h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

From the other side of the fence - if I was reading references I would assume that if a flaw was bad enough to be mentioned in the reference then it was very serious and not employ said person.

So if I was writting a reference I would assume that any bad points would stop the referencee get the job.

Therefore if the negative point wasn't stronge enough for me to address with the empolyee via disaplinary procedure I wouldn't put it in the reference. I don't think it's fair on anyone to first mention a point of concern when they ask for a reference.

For example if I was an employer and receieved a reference saying 'So and so is not always a team player' I would assume that meant that he/she was a nightmare to work with, never helped anyone else and would not empoly them, not that they occasionly borrowed other peoples milk from the office fridge.

I once wrote a reference for a member of my staff in which I was brutally honest. He was unprofessional, a liar, a thief and to be honest, I was extremely glad he was leaving. I'd had him up on disciplinaries on a number of occasions and I actualy called the interviewer to advise them that he was waiting for a professional misconduct hearing at the time.


They gave him the job anyway...... He was sacked from there 6 months later when he was found guilty at the hearing and stripped of his registration.

This is interesting, because the impression I get out and about is that there’s an expectation you should do your best for the person you know, who’s been part of your work ‘community’ and that telling tales and spoiling their chances is disloyal.

That quote of RF’s does apply – it can take courage. Even if it’s not a friend, but someone you’ve just sympathy for.

'Negative' qualities in one work environment may wll be a strength in another though... so where I may need someone to be a team player, someone else may prefer 'a self starter who works well independently'... see what I did there? That is what I meant by couching the negatives. Same for things like someone who does not always meet deadlines... they become 'perfectionists'. I have to admit that I tend not to mention negatives unless they are truly awful.

I once had a really cheeky guy who had wreaked havoc with us in the restaurant - fights in the kitchen and everything but he was a great chef. He had the face to ask me to provide a reference after I asked him to leave. When I got the form, I called the number and told his prospective employer that while this guy was an excellent chef, he was a bit of a live wire (we had the police into the kitchens three times in a month and I had managed to get in between him and an exgirlfriend's hubby one day )

I said I was unwilling to provide a reference in writing but would do so verbally. He agreed. I told him this guy had been with us a month and that he had been in trouble with the police - but that he had also helped me turn my business around during that time. He asked if I would rehire him and I said no, but I 'genuinely wish him all the best as he is very talented but I cannot deal with him'. Guy got the job and is still there 5 years on ... so you really never know.

So yeah...the real answer is "it depends".

It depends on who you're working for at the moment, and how you feel about them. It depends on how well you know, and like, the referencee. it depends on howmuch you know about their good, and bad qualities, whatever they may be.

The circumstances in which you work are also an impact. In general, where I work, you don't approach the current employer for a reference...so you could be talking to someone who employed the person 3, 4, 5 years or longer ago. I'm not sure how valuable that would be as a reference, as both the referee and referencee will (hopefully) have moved on and developed in that time. Depends on what industry/employment you're working in, of course.

RF

I've had the 'perfectionist' comment given! It never occurred to me it might mean trouble with deadlines. Just that they might be forever lecturing and questioning about immaterial stuff - which was the impression at interview in fact. And might have difficulty taking decisions, too.

Something else a reference depends on is the format of the reference request. I've got to admit that if that's not been taken any trouble with, I take less trouble too.

Talking of reading references, I wouldn't automatically accept the negative comments as true.

I'd look for a reference from the current employer, and wonder why there wasn't one.

>> I'd look for a reference from the current employer, and wonder why there wasn't one. <<

What industry/employment are you working in?

RF

I agree it does depends on a lot. Definitely on how confident you are about what you know. Should it depend on how much you like the referencee, though? Whether it's a case of stressing good points and leaving negative ones to be interpreted or stated outright, should whether you like them be a factor in what you say?

Charity sector finance currently.

LLL - be very, very careful.

If you give a positive reference, and the guy ends up in a legal situation with his/her next employer, you can actually end up in court if you knowingly did not mention any negative qualities.

That's the litigious situation nowadays I'm afraid.

Most larger organisations instruct all line managers to refer a request for a reference to the HR dept. The Reference given will read along the lines of :

Joe Bloggs was employed in the position of "Description" between "Date" and "Date".

And that is it. Nothing the previous employer can possibly be sued for.

I didn't see it as me necessarily 'liking' him - it was more a case of recognising that he had talent but our environment was not one that worked for him. I hesitated to write him off, iykwim. I also realised that he needed another chance but I could not provide him with it. I am relieved it worked out.

Having said that, we are in the building trade (the restaurant was a one year aberration in our history ) and I am often asked to give references for guys that I don't 'like' but who have very strong skills. I try not to allow my personality conflict (or otherwise) to intrude. It does not take too much to work out why someone rubs me up the wrong way.

For example, I was once accused of not liking someone in one of our teams because he was a chauvenist. Well, he was, but that was not the problem - most of the guys we work with are but I am not offended by that. The real problem was that he would try to undermine me with the 'boss' (my hubby but not everyone knows that...) He would 'misquote' me or misrepresent things I said, trying to get me into trouble. He was dishonest in his dealings with people. So I had to pull him up on this and set him straight. When, a couple of years later, I was asked to provide a reference for him, I stated his work record was perfect and he got on well with the guys on site but had problems dealing with a female supervisor, so would probably do best in an all male environment. He got the job and is doing fine last I heard.

