
Reference Checks Can Go Wrong - SparksZilla
https://www.holloway.com/s/trh-jose-guardado-reference-checking
======
rabidrat
If you can't give a 100% positive reference, tell the person before they
include you as a reference. Then when giving a reference, make sure it is 100%
positive.

Google (and in fact, most companies) only want to hire candidates who appear
flawless. To me, "appears flawless" is a red flag itself, but I think hiring
committees see any potential negative as possibly the tip of a terrible
iceberg. So even though we all want to be honest and provide nuanced feedback
about what it was like to work with a person for years, when giving a
reference you just need to censor all of that and pretend like they are the
best person you ever worked with and the only downside is that you're not
working together anymore (but you'd hire them back in a heartbeat).

It's like talking with a reporter or the police. Stop trying to be helpful to
anyone but the people you already know. Strangers are not to be trusted with
your inside information, about anything.

~~~
cozos
What about when they ask "what is this person's biggest weakness"?

~~~
ohyes
They’re too nice and they work too hard.

------
clubm8
Wow, a single offhand comment could doom a candidate from ever being hired?

I wish the same high standard applied to companies interacting with
candidates. I've had a Google engineer literally scream at me in an interview.
I've also had their recruiters reach out to _me_ for a role, schedule an
interview that seemed to go well, then completely ghost me.

I do not judge a company that doesn't hire me, even if they don't give
feedback - that is understandable given the legal climate in the states. But
it is unacceptable to simply disappear, and actions have consequences.

(In my case, I do not take Google recruiter comms, along with any other
company that engages in abusive behavior during the interview process)

~~~
kop316
It does apply to companies. Its called people just won't apply there. However,
those people don't make blog posts about it.

For example, if I look for a new job, there is no way I will apply to Google
(I say if because I see no reason to look for a new job).

------
tptacek
This is an extremely fucked up process. Can it possibly still work this way at
Google, where a reference collected years ago remains on file and a live part
of qualification today?

To everyone else: talk to your references about what you want them to say!
Don't just ask for a reference and leave it at that. Treat explicit reference
checks like the formality that they are; you have no special obligation to
present a super true, clear picture of your experience with your reference.
Just make sure the reference gets you to "yes".

Serious reference checks usually aren't explicit (like, "give us a list of 3
people for references"), precisely because everyone with career skills knows
to coach their references. In fact, because so many references are coached,
negative feedback looks especially bad in them.

My favorite part of this story is that a major lesson this hiring manager
learned from the process was to groom reference feedback for the offer
committee, just further exposing what a farce explicit reference checks are in
reality.

Hiring managers: the other big lesson here is, don't do things the way Google
does them. It works for Google because there's so much cachet and stability
associated with Google that they can afford to randomly turn down qualified
applicants. You're unlikely to be in the same situation.

------
throwawaygoogs
Many years ago, I was approached by a Google recruiter for a position. After a
couple of phone screens and a brief onsite, I returned for a ~4 hour set of
interviews. After the last interview, with someone who would have been my peer
if hired, she starts asking me about my background: where I'm from, what I
studied in college, and __if I was Jewish __(!?).

I believe she was Jewish and she said this in a fairly congenial way, but
nonetheless I was somewhat shocked. I then thought "well gee, guess I'm going
to get an offer". Nope -- more recruiter BS about headcount, whether they had
the budget, etc. and the finally a "not a good fit at this time" call with no
other feedback.

Their interview process is terrible for candidates and seems nearly _designed_
to make the 90% of people they jerk around before saying no to believe all the
stereotypes that Googlers are all self-entitled, aloof, 1%-ers. (I have a
number of close friends @ Google, but geez the organization seems to
practically revel in opportunities to make itself look bad and the hiring
process makes it look sooo bad).

~~~
clubm8
Just so you know, something like that would possibly lead to a settlement or
something (not a lawyer).

It's my understanding you take findings of fact to juries - which costs
companies money to send lawyers to.

