Ping: Hiring Managers

[CraigSca]

Got a question for you...

I've been out of work since July, and I've just been through a series of interviews (six) with a company that I would love to work for in an absolute DREAM role. They're now down to two candidates. Yesterday, they asked for two managerial references from me. I gave them three, and I found out from two of them that they were called today.

So...hiring managers out there - do you usually call the references of both candidates when it's down to two? Do you only call the one you're interested in? Do you call the one you're not interested in to completely knock him out? Am I reading way too much into this because of the insane anticipation? They told me they're making their decision early next week, and I'm dying over here.

Oct. 5 Update: I got the job!

[Maple Leafs]

As a manager, I've never called references of someone I didn't want to hire. As a job seeker, I've never had my references called for a job I wasn't offered.

[JPhillips]

I've only hired theatre staff, but I'd check both candidates references if it were down to two. I wanted to get as much info as possible before making a decision that was going to effect the theatre for at least a year.

Good luck.

[stevew]

Good luck Craig, I hope it works out.

[Senator]

Lots of luck, I know it must be agonizing.

[CamEdwards]

Best of luck to you Craig. Checking references is always the last step for me. If I don't think they're going to be a good hire, I'm not going to waste my time checking their references.

[Barkeep49]

I've never hired anyone but have only had my references checked when it was followed by an offer.

[BrianD]

I've had my references checked without getting an offer, but I don't think they'd bother if they weren't seriously considering you.

[CraigSca]

Just as I figured, I suppose checking of references doesn't necessarily MEAN anything. Thanks for all the replies.

[Arles]

We've hired 5 people to our IT group and I've been the hiring manager on 3 of them. I only call references as a last move prior to submitting an offer to HR (almost a formality). If you had two references called, I'd say it's a very good sign for a potential offer.

[Mantle2600]

I can't comment on your question, but I just wanted to wish you luck on the potential job.

[damnMikeBrown]

I always called for anybody I was considering hiring. If I had four great people, it was another tool to make my decision easier. One or two have iffy ref's...boom, gone. There's also the ones that when you start talking to them seem wayyy too much like a family member/family friend pimping the x-employee...not bam gone, but close.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by damnMikeBrown

There's also the ones that when you start talking to them seem wayyy too much like a family member/family friend pimping the x-employee...not bam gone, but close.

Wow, sounds like a way to allow yourself to miss out on a good employee.

But then again, many modern hiring practices befuddle me. I've never had to result to nitpicking to get a good read if I or the companies I've worked for can get something beneficial out of a new employee.

[damnMikeBrown]

No, more like sometimes there is an actual family member that may have been in some way in a managerial role over applicant A. Now, there may be an honest evaluation, or there may be a family bonus thrown in. If I don't have to worry about that with applicant B, well, then B is ahead. Never disqualified anybody, there are no absolutes when you are dealing with people, but as a general rule, I'll take non-related ref's more seriously than those with family ties.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by damnMikeBrown

No, more like sometimes there is an actual family member that may have been in some way in a managerial role over applicant A. Now, there may be an honest evaluation, or there may be a family bonus thrown in. If I don't have to worry about that with applicant B, well, then B is ahead. Never disqualified anybody, there are no absolutes when you are dealing with people, but as a general rule, I'll take non-related ref's more seriously than those with family ties.

Ah, possible real family members, I gotya. Yea that should be a red flag.

[CraigSca]

Well, fortunately, all 3 references are NOT family members. Former manager, former VP of Sales and former Channel Sales manager.

Now, I think think the first guy - we are best buds now - may have a tendency to go overboard, but we are definitely not related.

[jackyl]

You'll be fine. If this is a director level or above position, they're going to call references you don't even know about. If it isn't and they called people you know are giving good references, you're in the clear.

Reference checking is boring, monotonous work, usually done by wither a low-end office worker or an exec with a lot of other things to worry about, doing the job because someone else told them to. If someone took the time to call references you know - and they raved about you - it's like putting a gold star on your folder when it gets to whomever does the actual hiring.

I don't know shit except what you put in the other thread but I like your chances.

[Logan]

People actually give meaningful info when they're called as references? I thought those days were long gone.

[stevew]

I thought that more or less you were only supposed to say whether or not someone was eligible for re-hire, or not eligible. I mean, the last company I worked for was so tight for information that it was nearly impossible to get them to confirm that you worked there.

[Arles]

I haven't ever got much useful info from references. We have 2 phone screenings and 2-3 face-to-face interviews before hiring a person. If we actually like the person and check references (again, more to validate employment), I think the odds are pretty low that a "red flag" will come up. In other words, the type of people that put references on their resume that speak negatively of them are the type that probably won't make it through our interview process. If you haven't found 2-3 people in your professional career that are either positive or neutral towards you for reference, chances are we will notice something prior to giving you an offer.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by stevew

I thought that more or less you were only supposed to say whether or not someone was eligible for re-hire, or not eligible. I mean, the last company I worked for was so tight for information that it was nearly impossible to get them to confirm that you worked there.

