
Best Way to Check Someone's References - cazzy123
http://ben.casnocha.com/2009/06/best-reference-check-strategy-ever.html
======
telegraph
It's a clever idea, but as someone who has worked for (and listed as
references) supervisors who were extremely flaky, extremely busy, or both, I
would never want to judge someone based solely on whether or not their
references promptly return a call.

~~~
lionhearted
I love the idea. I've always been skeptical of references - if anyone asked me
about any staff I've had, I'd be pretty positive. Why burn bridges and start
vendettas? There's definitely a few people I wouldn't call back for, but I'd
call back for any of the people that were fantastic to work with. That means
either really good at their job, or average+ with an amazing attitude (which
can be the right ticket for some roles).

I might halfway pause and start a bad reference with, "Well..." and let the
manager guess if he's perceptive enough, but I'd never speak ill of a former
staff member. Too much chance of it biting the company back - it'd be pretty
damn irresponsible of me to do that. But not calling back? Yeah, I'd do that.
For great people? Callback the same day I get the message, no matter how busy,
at least for a 90 second chat. Maybe I'm not everybody, but I think most
halfway competent managers go out of their way to take care of the great
people they've worked with.

~~~
Ardit20
Why would you bother or care about the opportunities of some guy who you might
never meet again, especially if you are trying to meet a deadline or had a bad
day or whatever.

~~~
lionhearted
You need to have fierce loyalty to the people that help you do great things in
life. When someone works with you, and especially when they work under your
guidance, they're making you successful and the company successful. In return,
you do what's right by them, keep them informed, equipped, protect them, stand
with them, and so on.

I've got fierce loyalty pretty high in my ethics, but there's a lot of
pragmatic reasons too. On any one event, you could blow it off, but it's
pretty obvious on the whole who goes to bat for their people and who doesn't.
It's not something you make a calculation on - "Hmm, no one will know or care
if I don't help this particular time." It's a way of life - take care of
people that take care of you. Feels good inside, world sees it, recognizes it,
and treats you well. A good thing, top to bottom.

------
spolsky
Anyone have any evidence that this works? Other than just the fact that it
sounds like a nice idea.

In years of calling references I _never_ found them to be a predictor of
_anything at all_. You get great references for awful candidates and vice
versa. I don't even bother any more unless I know the reference personally.

~~~
bonaldi
Yup. This is especially true if a person is still employed. I've known bosses
to give absolutely glowing references to otherwise-unfireable people just in
the hopes of getting rid of them.

~~~
moe
Amen to both of you.

Imho references to people you don't know are close to meaningless, especially
in the tech field. It's good to know where a given candidate has worked before
and what his duties were. But that's normally in their CV and from there it's
all up to your judgement and testing.

A few more reasons why references are worthless:

\- Many countries have laws that explicitly forbid said references to tell you
anything that could "hinder the candidates efforts to find a new job".

\- Without knowing the company and people the candidate listed as reference
you have little means to judge their assessment.

\- Even if a candidate delivered perfect results in his previous environment
that does not mean he'll function equally well in _your_ environment. Your
people, your tech, your salary will all be different.

The article looks like the typical pseudo-science to me (is the author selling
a book, perhaps?). In reality the references are amongst the smallest factors
to consider.

At least in the tech-field a skilled interviewer will know what he needs to
know after an hour of talking to the candidate. Paperwork is secondary.

------
vaksel

       However, if only 2 or 3 of the 10 references selected by the candidate return your call
    

who the hell gives 10 references when applying for a job?

------
tptacek
This only works if you're requiring _lots_ of references, so you can look at
the percentage response. Most hiring processes want 2-3. That's an awful lot
to leave up to chance.

Far better just to know how to interview a reference on the phone. If you're
looking for the "is the candidate outstanding" response, just ask for specific
details about what made the candidate outstanding. A crappy pro-forma
reference won't have any.

If you were really serious about references, you'd track down backdoor
references anyways.

~~~
patio11
_If you're looking for the "is the candidate outstanding" response, just ask
for specific details about what made the candidate outstanding._

The strategy, such that it is, is designed to get around the reality that
many, many bosses are only allowed to say "I can confirm that $CANDIDATE
worked from $START_DATE to $END_DATE and his final position was $TITLE." If
you ask "Is the candidate outstanding? What specifically makes you think so?",
you will hear "I can confirm that $CANDIDATE worked from $START_DATE to
$END_DATE and his final position was $TITLE."

That said, like many brilliant engineering ideas for evading legal
requirements by simple logical tricks that a profession filled with people who
are paid $300 an hour to think of loopholes _totally can't see coming_ , I
strongly doubt this idea will work. You're not selecting for outstanding
candidates, you're selecting for managers who are not risk-adverse.

A risk-adverse manager will ignore your little logic trap, call you, and say
"I am returning your phone call with regards to $CANDIDATE. I can confirm that
$CANDIDATE worked from $START_DATE to $END_DATE and his final position was
$TITLE. Have a nice day." He will then document that he was asked for a
reference for $CANDIDATE and followed company procedure to the letter. You
have learned no useful information from this, aside from "Ahh,
$PREVIOUS_COMPANY has a corporate policy to not provide useful references"

------
abyssknight
As much as this is great for the employer, it really stinks for the candidate.
Even a mediocre reference is a reference. It proves that you at least worked
somewhere and did something. That said, I'd never list a bad reference.

References are funny things. If you have to call them, you probably shouldn't
hire the candidate anyways. If you have that much doubt in their skills, or
integrity you're likely to feel that way regardless of their references.

------
wallflower
On the other side, if you ask someone to be a reference, make sure 1) that you
had a real working relationship and 2) to explicitly ask them 'would you be
willing to provide a _strong_ reference for me'.

------
radley
Sorry, I disagree. It's disrespectful to both parties (applicant and
reference). Sounds like a tool.

If I were to receive this kind of call, I'd contact the applicant and ask WTF
was going on.

------
rjprins
In computational theory this would be called a zero-knowledge proof.
Especially if the inquirer doesn't pick up any return calls... Sorry, just had
an exam.

------
dawsonking
I find LinkedIn recommendations works pretty well too.

------
known
Seeking Reference != Seeking Recommendation

------
zackattack
This link should be titled:

Good Method to Check Someone's References?

