Employment references - factual only

[SmartClinic]

Something that really winds me up, but I would be keen to get other people's views.

It frustrates me when I ask for a reference for employee, who has dedicated a chunk of their career to an organisation, only to receive the stock response of employment dates and "it's our policy not to complete reference forms blah blah". I appreciate companies are trying to protect themselves, but they shouldn't be writing anything in a reference that they can't factually justify anyway.

When someone has dedicated several years to your organisation I think it's incredibly unsupportive for that organisation to refuse to support their career any further by issuing a helpful and detailed statement about their previous role. I make it company policy at Smart Clinic to always complete these with a detailed, truthful and evidence based response.

Does anyone else have this frustration, or should I just get over it?!

 

[IanSuth]

It is the consequence of a litigious society. Can't give any info that can't be factually provable, therefore hard to give a bad reference and if you give good to some people by default a standard boilerplate reference becomes bad. Therefore everyone just says X worked here from date 1 to date 2 finishing in the position of Y. I have been (this year) involved in an identical thread to this on the CIPD forums (HR body)

I did recruitment for 27 years, i ignored almost all HR references and instead asked for 2 trusted previous managers saying I would speak to one of them (made false references less likely)

I then rang and spoke to a human (not HR) who generally told me enough to get a fair idea (the response when i asked for the 2 trusted referees told me the rest)

 

[Bob Morgan]

Something that really winds me up, but I would be keen to get other people's views.

It frustrates me when I ask for a reference for employee, who has dedicated a chunk of their career to an organisation, only to receive the stock response of employment dates and "it's our policy not to complete reference forms blah blah". I appreciate companies are trying to protect themselves, but they shouldn't be writing anything in a reference that they can't factually justify anyway.

When someone has dedicated several years to your organisation I think it's incredibly unsupportive for that organisation to refuse to support their career any further by issuing a helpful and detailed statement about their previous role. I make it company policy at Smart Clinic to always complete these with a detailed, truthful and evidence based response.

Does anyone else have this frustration, or should I just get over it?!

Get over it!

 

[HFE Signs]

Something that really winds me up, but I would be keen to get other people's views.

It frustrates me when I ask for a reference for employee, who has dedicated a chunk of their career to an organisation, only to receive the stock response of employment dates and "it's our policy not to complete reference forms blah blah". I appreciate companies are trying to protect themselves, but they shouldn't be writing anything in a reference that they can't factually justify anyway.

When someone has dedicated several years to your organisation I think it's incredibly unsupportive for that organisation to refuse to support their career any further by issuing a helpful and detailed statement about their previous role. I make it company policy at Smart Clinic to always complete these with a detailed, truthful and evidence based response.

Does anyone else have this frustration, or should I just get over it?!

I share the same frustrations, sometimes a phone call and informal chat is well worth it, you're much more likely to get some honesty verbally if you can get to speak to the right person.

 

[Newchodge]

What about the person who has spent their Working life taking the piss, doing the minimum possible and cheating their employer every opportunity they get? And every employer writes a glowing reference in order to be rid of them?

 

[SmartClinic]

What about the person who has spent their Working life taking the piss, doing the minimum possible and cheating their employer every opportunity they get? And every employer writes a glowing reference in order to be rid of them?

There should be no reason why that employer can't provide information on how they've taken the piss, in order to help/warn any future employers. If it's at a stage where references are being requested, then they've probably resigned already anyway. It may even be a one or two jobs previous too.

 

[SmartClinic]

It is the consequence of a litigious society. Can't give any info that can't be factually provable, therefore hard to give a bad reference and if you give good to some people by default a standard boilerplate reference becomes bad. Therefore everyone just says X worked here from date 1 to date 2 finishing in the position of Y. I have been (this year) involved in an identical thread to this on the CIPD forums (HR body)

I did recruitment for 27 years, i ignored almost all HR references and instead asked for 2 trusted previous managers saying I would speak to one of them (made false references less likely)

I then rang and spoke to a human (not HR) who generally told me enough to get a fair idea (the response when i asked for the 2 trusted referees told me the rest)

That's a good suggestion, thanks!

 

[SmartClinic]

Get over it!

That's fine, but renders the concept of getting a reference pointless. Which is disadvantageous to both employee (if they're a good worker) and future employer.

 

[Newchodge]

There should be no reason why that employer can't provide information on how they've taken the piss, in order to help/warn any future employers. If it's at a stage where references are being requested, then they've probably resigned already anyway. It may even be a one or two jobs previous too.

If the employer had failed to deal with the issues they could not be mentioned in the reference.

 

[HFE Signs]

References can be pretty worthless as @Newchodge points out the problem works both ways. I'd always seek a reference but ask for specifics rather than general information.

 

[SmartClinic]

References can be pretty worthless as @Newchodge points out the problem works both ways. I'd always seek a reference but ask for specifics rather than general information.

I always do, but still you get the stock response. Find it very frustrating, and unreasonable.

 

[SmartClinic]

If the employer had failed to deal with the issues they could not be mentioned in the reference.

And if the employer had managed the issue...?

 

[HFE Signs]

I always do, but still you get the stock response. Find it very frustrating, and unreasonable.

When this happens, give them a call, it works for me most times.

 

[Newchodge]

And if the employer had managed the issue...?

Then it can be mentioned as fact.