From the HR-related classes I took in college to the training I received before doing some recruiting for my company, it was always pretty clear that the only information you should expect from references is the dates the person was employed and possibly their title. Any extra information they give opens them up to potential lawsuits from the candidate should they not receive the job, so companies just put a lid on what references can reveal.

[CraigSca]

Potential lawsuits from the candidate against the reference? I'm not sure I understand.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Potential lawsuits from the candidate against the reference? I'm not sure I understand.

Some states have regulations on how much information a former employer can give. Like in Oklahoma, former employers cannot give negative information about former employees. If they do and causes the applicant to not get the job and the applicant finds out, he/she can sue the former employer for damages.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by duckman

Some states have regulations on how much information a former employer can give. Like in Oklahoma, former employers cannot give negative information about former employees. If they do and causes the applicant to not get the job and the applicant finds out, he/she can sue the former employer for damages.

Not only negative information like "He showed up late twice a week," but basically any word that comes out of the reference's mouth could be misinterpreted by the person doing the research, who could then form a negative opinion because of it.

Plus, people will sue over anything. If I'm a candidate, and I know that I've made it to the final round which is when references are checked, and then I find out I don't get the job, that reference must have been the reason. Surely they said something that caused me to not get the job. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, the possibility is out there.

There's absolutely no benefit to a company to have their own employees give information about former employees outside of clear statements of fact that can't be misinterpreted: "Bob worked here from 8/04 to 11/06 as VP of Sales."

[CraigSca]

Ok, next question: You're down to two candidates. My impression is, you call the one you're offering the job to first (with the offer) and leave the other candidate dangling for a few days until the offer is accepted, correct?

[CU Tiger]

I never bothered with checking references anymore.
1) Most wont give any info because of the aforementioned reasons.
2) If they didn't do the exact same job, for the exact same customers, with a company with an identical work environment; it really wouldn't tell me much.

But when I did use references it was basically a formality to confirm fact. If I found any factual error, it showed the willingness to deceive at which point I questioned the entire interview process.

Having said all that. Id call my first choice and if he got good reviews, Id be done. Then Id call him and ask to come in for a formal offer and ask him to be prepared to potentially make a decision at the time of offer. I would not contact #2 until #1's fate was known.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Logan

From the HR-related classes I took in college to the training I received before doing some recruiting for my company, it was always pretty clear that the only information you should expect from references is the dates the person was employed and possibly their title. Any extra information they give opens them up to potential lawsuits from the candidate should they not receive the job, so companies just put a lid on what references can reveal.

We may or may not have had someone dismissed from a certain place of employment where I may or may not work and it may or may not have been recently for maybe or maybe not a breach of our ethical code. And we may or may not have been told in no uncertain terms that we can't say a certain employee was dismissed for those reasons much less anything else.

SI

[Toddzilla]

FWIW I've been involved in hiring several team members at my job, and once we boil it down to 2-3 candidates, we rank them and call the references of the first one and then make an offer. If that falls through we call references for #2, offer, and so on.

I think it is bad form to call references, especially managerial ones, for someone you aren't prepared to hire.

Sounds like you're in great shape - my fingers are crossed!

[oliegirl]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you!

In GA, you aren't allowed to give any type of information other than position, dates of service, and salary...and at the company I'm at now, we actually have to sign something when we leave the company if we want them to respond to requests for references/information. My mom worked in HR for 10+ years, during the time when all the new "rules" were coming out and companies were getting sued for giving negative or questionable references. I remember her talking about how many times she'd have to explain to someone that she couldn't answer their questions about character, time, etc...

[Raiders Army]

Good luck man.

[wade moore]

As a hiring manager, this BS crap about not being able to give info on referrals is absurd.

[wade moore]

Dola: I've started taking the tact of just not responding if someone contacts me about a referral on a bad employee that used to work for me.

[CraigSca]

I can see not being allowed to give detailed information if you're speaking to the HR department of a former company. However, when the references are supplied by the prospective employee, I don't see why that's an issue. Then again, I guess I'm lucky that I've maintained pretty good relationships with a few of my past managers.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I can see not being allowed to give detailed information if you're speaking to the HR department of a former company. However, when the references are supplied by the prospective employee, I don't see why that's an issue. Then again, I guess I'm lucky that I've maintained pretty good relationships with a few of my past managers.

Again - you're trained as a manager to get NO info. It's just too risky to give anything out. If what you say is misinterpreted, etc, etc - it's just not worth the trouble you can get into.

Besides, even if you say good things and the guy doesn't get the job he can still sue and say it's your fault - it's such a subjective process.

