Tricky reference situation

[SingingGoldfinch]

Hi - I recently provided a reference for a former employee. This employee was very difficult and there had been a whole string of issues during their time with us. The reference I provided wasn't bad, but could probably be described as neutral (It was a tick box form and the ticks went in the middle box.) The recruiting employer then followed up with a phone call where I gave some constructive comments on their queries but was generally positive. I have now heard directly from the former employee that the job offer has been withdrawn due to my reference being unsatisfactory. They are asking me what happened and threatening to follow up. I'm worried this could get messy. All I did was provide an honest reference but I'm concerned I could end up getting hauled over the coals. Any advice gratefully received.

As long as your reference was honest and factual and you have the evidence to back that up then don't even give it a second thought.

Thanks for your reply. The reference I provided was entirely honest - I have no worried about that. It would be hard to evidence the 'softer' elements on the form though as it was very subjective. The person in question is such a tricky individual and I am really worried this is going to get messy.

Are you her line manager, you could speak to h,r for their advice but if it was honest then you've done nothing wrong. If she contacts you again ask her not to call you anymore and if she has issues then she can discuss it with the company that refused her then block her number.

Yes, I was this person's line manager. I have asked our HR dept for advice on references in the past and they are not very helpful - they tend to just say to offer minimal details and leave it at that. I am absolutely sure the reference I gave is honest and accurate. I just don't trust this person not to kick up a fuss. I've had quite a few messages about it today but responding with facts only.

I have two friends who didn’t get jobs because of their references.

One was because their conduct hadn’t been great in their previous job and the reference was, as you say, neutral. This wasn’t good enough for the future employer - they had a policy of not employing if there was anything less than positive. The employee couldn’t dispute that they weren’t a great employee, and although they were very annoyed about it, there wasn’t anything they could do about it. This sounds like your situation.

The second friend had been given an out and out bad and partly untrue reference. When approached by phone, the old employer was quite vicious and told them things which were demostrably untrue. The prospective employer sympathised with the situation (there was a lot of animosity between my friend and the old employer) but was unable to employ him with such a bad reference. My friend instructed solicitors and the old employer eventually paid compensation as their actions had actually lost him a job. The person responsible for the reference was sacked for gross misconduct as well! This is quite different from your situation.

You have nothing to worry about OP. You gave a factual and truthful reference. The former employee has no come back with you.

Thanks for the replies. My situation is definitely like your first example OP - I definitely wasn't vicious or untruthful. If anything I was generous ticking the neutral box on the skills section of the form. You honestly wouldn't believe the catalogue of issues with this employee. That's why my conscience wouldn't let me lie on the reference.

All.my company allows these days is to confirm that someone worked at the company & the dates. Nothing else, presumably because of these tricky situations.

If you can evidence that everything you said was honest; you'll be fine - they can't kick up a fuss over that.

The only issues you could potentially have is if you said something that you cannot prove; in which case you'd be better to go along with HRs guidance and provide minimal details instead.

This is why many companies only allow HR to give references.

You are allowed to give an honest reference as long as you have edivdence ie. things were recorded when they happened. Otherwise, you could be taken to tribunal if the person can be bothered to take it that far.

That aside, I have to ask why you did this? Yes, you were their manager and you say they were difficult, but unless the person did something illegal or there was a serious disciplinary matter, I don't know why you would want to scupper their chances of employment. You haven't said what these 'issues' were, but it may have been your current work wasn't the ideal place for them, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be fine in another environment.

Tbh I think you should have just refused to give a reference, or said it's policy for HR to do basic references (start date, sick days, job title usually).

I have asked our HR dept for advice on references in the past and they are not very helpful - they tend to just say to offer minimal details and leave it at that

That’s actually really sound advice.

Most references ask “would you considering hiring this person again in the future”, and, in the case of a poor performer, I’d respond with “I’m afraid I am unable to answer that question”. That will tell them everything they need to know.

I wouldn’t provide any other information outside of tickboxes with neutral replies.

And that's exactly what I did Wonton. I provided the information on employment dates, job title and reason for leaving and then ticked the 'neither agree nor disagree' box on all the subjective skills based questions. I left the would you re-employ box blank and provided no further comments. Our HR dept don't provide references. It's down to individual managers.

As for why I did it - I'm not evil enough to want to scupper their chances of getting another job (and believe me I'm beating myself up about just that) but I thought it was important to be honest - otherwise what on earth is the point of references at all!? There were serious performance related issues so we're not talking minor concerns. I did speak to the recruiting company off the record too and was tactfully honest but also supportive so I don't see what else I could've done. I just feel like this is going to rumble on and it's worrying me.

The recruiting employer then followed up with a phone call where I gave some constructive comments on their queries but was generally positive.

I would just write a transcript of what you can remember being asked, and what you said, in response to those questions, so, if it comes back to you later, some weeks or months down the line, you will be able to be clear about what you said.

The thing is @December - OP hasn't done anything wrong. How can excellent employees who go the extra mile, and put everything into their work, and really excel, move on, if people don't say anything in a reference? From what she says, OP has actually been a LOT more positive about the former employee than was actually true. As long as she has been factual, then there is no issue.