The woman would be put under oath (deposed), and probably admit it (I'd hope).
But regardless it might still go to trial, and thus they might deem it logical
to give a fraction of that as a settlement.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> Google was his number one choice, but he had to decide whether it was safe
> to reject the other offers he had. He started to press me more, “Jose, I
> need certainty. I need to know that I’m going to get this offer.” So I said,
> “Look, I’m sure you’re going to get the offer. My recommendation is that you
> wait.”

The candidate learned a very valuable lesson: Never believe any assurances
that the recruiter gives you about how likely you are to get the job.

The candidate likely lost hundreds of thousands of dollars due to their
believing the recruiter (going from being hired by large Silicon Valley
companies, to finding a startup at the last minute).

~~~
influx
Just so folks know you can sign an offer and later retract if another position
comes up. It’s relatively common.

~~~
x0x0
Only assholes do it though.

Because when my preferred candidate signs, I tell other candidates no.

If you have any respect for people, you don't do this stuff.

------
x0x0
Jose... wow.

Reading between the lines, he committed to this candidate that the candidate
was getting an offer; the candidate declined other offers on that basis, and
did not actually get that offer.

The candidate should have retained a lawyer.

For anyone reading this and starting their careers, just know everything a
recruiter says is bullshit until the docusign lands in your inbox.

------
saghm
I feel like a truly ethical recruiter would never say say "I'm sure you're
going to get the offer"; either the offer is ready to be given, in which case
the recruiter should just give it, or it hasn't been decided yet, and there's
no guarantee that an offer will end up being given.

Of course, there may not be a lot of demand for recruiters who would not be
willing to tell a candidate that they're sure they'll get the offer
beforehand...

------
downerending
My experience (as an applicant) was similar. Google, of course, has so many
qualified applicants that oddities like this don't really matter much in terms
of their final pool.

I do wonder, though, if they will eventually accumulate a reputation for this
sort of thing that might harm them. For myself, I no longer respond to their
emails either.

~~~
rongenre
My understanding of Google is that they're ok with false negatives because
they consider false positives to be far far worse.

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
False negatives are a burden on your candidates, false positives are a burden
on your organization.

You'd be surprised how often the answer to 'Should we hire' has more to do
with 'He felt like he would be a dick' rather than 'He doesn't know X and Y
technology'.

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
That's the way it should be. A good candidate can learn X and Y, but it's hard
to unlearn being a dick.

------
notus
I haven't had a reference check in a long time. The last company that asked
for them didn't even check them. Any hiring people out there feel that
reference checks provide any meaningful insight?

~~~
m463
On the other hand, I agreed when a friend asked if I could be a reference for
him.

I got called, sang his praises only to be asked, "Are you looking for any
opportunities ..."

Recruiting off the reference list is a shitty thing to do.

~~~
notus
Seems only shitty if they are recruiting you to place your friend. Otherwise
it could be read as, "hey these two developers seem to like each other and
have worked together and we need more people". It could feel like a safer bet
to hire people you know will get along.

~~~
saghm
Sure, but this discourages people who would otherwise be willing to provide
references; if someone is willing to freely give you their time to talk to you
about one of your candidates, it seems courteous not to potentially waste more
of it by giving them an unsolicited offer.

~~~
m463
> it seems courteous not to potentially waste more of it

...

or possibly not even be considering my friend

------
CM30
Over here in Europe, your references generally don't say very much about you
beyond confirming you did indeed work for that company and how long you
actually worked there for.

This is to avoid issues like in the article, which can apparently leave the
referee open to legal action if the candidate can say the bad reference cost
them a job offer or something similar.

Is that different in the US? Do references usually mention the negatives about
an applicant as well?

~~~
pkaye
If the reference still works at that company, typically the HR will restrict
information to confirming period of employment and the title. They don't want
to deal with the legal risks. However if the reference is no longer at that
company I guess they could be very open.

------
dehrmann
I don't necessarily think there's that much value in references, but this is
more of a Google problem than a reference problem.