 

[SmartClinic]

Then it can be mentioned as fact.

Exactly. Hence my frustration that this doesn't happen, and you just get the stock response of employment dates. If I've asked for feedback from a previous employer, I would like honest, justifiable feedback, both good and bad.

 

[Newchodge]

Exactly. Hence my frustration that this doesn't happen, and you just get the stock response of employment dates. If I've asked for feedback from a previous employer, I would like honest, justifiable feedback, both good and bad.

Why not back your own judgment instead of relying on someone else who may, or may not be impartial? Use a probation period properly and you are covered.

 

[IanSuth]

I always do, but still you get the stock response. Find it very frustrating, and unreasonable.

Then you are asking the wrong person in the wrong way.

Send a standard written or email request to HR and you will get a standard HR reply - send it to a manager as a standard request, it will get forwarded to HR and you will get a standard reply.

Dont rail at the system think of what you want to find out and how you can do that within the confines of the system - the answer is an informal chat with a manager/supervisor.

The response you get to the request from the potential employee will sniff out 9/10 problems. And if they give you a managers mobile and a job title ("Fred Smith he was the production supervisor") i never rang it without first ringing main reception and saying "I am ringing from [some fictitious trade magazine] just checking our database can i just check Fred Smiths job title - I have production supervisor" if you have been given a false info it will generally come out then (although LinkedIn helps as well nowadays)

 

[IanSuth]

Why not back your own judgment instead of relying on someone else who may, or may not be impartial? Use a probation period properly and you are covered.

And use specific objective assessment if it is a role that requires specific skills

 

[IanSuth]

I bet you if you gave me the employee name, and who you want a reference from and on what specific issues I could have you a pretty full reference within a day (subject to referee being in work).

You just have to recognise you want a reference for a specific reason and can only see that utility in it - an ex employer sees it as a potential liability and is trying to minimise that

 

[SmartClinic]

Then you are asking the wrong person in the wrong way.

Send a standard written or email request to HR and you will get a standard HR reply - send it to a manager as a standard request, it will get forwarded to HR and you will get a standard reply.

Dont rail at the system think of what you want to find out and how you can do that within the confines of the system - the answer is an informal chat with a manager/supervisor.

The response you get to the request from the potential employee will sniff out 9/10 problems. And if they give you a managers mobile and a job title ("Fred Smith he was the production supervisor") i never rang it without first ringing main reception and saying "I am ringing from [some fictitious trade magazine] just checking our database can i just check Fred Smiths job title - I have production supervisor" if you have been given a false info it will generally come out then (although LinkedIn helps as well nowadays)

Interesting. So your advice is to get a line managers contact number, and phone them to ask instead. I like that idea

 

[SmartClinic]

Why not back your own judgment instead of relying on someone else who may, or may not be impartial? Use a probation period properly and you are covered.

Somebody who has employed a person for several years (potentially) is going to have more insight than me, who's met them for no more than a few hours. So a second opinion is much more valuable than potentially hiring the wrong person and them not making it through their probation period - let alone the cost and time involved. But ultimately I do have to back myself, which is why I hire them. Doesn't mean that I wouldn't value someone else's insight.

 

[IanSuth]

Interesting. So your advice is to get a line managers contact number, and phone them to ask instead. I like that idea

Yes but ask for 2 possibles, that makes getting stitched up with a fake person less likely

 

[kulture]

My old firm used to ask just two questions. 1 xxxxxx says that you employed them from dd/mm/yy to dd/mm/yy is this correct?

2. Given the chance, would you unhesitatingly re-employ them?

 

[thetiger2015]

Somebody who has employed a person for several years (potentially) is going to have more insight than me, who's met them for no more than a few hours. So a second opinion is much more valuable than potentially hiring the wrong person and them not making it through their probation period - let alone the cost and time involved. But ultimately I do have to back myself, which is why I hire them. Doesn't mean that I wouldn't value someone else's insight.

But why would I give you lots of great info on my employee, if you're taking them? If they're the best employee I've ever had, am I really going to spend 20 minutes telling you how great they are? I might do. I might not. I may be too busy to deal with answering questions about former employees. I may have 5 people leaving this week, do I spend 20 minutes on each call, with different potential employers for this employee, who's leaving?

Also, line managers don't have to be honest. If they had a personal issue with the employee, they might well tell you that they're a thieving rat. Might not be true. Might be true. How would you know?

 

[SmartClinic]

But why would I give you lots of great info on my employee, if you're taking them? If they're the best employee I've ever had, am I really going to spend 20 minutes telling you how great they are? I might do. I might not. I may be too busy to deal with answering questions about former employees. I may have 5 people leaving this week, do I spend 20 minutes on each call, with different potential employers for this employee, who's leaving?

Also, line managers don't have to be honest. If they had a personal issue with the employee, they might well tell you that they're a thieving rat. Might not be true. Might be true. How would you know?

If they’re the best employee you’ve ever had, then hopefully you would like to thank them by supporting their future career. I certainly would.

If they’re a thieving rat (and you could prove it) then you could mention on their reference that they were dismissed for gmc. I certainly would.

If you had a personal issue with them and gave them a bad reference to harm them on the future, but couldn’t justify it, then you’d be liable (there will be legal / employment experts on here that will give more information about why, I’m sure). I certainly wouldn’t do that!