To be honest in my reference letter?

[IamAporcupine]

I have been asked to provide a reference letter for an employee who recently left my team. She has already been offered a new job in a completely different field. This is fortunate as her performance in her previous role was very poor; we lost time and money thanks to her lack of skills.

The form has a "would you re-employ this person?" I want to be honest and just say "No". I can explain that I believe this field of work was not for her, and that she will very likely perform well in her new job.

AIBU?

Well yes, she said she knew XYZ techniques, and she didn't. We provided as much support as we could, discussed her protocols, etc but she was just not interested or organised or capable enough.

Unfortunately this is not that uncommon in STEM lab based work within academia.
it's very difficult to assess practical skills during an interview. And the nature of the job/environment means that's there might not always be someone else to train you.

God I hope I would never become the type of person who said No to this question for spite.

You had a responsibility too to train, to support, to coach effectively. You did not. As a manager I know thay sometimes it doesn't matter what you do the person wont work out but you get to the end of their time, give a basic reference and send them on their way. Don't be a dick.

Thank you

What would be the difference with the first question? ("Are you aware of any aspects of the applicant conduct, work, or character which could detract from the required work performance")

It is not in the least spiteful to be diplomatically honest in this situation. You risk marring your reputation if you are not honest. It's not as if your lived experience of working with her will cause her to lose the job she now has acquired.

Jesus Christ you are overthinking this.

No one actually cares about your opinion on this. You’re giving it a lot of unnecessary thought (are you not breaking confidentiality by discussing it on here in any case? Would your boss be happy if they saw this?)

Realistically you are 1 out of 3 potential references and therefore the weight of your reference is diluted. If you are really faffing around so much, just refuse to complete the reference.

It depends why they were such a poor employee. If it was something that was their fault, e.g. really lazy, often late, rude to colleagues, told lies, then I’d probably be honest. If it was just that they were in the wrong job and just couldn’t do it, I’d be kinder because they might be fine in a different role.

I would leave it blank. Our company only gives a reference to their position in the company and time spent with the company.

The questions overlap and most significantly are not designed to standalone, they are really two parts of on question.

Q1 is asking you to identify specific risks: were they always late/did they steal/were they a liar.

Q.2 is asking for an assessment of the magnitude of those specific risks, were they so serious you’d not employ the candidate again. E.g. you could have a candidate who was always late, but actually they were a genius so you’d always re employ them.

they’re structured like this because generally they reduce the risk of employment litigation associated with a bad reference as they encourage specificity.

Not necessarily. You don't have to be sacked to be a poor employee.

I think leaving it blank will give them the answer you want to convey, but without you exposing yourself, legally. I’d do that.

I’m sure there is a policy in place. Don’t be a dick. Maybe it was the micromanaging that caused her to mess up.

I agree. You aren't meant to put 'bad stuff' in a reference which more or less defeats the purpose of one.

Most companies keep their hands clean by not offering references on personalities or performances other than dates of employment.

Agreed. But she wasn’t poor enough to be sacked, so now is not the time to mention poor performance now that she’s left.

You should simply pass this on to HR.

Most company these days have a policy to only provide job titles and dates of employment to avoid litigation which is a sensible position to take.

This former employee has a new job in a different field so her previous performance is somehow irrelevant and unless you have evidence to back up your claims (such as formal performance warnings and so on) you could get yourself in trouble if she were to lose the job because of you and sued your employer...

Ultimately why would you want to jeopardise this person having a new start?

It sounds petty to me.

It sounds petty to me.

Yes, and why it's been made difficult to put anything but fact, and rightly so.

Too many petty, micromanaging, vengeful "team leaders" out to show how much authority they think they have in their very small world.

it is almost impossible to be sacked from a position like the one she had. Only gross misconduct I imagine.
She was poor enough so that her contract was not extended.

You don’t need to fill their reference request in.

Just reply back to the email saying that your company policy is to provide a basic reference only, and the dates of service are xx to xx and the job title on exit was xxx

this is pretty much standard in the world of work these days and no one will bat an eyelid

Just tick the yes box and let her move on.

Honestly op just say "yes if an opportunity arose", say no to the other q (assuming she wasn't a thief etc) and just move on with your life. Anything else would be churlish.

Write only stuff that is factually accurate and can be easily proven, so stick to employment dates.

If you add your opinion piece about suitability, you’re opening yourself up to being sued for libel (note, not your employer), because unless she was formally disciplined by HR, you have zero independent evidence to back up your claims.

I really wouldn’t poke the Bear!

OP your responses just demonstrate why universities have such poor quality staff.

Thanks everyone, I will just tick yes, I am not interested in risking her new job at all.

Could you elaborate?

Agreed. You get the micromanaging tone from the OP.