportunity for embittered supervisors and employers to undermine and ultimately cripple someone's career prospects. You know how it goes. I apply for a position, you ask around before committing to an interview, and then you really dig around before making an offer. The sort of information shared is not always strictly about my skill is it? No, I'm not stirring the pot here, just think about it:
l Personality Clash. There may well be a rift between my supervisor and me, which is probably the real reason I want to leave.
Perhaps it was simply a case of 'we just didn't click', but a supervisor won't say, on the phone, 'I didn't like her'. She will try to present it in a professional light. Remarks like, 'oh, he is well qualified, and will go a lot further with an attitude adjustment', or, 'it'll always mystify me as to why she didn't perform to her full potential', or, 'he gets along very well with his peers and clients...unfortunately that's his only strength', make uncomfortable insinuations abut the candidate. The unfortunate part is there is no platform for a candidate to hear and respond to these comments, and I'm not necessarily saying there should be. It just seems unfair to mess up someone's career behind his back. The irony for me is that questions around performance only arise when there are personal tensions, and too often, prospective recruiters can't seem to see through these comments. Actually, maybe they can but just value their relationship with the subject's former (or current) principals to go against their 'advice'.
l Professional Jealousy. You know, for instance, it does happen that a supervisor and her subordinate apply for the same position somewhere, and it does happen that when it comes down to it, the supervisor doesn't make it onto the short list. What type of reference does one expect this particular supervisor to give her subordinate without losing face?
l Social Scores To Settle. Maybe the subordinate comes from a more privilegded background and the principal feels inadequate. Maybe the subordinate comes from humble beginnings and has overtaken, socially, the principal, causing her to feel like her achievements are insignificant. Maybe the subordinate's sister spoke too softly for too long with the principal's husband at that last power dinner. Maybe the subordinate's child scooped all the awards this term.
Whatever it is, there is a certain satisfaction in finally being able to put someone in their place isn't there, especially if it can be done in a way that really hurts, like stalling her career. One would think such a principal would give glowing references just to see the person go, but no, that would be adding another undeserved feather to her cap wouldn't it?
l Reference Checker's Inexperience. Perhaps the challenge is to ensure that the person seeking references is experienced enough in the ways of corporate games and communications to be able to read in between lines where necessary, and take a stand where appropriate. One should be able to direct the discussion towards objective comments, but I know that sometimes the recruiter also enjoys the gossip.
A recruiter should not suspend all his faculties when doing a reference check. Sometimes the information smacks of jealousy, sometimes it is just plain catty, other times too sketchy and occasionally, simply lacks credibility. I once called in a reference check about someone who'd been dismissed. He'd given me his CV and asked me to place him somewhere.
He was honest about everything, including how money went missing and he'd just been asked to resign, which he did without resistance. He didn't even query this with the labour department. Given this background, I was surprised when the former employer said 'oh, he was great and we were sorry to lose him. Of course, we'd employ him again if there was an opening!' It would have been hilarious if it hadn't been frustrating.
Why can't we catch up with human resource developments in other countries, where background checks are really just to verify that yes, the qualifications are genuine; no, there are no police and credit records; no, there is no evidence of drug abuse; and yes, the person has held positions as reported on his CV. Yes, hear the gossip if you must but make an independent decision. It's time we shake this need for our decisions to be endorsed after a marathon of consultations, lobbying and checking. As employers, we must be confident in our ability to judge character, and we must have faith in our systems and procedures' capacity to attract exactly who we want.
It is hard I know because, as always, when dealing with people, especially people who are looking for employment, anything is possible isn't it? But then, what about discretion and accountability? I mean, what is a recruiter being paid for if not to exercise these two skills?
Shameela Winston is a human resource consultant in private practice. She is available to readers on [email protected]
