"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?

As other HR folk have said, it's been standard for many years now. In fact I think the opposite to you OP, if someone now has a glowing reference I assume they've received a payout and agreed a good reference as part of it so it can be a red flag nowadays!

Soft skills/whether they are a nice person etc should be identified in your interview process, if they are important to the role. Why would you rely on someone you've never mets opinion of whether the person you are about to hire is "nice"? It's so subjective and a toxic relationship with their boss is potentially a reason for leaving!

Thinking some more about it, I suspect someone's view of 'good in a team' is likely to be a very sexist view. A woman will be described as a good team player if she makes sure her bench is tidy, makes coffee for peoples, reminds them about the meeting, sorts out birthday cards etc. A woman allocating work and asking a new postdoc to order in the primers or whatever won't be seen as a team player, whereas a man doing those things will be seen as organised and a good team worker.

You establish that in an interview.

wether someone is nice is subjective. Someone may think that a person isn’t nice. But it may be that work environment. Maybe they are nice but that work environment is toxic or they are a terrible employer or they just didn’t click with those people. In another work environment with different people, those people may think they are nice.

What if the person, writing the reference, is really biased. The interviewee could be a twat but really got on with some other twats so gets a good reference. Or the person writing the reference could be a terrible person and simply dislike the interviewee.

A written reference isn’t a guarantee of anything. Which is why most people don’t bother anymore.

The main reason being that if you give a bad reference you can be sued so the standard now is only to confirm dates of employment

Academic recruitment is a totally different beast though - it's not uncommon for an academic CV to run to double figures of page numbers once a full publication and presentation/speaking/teaching list has been included. In almost any other job a CV with that much detail on it would mark you out as a complete weirdo. Similarly the references that academics give would usually be fuck all use in a non-academic recruitment. We'd be looking for confirmation that someone's employment record was honest and we'd get a page of waffle about how dedicated they were (or occasionally complete nonsense like 'Ever such a good chap, I've also met his wife and she's lovely')😁 I work in professional services within a University and this is why we have separate recruitment processes for academic and non-academic posts.

A standard reference of confirmation of dates worked etc. is also very easy for HR to manage. If a new job is asking for references from two previous roles but e.g. your line manager no longer works at one of them, who is going to give that reference?

It's standard in my world (law). But people do often pick up the phone for a chat as to what the person is like.

Broadcast media, private sector

Official references have been limited to dates and job title for as long as I can remember, over twenty years.

Equally as long as I can remember, anyone joining in anything other than an entry level role, someone will have worked with them before, or know someone who has done so

Enquiries would be along the lines of 'how would they suit a xxx role'

All senior staff have 'staff retention' as a key performance indicator. The days of senior staff barking orders and minions rushing to execute those orders are long gone.

Medical field - norm is to confirm dates, job title/s and if requested confirm final salary.

Media here - potential employer will generally phone previous employer for a chat. That’s what happened with me anyway when I got my last job offer in November:

“You establish that in an interview.“

I don’t find interviews to be that reliable because anyone can train up in the right way to present themselves and answer questions. In my sector anyway - others probably have more of a rigorous process.

Oh my God, I'm an academic and all applications including for phd programs with 500 applicants come with three long references often two pages each, which the panel are expected to read. Even though as you say they are pretty uninformative because they all say the person was the best ever (all 500 applicants say that). I am frequently asked to write these as well.

I would be so so happy if we got rid of this practice

I've been getting loads of 4/5/6 page forms to fill in about ex staff. Really can't be arsed and probably ignore most. Only want to say when they worked and how long because normally they've gone because they were shit, I would rather not say that but also wouldn't want to lie

I work in the private care sector in finances but also responsible for HR. A member of staff left recently (before she could be dismissed) and we received a reference request from her new employers (security firm). I had to speak with our insurers before sending ANY response and they made it clear that if I sent anything other than confirmation of her dates of employment we would be breaching our terms of cover.

Have you checked your university's HR policy on references, op? That is a standard reference from HR at University.

You assess these things at interview. Whether you're a nice person or not is pretty subjective and not at all appropriate for a reference.

Retail. I worked in HR and we would never answer the long list of questions we got sent for some references. We stated job title and dates worked, that's it.

A reference is just confirming the candidate worked where they said they worked. The recruitment proces is where you test skills, experience and fit.

Civil service (well, before I left to retrain). This was quite normal. HR wouldn't say more than that.

