Hire praise makes a difference

Think references don't matter? Think again, writes Jim Bright.

You've applied for a new role and your potential employer starts checking references.
 
This is often a moment of mixed emotions for many. It means the employer is probably seriously considering you for the job but, on the other hand, it may now boil down to what the referee says or writes.

So just how important are references in the selection process? It is an issue that my colleague, Lynne Clune, and I looked into - and the results may surprise you.

First, we discovered that negative references had certain common features. The statements made by referees giving negative appraisals were shorter and vaguer. That alone was sufficient for recruiters to get nervous.
 
Statements that are specific in mentioning exactly what someone did are more influential than those detailing how many years they worked - recruiters want to know what you've achieved in the role more than how many years you took to achieve it.

Of great concern is that references do not appear to be accurate or valid.

Research dating back to the 1950s has shown that supervisors' ratings of their staff often do not correlate with similar evaluations from friends or workmates.
 
You could argue this is hardly surprising given a workmate might be expected to want to support a colleague's job application but the colleague probably has a greater exposure to the work performed than a boss.

Studies show that even if the ratings come only from supervisors, there is often a lack of agreement about the quality of a candidate.

It gets worse, different recruiters interpret the same statements from referees in different ways, placing varying amounts of emphasis on different aspects, resulting in differing opinions about the candidate's overall ability.

This might not matter if it could be shown that references play only a small part in the selection process but, alas, even that morsel of comfort doesn't exist.

We observed 100 people in a public service department who rated candidate resumes, watched videos of their interviews and read the candidate references.
 
We found that to get a high overall rating it was necessary for the candidate to get high ratings for both their resume and their interview.
 
If either was rated poorly, the overall candidate rating was much lower.

References were different. The quality of the reference alone directly influenced the overall ratings irrespective of resume or interview quality. In short, references count, big-time.

If they are so influential, are they any good at predicting future performance? The short answer appears to be no.

Again, this topic has been researched by a variety of groups using a range of different methods over the years.

The research suggests that references are very poor predictors of future performance. There is evidence that supervisors generate more predictive references than colleagues and acquaintances but even then the results are modest.

Perhaps, given these problems, it is not surprising how many companies now are loath to give references.
 
A British law firm with the beautiful name of Wright Hassall provides guidance on the internet about how employers should approach references.
 
It says employers have a duty of care to both the employee and the potential employer to "take reasonable care that the references are true, accurate and fair and ...not misleading", otherwise the employer could be liable for damages sought by the new employer who hires a lemon on their recommendation, or sued for damages, defamation or discrimination by the aggrieved applicant.
 
No wonder employers tread carefully with references.

Published: 28 July 2008