Ping: Hiring Managers
 

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!

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.

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.

Good luck Craig, I hope it works out.

Lots of luck, I know it must be agonizing.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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

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!

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...

Good luck man.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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....

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.

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.

good luck brother!

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

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...

Good luck -- keep us updated!

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.

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)

I'd have to think that asking permission for a background check would be a good sign ... depending of course on what it turns up ;)

edit to add: I'm having a hard time imagining them running checks on two candidates prior to setting a running order for them, and once that's done I have a hard time thinking they'd run one on number two unless number one already turned them down.

For timing issues, anyone know how long a typical background check takes? They said in the email they'd be looking at "identification" (I'm thinking verification of employment) and criminal check. I've read that this can take as long as 3-5 days (?), though I'd think with the advent of the Internet it should not take anywhere near that long.

I think your attitude is commendable, but I also agree with others that this is a very good sign. Chin up!

I worked at a nonprofit who did a background similar to what it sounds like they're doing because people would be working with kids and results were emailed with-in 2 business days.

No idea about the hiring background check. We've had to go through them to get clearances to sites that took weeks to get back. I'd imagine they can't put pre-employment candidates through this, tho. Would make it tough to hire people: "Say, we like you but could you wait 2 months for your social security number to clear?"

SI

Every time this gets bumped, I hope it's the good news that you got the job.

Hey, me too! :D

I'd be pretty surprised if they're doing a background check on someone they're not planning to hire.

Follow-up:

Just got a call from HR. She said that the background check company got back to them and said that the county of either where I live now or in the past (Bucks County, PA) isn't automated when it comes to doing criminal checks. Therefore, this process needs to be done by hand and will take 3-5 business days. ARRRGGH! She said this is only the second time in two years a background check has taken more than 24 hours (how lucky am I?) I then asked her..."umm, not to assume anything, but is it safe to consider this check a good sign?" She said, "we need to do a background check before we can extend an offer". ARRRGGGH^2! I asked her if she could find out which county exactly is having the problem, to see if I could somehow facilitate this process. She said she's going to ask the company they use if I can do anything...

The waiting! The waiting! I was so pumped to have a super-spectacular weekend, but now I may not know until mid-next week. I'm left with a kind of super-spectacular hurray feeling....yet not.

Keep thinking positive CraigSca... it sounds like you're on the verge of an offer.

I can imagine the frustration...but...if they took the time to contact you to let you know about this, that is a great sign. Also, the "we can't make an offer without a background check" comment, to me, is as good as a guarantee of an offer as long as you don't have anything shady you are afraid of them finding...

Still keeping my fingers crossed for you!!!

That's what I think, too. I have no arrests in my background (other than a speeding ticket about 10 years ago), so I just want to GET THROUGH the process. Let's go, people!! :)

w00t
Still sending good thoughts your way

You got arrested for speeding? How fast were you going? :)

Oh...a ticket, I mean :)

Background checking other locales can be a bitch, so I hope it's a speedy process. Good luck.

Day 4 and no call back as of yet. This is killing me. I even tried calling HR today for an update but never received a call back. Lovely. I really don't need this right now. :(

It sounds like you're in great shape. The process can be painfully slow sometimes. The last job I was at they told me they wanted to hire me about 3 days after i interviewed but some internal BS gummed up the works and it ended up taking 3 weeks before I actually got the offer. It really sucks given that you're out of work, but it sounds like good things are coming!

3 to 5 days for background check. It takes about 2 weeks to hire someone at my company.

Usually the last thing is the drug test.

I hire about 15 to 20 people a year in my department or for other departments. It is pretty standard, so far I would say you are definately in.

Update, and I have a horrible, sick feeling in my stomach. Just got off the phone with HR and the coversation was weird. She said she needs to speak to the hiring manager, that he needs to (from my recollection) go over a couple things and that she's waiting to hear back from him. I said, "it was my understanding that the background check needed to go through, and then we can move forward." - she said something about the manager having to do some things and she's waiting to hear back from him and then something to the tune of "a decision will be made." It just sounds all wrong here. I asked when I can expect to hear back and she said that he's on a business trip and that she hopes to get back with me by the end of business today.

