"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?

I’ve worked in HR for 25 years, the basic references have been a standard for as long as I have worked. That’s been in private sector- tech, professional services, facilities management and public sector- NHS and government agencies. They are not “bad” references, they confirm that the employment relationship existed and you can corroborate the times that the person has given you. The admin required to provide references means it’s much easier for companies to provide basic factual information and there is of course the massive risk of providing an assessment of the person’s skills performance and attitude especially given the inaccurate accounts some people managers give me.

NHS, they all seem to be dates worked now. It’s frustrating when you work really hard and get the same reference as someone who is basically useless at the job (but not bad enough to fire).

We only do references which have to be given by HR to confirm job title and dates worked.

Everyone in my industry gets references by phone on the side, so nothing written down.

I work in finance.

A niche bit of financial services. HR do names and dates, but it's a small industry where we all know each other so there are also lots of chats between seniors about what people are really like.

Local Authority- we give dates of employment, job title and reason for leaving. I think possibly if asked also sickness. It isn't written by the person's manager but a central one from HR

Really? In primary education where I am, a long comment is always given. I know people who have avoided being managed out by agreeing to move on in exchange for a decent reference (which is obviously ridiculous). When I went for a leadership post the school asked for a reference from a non-teaching management role I had had before career changing and acted like I was lying when I said it was fine but they'd only confirm my job title and the dates I worked there. When I said it was common in many industries they said they'd never heard of such a thing.

Most of my clients will only give and receive date confirmation- performance is subjective to an extent so its risky to do more. Without solid proof of something

I work in HR in education and we tend to get and give just confirmation of job title and dates and identify whether or not there were safeguarding/suitability issues.

same here when i worked in the NHS and that's 10 years ago. Only what can be factually verified. So work dates, job titles and grades plus other verifiable facts like periods of acting up. can't remember if we put in disciplinary info, it never arose. I am not going to say there were never phonecalls...but call recording wasn't as easy then as it is now.

I have worked in NHS HR, although not for approx 5 years. When we supplied references it was to confirm dates of employment, and most recent job title. So it could be 2000-2017 but would still only confirm last post held. Line managers could supply more information and detail if they wished to but most did not. When I received references it was very common for them to just confirm dates.

That's how it is in my field (legal) but you would sometimes phone the the soon to be ex employer for a chat

Legal sector. It's been the norm for years.

It’s been like that for around ten years or so. I was aghast at it but that’s what’s given. (Non teaching role.)

I'm not that type of academic, I don't receive grants. I only get paid from them. Maybe for professors, they only need that public info (are grants public? I dunno coz I don't get them). And how much grant money a proff is bringing in probably is their main job qualification. But if you're the researcher, you need to have someone vouch for you being a nice person to work with.

I would say "nice person" is single most important criterion most the proffs I Know would apply. Qualified too yes, or at least capable of learning. But mainly, life is too short to work with difficult people.

ps: so basically, if the only reference info you can ever actually get is
"They didn't lie on their job application" : how do you assess personal qualities? I mean, do you even try to assess those soft skills or learning capacity or teamwork, etc?

The RCs publish grants and who they're awarded to on their website. (Aren't you a PI though - sorry thought you were.)

Problem is 'nice to work with' is such a subjective thing and no one will write a reference that says 'Carol was really unpleasant to work with. No one liked her, she didn't understand the basics and she was lazy' when Carol may well have her name on publications and could evidence that she was competent so might sue.

@Rummikub For teaching jobs a full reference is still usually given. Lots of places now give a tick box type thing for you to use and there's usually space for a written comment.

Construction. A questionnaire where you have to answer questions on punctuality, attitude, competence, reliability etc.

Soft skills should be part of the interview. How many PhDs you got to completion, how you deal with a lazy team member, how you felt about UG students on your projects etc.

If you get a ref saying 'Carol was a brilliant postdoc, a good team player, always went above and beyond etc' then great, but you won't necessarily get more than the basic 'Carol was a post doc between x and y dates working in Prof Smiths lab' so you have to work out to tease those skills out at interview.

I work in academia and it is standard at our uni. If we want to give a personal reference we are not allowed to use work email address and it is our own personal risk. I always offer to give a verbal reference for a good member of staff.

Financial services. I have had to fill in a few recently for recent leavers from my team and all have requested name, dates, reason for leaving and a yes/no answer to "would you employ them again?", so that's what I've given them.

Another problem (though not with research grants which have a fixed lifetime), but other jobs is that references aren't requested till an offer has been made, because applicants don't usually want their current employer to know they're job hunting. So if you get an reference that says Carol is really unpleasant you're taking a massive risk withdrawing the offer.

I recently started a new job. My manager copied me in on my reference. He said what a good worker I was and how sad to lose me and listed a few of my good points.

Public sector - just dates worked and confirmation you worked there. Be lucky to get that at the moment though

That’s what interviews are for.