I am quite conscious of the responsibility I have in being fair when I provide a reference. After all, this is someone's livelihood I am dealing with. Yet, I do insist on being truthful. The way I see it, I am not doing them any favours by portraying them to be anything they are not. This guy would have been miserable with a woman boss who might take umbrage at everything he did and said to her. Not everyone is going to be as maternal about it as I am. At th end of the day, he lasted three years with us and left much better qualified , and is paid a lot more than we could afford to pay him. He is also in an environment that works for him.

I think I would definitely have to go with the truth. I was in the position of having left a company and had not enjoyed a good relationship with my most recent manager. This particular manager filled a reference in for a company which i had secured a job with, employment was conditional on satisfactory references. He subsequently filled in false information which resulted in the job offer being withdrawn. I think it is imperative when filling in a reference to consider the overall effect the information you provide will ultimately have on the applicant.

I've seen those type references SWL. I think the Royal Mail has that policy, for instance.

They strike me as a cop out. Look at it the other way - if someone's done good work they've earned a good reference.

I have run past references by HR, though, because of the litigious aspects .

I work for a large public sector organisation, and our policy with references for non-specialists is only to request them prior to offering the job to the best candidate on a conditional basis. We ask referees to send us the details that SWL mentioned - just the objective facts.

How long did person x work there, what was their job, what was their attendance record, and any other actual verifiable objective facts. For equal ops reasons we're not allowed to take anything else into account. It wouldn't be fair to favour an applicant whose previous employer wrote an enthusiastic personal reference over one whose previous employer had a policy of 'just the facts, ma'am'. And we don't know the referee any more than we know the candidate.....

I'd suggest sticking to the facts in references. If more detail is asked for and policy is allowed for and you feel so inclined, mention strengths and weaknesses, but focus on what they can do well, and treat weaknesses as areas for improvement, training, or support.

For personal references, I've always understood that reference letters should not contain negative information - if you feel that you cannot give a positive reference you should refuse to give one at all. If you do give one then you can adjust the tone to suit, there is a difference between a glowing one and one that basically says the person turned up. And also I think that there can be legal implications if you make negative statements, or positive ones that are blatant lies.

In most cases employers seem to use them for checking basic information anyway - did the person work for you, how long for etc., as Otto says. In my industry it seems you cannot rely on your boss still being in the job when you come to call for a reference so they often end up being bland form letters from HR anyway written by someone who knows nothing about you.

One thing I have done when *reading* personal references is look for gaps - what is not said, along with what is said.

I too have always understood that a written reference should not be negative as it had legal implications.

Anyhoo, I have never been asked to write a reference but have given several verbal ones on the phone, which strikes me as a better way to do things from the employers point of view as they can tell by your voice if you are embellishing the 'truth' or not. That is if they ask the right question.

A young lad who I supervised asked if I'd provide a reference to which I agreed. The conversation - after initial hello/intros went roughly:

emp: Is his timekeeping good?
me: yes, I cannot remember last time he was off ill and he never has unauthorised days off.
emp: Does he know the technical side of his job?
me: yes, he has passed all his exams usually being near the top of his class and has a keen mind for facts and figures.
emp: Is He keen?
me: yes, he will work hard all day, overtime as required, on both the good and not so good jobs - without complaint.

The potential employer was suitably impressed, but had he asked if he could use his initiative and think on the run I would have had to be a bit less complementary.
The lad was like a machine. Given the right tools, spares and instruction, he would do a good job. Let him think for himself, or make a decision and it usually ended in disaster.

At the end of the day I think you have to be as complementary as you can, be it be a written or verbal reference. The person reading it will probably have written some as well so will know the 'truth' from the 'TRUTH'.

SWl, thats a fascinating point about being sued for giving a good reference. As for me if I got someone into a job by glossing over their faults and because of that they ended up in a job they hated would they ever talk to me again?

A standard direct question is 'would you employ this person again'. A non-answer has to be read as a 'no'. You can phrased it as a 'yes for a job where etc etc' but if the true answer is that you simply wouldn't...

It's difficult. You can seriously affect someone's life . It shouldn't of course ever depend on your one reference, and it's still the new employer's choice too, and also the referencee's choice to apply for jobs they may not be suited to... but there's still a lot of responsibility.

On one hand you have someone's livlihood, on the other an employer aquiring a liability. Unless there's a risk of personal harm - to patients for example - as opposed to business/financial harm I'm beginning to think loyalty, (though that's not quite the right word), ought to be first to the referencee. But without telling falsehoods. That's if you don't take the easy option of a policy line to give nothing more than confirmation of dates.

Giving off the record phone references is . You have no time to think your answers through.

Waz

Waz, you have to decline to offer a reference in that case. I've been told that legally, you're not allowed to badmouth someone in a reference, and if you haven't been given the proper training to write references you need to escalate that to someone who has, if only to watch your own back.

Many companies actually refuse to offer more than basic facts nowadays, though in the old days, a reference that consisted solely of dates of employment was taken to mean more than just that (ie, someone's biting their tongue here).