I can't imagine ANYTHING on the background check - I haven't done a thing anywhere. I just don't get it...but I just feel wrong...something's wrong.

I hate, hate, hate this process.

In my experience, HR people are just weird. I think the fact that they're calling you at all has to be a good sign.

Craig,

Remember that at times background checks can actually come up incorrect. We just had an issue with someone we were hiring. He said that it can't be. He called up the service we use for the background check and it turns out they screwded up, mistaken identity.

Actually, I called them for an update - it's day 5 of the background check and I was wondering if they received it or not.

Well then, it's good that they still knew who you were! When i had a background check, they said it could take up to 2 weeks.

My guess is they are talking about $$$.

How dare you insult my wife?!?! :mad:

Don't make me come after lurker... ;)

Gosh, I hope so. No call back tonight. Gee, I'm "surprised."

So....I'm sitting here, mulling over possible scenarios as to why this is taking so long. Ultimately, the brain works out scenarios that could best play into "good news", right? So here's my attempt:

The HR person mentioned that the hiring manager is traveling this week. Now, suppose my background check comes back "okay" (again, I have no reason to believe it wouldn't), but the timing is off because of the 3-5 day delay. Therefore, since he's "traveling" she's having a hard time getting in touch with him to finalize the offer -- it would have been finalized however, were it not for my lengthy check. You would think they would have gone over this situation before traveling, but who knows...

So...that's where I leave it. I sit around and wait in the meantime, still hoping beyond hope that all signs point to "yes".

Anyway, to all the readers offering their well wishes and reading along, thanks much for sharing the ride.

Basically, you cleared HR and she's done with you. She's making excuses because she doesn't know if or when the hiring manager is making you an offer. She might have no idea what the hiring manager even does on a daily basis depending on the size of the company.

Hiring managers can be egotists to a degree - it's on them to bring people into the fold and they develop a God complex on occasion. Maybe he's making you sweat a bit so he can lowball you on money, maybe your position isn't as important to fill as some others that he's responsible for, or maybe he flat-out didn't feel like hiring anyone yesterday. It happens.

Keep your chin up, Craig.

Gulp
 

Just received an email asking me to give the hiring manager a call to discuss the position I interviewed for. Of course, no answer on the line, so I left a VM.

Looks like today is the day...still not feeling good about this.

You wouldn't have gotten an email about calling for a rejection.

They didn't call back???

Just curious, what field is the job in...?

Spoke to the hiring manager - I am to receive an offer either tomorrow or Monday! :D Thank you, Lord!

Computers :)

Congrats!!! See, it's never as bad as you make it out to be.

Thanks, Logan. Yeah, I know - but when it's a job and you're unemployed, the ol' safety net has been pulled out from under you -- it's hard to think straight when your entire livelihood depends on it.

Completely understand. Honestly, if a company ever asked a candidate to call them back just to say he/she didn't get a job, they should be prohibited from ever hiring people again.

Best of luck. When do you start?

I'm so happy for you Craig. Congrats! It was quite a journey and I'm just so pleased to see it end up this way.

Way To Go Craig, I guess you can get NHL 2008 soon :)

Fantastic! Congratulations, Craig. :)

You should edit the first post's title so we can tell at a glance. :)

/tk

Congrats on the offer - very cool to land a position that has you excited to get back to work.

Yay! Congrats Craig!

NICE! CONGRATS!

Now let that be a lesson, wheen you get all stressed out about that company, it is really over nothing and everything works out in the end. Do not ever let them stress you out again....

Great news!

Hope you enjoy it.

Congratulations Craig. Been watching this and keeping you and the family in our prayers, glad to hear that things are going to work out for you.

Nice!!!!!

Thanks, all! Still haven't received the "official" offer yet, but I was told to expect a call from HR either tomorrow or Monday. Apparently, they were held up because of end of quarter/end of fiscal year and apologized for the hold-up. No harm done, of course...(though I probably have a few ulcers I didn't have before).

While I'm completely excited, I still can't wait to receive the official Fedex with the offer on letterhead. That's when the champagne gets uncorked :)

Awesome, congrats!

Congrats!

Offer received and accepted. I start Oct. 22nd!

Oh, and I promise, no more updates :D. Thanks for following along!