I have an Ex- member of staff who had many issues including casual and culperable absenteeism. She is a tricky individual who refuses to see her own short comings.
She keeps putting me down as a reference and I will only confirm her dates of employment and position held as I know if I put the truth down she would challenge it.

It’s better to say that you don’t do ratings on references than tick the neither agree or disagree box. You’re providing a subjective opinion then which can be challenged. I’m surprised you don’t have a company policy that only HR do references using a letter with a disclaimer.

I've always provided minimal information on references for this person in the past but on this occasion it led to further questions on the phone, so that approach can backfire. It's logical that if you don't answer the obvious questions alarm bells will ring so it's hardly surprising.

As I've said before - I query the whole point of references if you can't be honest - or if people are so wary of telling the truth they either don't respond or don't actually provide any useful information. I know it's common practice to provide factual references only but they add very little in my opinion.

My concern is that it's hard to evidence the subjective views. How do you evidence the fact you neither agree nor disagree with a person's ability to work in a team for example!?!

You know you can decline to answer the questions on the phone and use the “not company policy” excuse? I think you could have inadvertently put yourself in an awkward situation. You’re under no obligation to provide anything beyond confirming employment dates. If I were in your shoes I’d tell anyone asking for references to go to HR.

Our HR don't provide references Rainbow. As for the follow up phone call - I don't blame them at all. I'd do the same. To be honest, having reflected on it, although it's causing me a headache it's actually an example of the system working properly. Unless employers are prepared to offer honest references and a bit more info than just confirming dates, and to follow up with prospective employers, then I genuinely don't see the point of it at all. You have to think about it from the perspective of a recruiting manager too - I've been stung by those minimal references in the past (including for the employee in question!) so I just don't think they help at all!

You should have taken your HR department's advice. What they suggested is very common practice nowadays, I.e. factual only (job title, dates of employment). That's sound advice because there is nothing subjective about it.

There was no obligation for you to have further telephone engagement with the new employer and it put you in an exposed position because it opened you up to having to comment.

Next time I would include a note to say your company policy is to provide a standard reference only, and in writing.

Btw, the chances of a Tribunal case coming out of this are very slim. A tribunal would struggle to quantify any tangible loss caused and it would be far more bother and expense than it was worth to the disgruntled ex-employee.

Unless employers are prepared to offer honest references and a bit more info than just confirming dates, and to follow up with prospective employers, then I genuinely don't see the point of it at all

Of course they are of benefit. They are a background check, together with other checks such as financial, education and, if basic attendance/timeliness was requested on the form, that's another dimension. If for ex. the candidate claimed they worked in the company for 3 years when they only worked there for 2, then it speaks volumes,

Most of the heavy lifting should be done at interview in terms of knowing if the person is likely to fit in well. You'll rarely get much more from employment references due to the problems you've encountered,

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it!? I completed the reference form in a minimal fashion as advised by my HR dept. They do NOT respond to reference requests so it is down to individual managers. I probably shouldn't have agreed to the follow up phone call but I did it to be helpful and didn't think about protecting myself.

In terms of usefulness of a factual reference - yes, I suppose they do serve a purpose in as much as they prove the applicant isn't lying about when/where they held a post - but that's it. This particular form didn't ask about sickness etc - that would've been even more revealing in this case and would likely have triggered further questions anyway. It's the more subjective stuff that adds value though surely? When we employed this particular individual we had 2 factual references only. I wish we'd had something more to go on as it would've saved been massively helpful. You can only tell so much from an interview - this individual lied and put on a right act. With no subjective reference to challenge what you see/hear you are offering a job totally blind.

As for a tribunal - I was concerned this might be pursued but honestly, on what grounds? I provided an honest reference. It wasn't even a bad reference - neutral but not bad.

"They are asking me what happened and threatening to follow up. "

Follow up how? Honestly, I'd call that bluff. Leave the ball in their court. You're not obliged to give a good reference. No one can find evidence that you said anything malicious or untrue.

It's the more subjective stuff that adds value though surely?

What do you mean by adds value though. You have to take references giving personal opinions with a hefty pinch of salt. Facts are facts, you can work with those. Anything subjective will be influenced by immeasurable factors about which you will have zero visibility and control.

If you have to rely on others' opinions as to whether to hire someone, it means your interview process is ineffective. References are flawed in many cases which is why interview techniques in organisations have been improved, strengthened and refined over time, so that references become simply a final tick in the box.

You need to consider the candidate in a much broader spectrum than just their reference, then you can make decisions on an individual basis:

What relevant transferable skills and experience do they have
What is their educational background
What is their breadth and stability of employment
What potential do you see for advancement (eg a candidate with 1-2 years experience expressing motivation to advance their career opportunities)
Does their personality fit with your corporate culture.

If you can't make a decision using the above facts, a reference won't add much value, believe me!

You need to consider the candidate in a much broader spectrum than just their reference, then you can make decisions on an individual basis

^Yes obviously that is important but I want to know more about how they worked in their last company. This information you can get from a good reference