It's been said, many times, many ways - neutral is the new negative when it comes to references.
We're all so worried about getting sued, we won't tell the truth when someone's a bad apple. So we provide the following sell-outs:
1. A neutral reference (you know, I really don't have an opinion, I really wasn't exposed to their work enough);
2. A true sell-out - a moderately positive reference that means nothing (Bill has a way with people <read:a toxic way>); or
3. We do the OJ, the Richard Scrushy, the Mark Maguire <plug in your favorite person who's pleaded the fifth> (I'd really rather not discuss....).
Why's this on my mind? I recently had the pleasure of being contacted by a company who was trying to hire a former low performing employee at a company I worked at previously. The former employee/candidate, who was on-site, knew he had a problem making the references work to his favor. With that in mind, he took what I would call an aggressive approach - he stood in the HR pro's office while she called the references, presumably so he could hear the feedback and if negative, attempt to influence the HR Pro and perhaps even make the reference aware that he was standing there as the reference was being checked.
OK, you're right - that's a weak HR pro to let that happen, but the guy is a bully and she's not at the career level to say, "get out while I do this".
As you might expect, all the references in question were doing everything they could to be unavailable. Still, it goes without saying that for trying to game the system and bully the references and the reference checker, the candidate should get drilled.
Remember, it's only slander/libel if the information you provide is false. The truth shall set you free.
So, the next time someone calls you and says "Vandalay Industries", don't say the equivalent of "I'm not here to talk about the past, I'm here to talk about the future"; channel Kramer below and be real.
Comments