[CraigSca]

Wow, that's just nuts. Almost sounds like references either are or soon will be passe'.

How is one supposed to learn about an prospective employees past history?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Wow, that's just nuts. Almost sounds like references either are or soon will be passe'. How is one supposed to learn about an prospective employees past history?

I think you're pretty much on the money, they are pretty much passe'.

And I believe you're catching onto to the point on the last bit too -- you aren't supposed to be able to know how big a screwup anyone is until you've suffered through it personally. It's something that actually works against good employees who are seeking a new job for reasons like lay off, moving for personal reasons, etc. But it provides protection for the fuck ups of the world.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think you're pretty much on the money, they are pretty much passe'.

And I believe you're catching onto to the point on the last bit too -- you aren't supposed to be able to know how big a screwup anyone is until you've suffered through it personally. It's something that actually works against good employees who are seeking a new job for reasons like lay off, moving for personal reasons, etc. But it provides protection for the fuck ups of the world.

Yup. It's absurd. An interview is just not a very complete way to judge an employee, especially one that is a good actor.

Edit: yeah, you'll get a vindictive boss that will screw a good employee sometime, but i'll take that risk.

[mgadfly]

As a labor and employment attorney that represents labor unions and small local employers, I believe most employer side attorneys give advice that is absurd. It is extremely rare that anyone is sued for what they say on a job reference check and there is actually an increasing amount of subsequent employers suing when a previous employer provides partial information and fails to pass on critical information (such as, that the employer terminated the employee for child molestation).

I tell my clients to tell the truth so long as they documented that truth while the employee worked for them. If there is no documentation because the managers and supervisors were too lazy to write the employee up, then they should give a generally good reference. If my client follows my advice and gets sued I provide them with representation through the motion to dismiss with no additional cost.

However, my clients are small employers that aren't hiring professional people, so damages even if they did get sued would be minimal. Even if someone lies about your past work performance and you don't get hired at a job because of it, you don't get to sit around and expect them to pay your wages, you have to attempt to mitigate damages and most people can go out and get another job. Plus, with how slow our system works, almost everyone actually gets a job since they know that even if they win/settle it may be years before they see a dime.

I've seen one horror story where an upset former employee sued over a reference and asked for a huge sum of money. In the end they didn't get a dime, but it dragged out for a long time and about 10 attorneys made money off the case. But I've also settled one of these cases for $215 once I pointed out to opposing counsel how minimal actual damages were.

*If any of you are hiring managers or run your own businesses, etc..., none of this is intended to be legal advice for anyone (just a general comment on the topic).

[CraigSca]

bump

no word today.

I was told on Thursday/Friday that the decision would be made "within a week" and "early next week". I think after tomorrow I'll feel a little more down, and after Wednesday I'll officially be kicked in the gut.

Yahoo.

[sterlingice]

HR decisions are never made quickly. It seems like the more time matters, the slower they go. Have heart, as much as one can in a job search setting.

SI

[CraigSca]

Thanks, SI. I've been pretty much sitting by the phone (err...cell phone strapped to my belt buckle) all day. EVERY number that doesn't look familiar sets my heart racing and then is quickly followed up with a "oh, it's you" (in my head, anyway).

The last job I REALLY wanted I came in 2nd. I have the distinct feeling that will happen again here, but I'm keeping my chin up.

Thanks for the well wishes, all.

[CraigSca]

Not sure if anyone's still following along, but I received an email late this afternoon asking me to authorize a background check.

This thing just drags on and on....

[stevew]

Might be a good sign? Then again, they ran thousands of dollars worth of background checks on my wife for a job, but in the end it never came through. But usually they wouldn't be spending the money to say no I think.

[Simms]

From my experience, and from what I've been told, running a background check is not an inexpensive process for the employer. If they're willingly putting out the dough for that, then your odds are pretty good, I'd think.

But yeah ... the waiting always sucks. Good luck.

[damnMikeBrown]

good luck brother!

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Not sure if anyone's still following along, but I received an email late this afternoon asking me to authorize a background check.

This thing just drags on and on....

IMHO you are as good as in.
Well as long as that incident with the 13year old girl and the sheep doesnt turn up

[CraigSca]

If I were on the outside looking in, I'd probably say the same thing. Living it, however, I don't want to count any chickens before they hatch. We shall see...

[Passacaglia]

Good luck -- keep us updated!

[Barkeep49]

Glad to see this update. I can understand about wanting to temper your hopes so I won't say how good I think this looks for you.

[CraigSca]

Thanks - I know they said they wanted to make a decision early this week, so it seems odd they'd ask for a background check at this point (though, from the email, it looks like company policy). I'm not sure if they're doing background checks on both candidates, just me, or what. I also don't know how long this process will take. I'm "hoping" I'll find out by Friday... (ugh, another weekend would be unbearable)