"references are just to confirm someone’s worked at the company and the dates"

[MedSchoolRat]

I've seen that claim, in the subject title, made a lot on MN.

I'm intrigued because I work in academia.

"just to confirm someone’s worked at the company and the dates" would be considered completely unacceptable for scientist or academic jobs.
You'd literally be told to go get another referee.
In meantime, we'd be wondering what someone did that was so bad that they could only get such an uninformative reference. It would totally count against you.

What "industry" do you work in, and would your reference people be expected to say something personal about you?

Financial services. It's the norm now to just give dates and job title.

IT and it seems to be pretty standard.

Very normal in tech for last 10-15 years

Professional services and yes, the reference just includes the dates you work(ed) there and your title.

I work in HR. This is very common, increasingly so. It’s more unusual for a reference to contain anything other than dates worked and job title at leaving. In 7 years working in HR I’ve only seen these standard references. If they were to provide a reference that was not satisfactory, for whatever reason, and this resulted in the individual losing the job offer, they could be sued.

NHS scientist and just confirmation of dates and job title.

Big pharma is the same, we are only allowed to confirm their position & dates of employment.

If I asked for a reference and got dates of employment only I would assume that person was a nightmare. I work in public sector.

IT in different industry sectors.

No-one wants an employment tribunal so my references have been dates without job title, dates with job title and even "We confirm what she says is true" without any email chain.

I've also been asked to give permission of what they are allowed to disclose.

If I want a more detailed reference I have to use a professional friend I've helped in some way.

In my industry (media related) people do references by phone.

Very normal for a reference request to contain everything including suitability for the job. However, very much the norm of reply is job role, dates worked there and reason for leaving. Few employers comment wider as they cannot be hassled given the person has left to give a bad one, or conversely a good one for a person who doesn't perform!!

The referee has to provide accurate, factual information, and can’t tell an untruth either overtly or by omission.

It’s not true that a referee can’t give a bad reference, but who would want to anyway, and in any case it does have to be perfectly truthful.

In most cases, descriptive references are highly subjective. They are however still useful for checking employment history where this is important to the potential new employer.

Which is why many employers just stick to job titles and dates of employment. It’s VERY common.

NHS. Dates, job title, grades, days sick, disciplinary action (y/n). Space for comments

@iwanttobeasquare and yet I've only seen those bland types of references given by the police and civil service. That's all they do even if you're their best or worst member of staff.

It's what I think most employers do now unless the entity asking for a review wants a specific set of information, in which case it's up to them to request it properly.

NHS. - that's all we give now.

Education
just the dates, post held, that’s it.
no comments on suitability.

I've worked in utilities, financial services and consultancy in the last 10 years and it's been the standard approach for all. Also had to be HR provide the reference in all cases, not allowed to request from previous line manager.

Wouldn't your publication and grant record be enough for an academic post though OP? Both publicly available.

Academia - an academic looking for promotion - full on reference from external experts.

Anyone looking for a job - confirmation of dates of employment would be fine for me.

NHS. A reference as described is a 'bad' reference and would be me indicating they were not fit for the job - this is widely understood in my field. A good reference is a good reference.

A few staff have gone from where I work to the nhs. they wiall have received the minimal reference but still got the (admin) job.

The part of local government I work in just gives these confirmation type of references. They are not 'bad' references.

Professional services - give and expect a full reference.

The last two jobs I’ve been offered haven’t even asked for references.

I worked at head office in HR for one of the big supermarkets. That’s all they give and have done for around 4 years.

I, now, work in the construction industry and we do the same. I got my senior job, with 3 references that stated the dates I worked for them and that’s it.

The fact that you view it as a negative is because you only work in an industry where it’s the norm so you have quite a closed of view of it. However, you would be very daft to write someone off for that, especially if one is from outside an academic background.

I would say the vast majority, not all, of references are simple confirmations.