You could request something more detailed (like for my uni application) but it was a nightmare trying to get one from my previous depts as everyone had moved.

People move around so much in some central depts (E.g. foreign Office where most staff are on 2-3 year postings but many london based ones short tour and go elsewhere on promotion) and there are rules dependent upon dept about writing personalised references if you weren't their direct LM at the time or are now in a different dept.

E.g. I asked a chap who was my LM's equivalent on a parallel team and knew me well to vouch for me as he was the only one still there who knew me after about 4 years. HR wouldn't allow him to write a reference from his CS email address for someone he didn't manage directly. Same for someone else who had moved depts but was still CS. They were both happy to give a personal reference but the uni needed it 'on headed paper'. It was actually really stressful.

I dunno how valuable personalised references are though. Generally even if someone is crap, people will write a decent one out of goodwill and focus on the positives, happy to see them move on. It might be different in academia.

No stage of recruitment is infallible for getting a picture of the person you'll be working with. Interview technique can be learnt, CVs and statements can be written with help, references depend on how positive the writer wants to be.

Financial Services.
Although it is actually quite a small world and people do talk.

I don’t find interviews to be that reliable because anyone can train up in the right way to present themselves and answer questions. In my sector anyway - others probably have more of a rigorous process.

If job appropriate, we put an exercise of some sort in, a presentation on a certain subject or similar. That allows you to ask the questions that inexperienced candidates can't answer well or fully enough.

International consumer goods.

Standard is just dates and position held.
Everything else is just subjective so not included. Remember, it's the company giving the reference not a person.

But LinkedIn can easily show who knows who and who's worked where. People have personal networks though, chats happen on the phone, opinions are shared.

That's why there's a full process (and a skill plus a lot of luck) to recruiting.

The job description, properly written, helps to set out clear expectations of both skills and aptitudes/competences. You can see if someone has just submitted a blanket application or failed to understand what's being asked for. Advertising with the right language in the right places helps you reach the widest pool of skilled candidates possible.

The application can indicate the ability to understand and respond to written requests or instructions as well as setting out how they could demonstrate their skills. Sometimes a candidate might contradict something they've put in their CV or claim to have 'fantostic prof reeding skills' 😁

The interview allows you to draw out or test whether their skills and competences are suitable for the role, as well as getting a better idea of their confidence and communication skills. Interview skills can be coached but you can't fully rehearse an interview and some candidates contradict their own application, don't listen, or give obviously prepared answers that don't quite match what you've just asked them.

Interview tests can help test or demonstrate practical or presentation skills, and if they're successful then you look for references to confirm their background, and put in a probationary period to allow for performance reviews and the ability to do something about them if they've got someone else to write their application, had Interview coaching that allowed them to blag the interview AND persuaded two previous employers to give them references but are, in fact, just crapmerchants.

YABU. It’s company policy in many places to only confirm dates and position at company. Anything else is a ‘personal reference’ and so risky, it’s not worth doing!

ime, no academic makes coffee for others or sorts out birthday cards. It's not a done thing. Am just thinking I had a male NHS colleague years back, , who often got cuppas for a few other (female) colleagues (who he enjoyed constant banter with). It's the only time in last 25 years I recall anyone doing that.

You'd never get my colleagues on phone. They'd be fairly affronted you demanded a phone chat & they weren't allowed to send over their written reference instead. More convenient & safer because we have an easily filed copy of what was said, too.

Interview tests: not done. This thread has been interesting, though, as I sometimes hop out of academia to other job sectors.

I suppose the point of written reference is less about what they say and more the fact that they are willing to vouch for you. The references are always specific in my experience. I write them sometimes and don't find them risky to write.

I will agree that written references for medical school applicants are ~95% pointless. They are usually written by HoY or HoS, who clearly doesn't know applicant personally, so written obviously from rephrasing applicant's own personal statement, and tell us nothing different from the PS. The applicant references that stand out are when ref was written by someone who teaches the applicant. These have original content.

ps: I got my degree from Uni where I work & they have no record of that. I literally have to show them the piece of paper to prove I got that degree from that institution. I'd never trust them to know what dates I worked for them.

pps: oh yeah, last thought, academic JDs can be written badly. 95% of the JD is institutional policy about sickness, holidays & salary scales & it's so hard to find out what is actually wanted uniquely from applicants. I end up making casual enquiries to understand what they actually want.