"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?

Husband is a pharmacist - just dates worked and role would be included in a reference.

I have just applied for a very junior academic position and have been asked for THREE references. This is most unusual, any other industry sector I've ever worked in only ever asks for two.

Legal sector. It's actually quite a relief that this is all that's expected now.

I never understood the point of relying heavily on references. To me it makes sense to only have a basic reference that just confirms job title and dates of employment. Everything else is subjective.

I have seen so many useless managers and employers that I would never rely on their opinion of a former employee as being completely un-biased or trustworthy.

You are better relying on the interview process and the probation period to decide whether someone is suitable, not ask for somebody else's opinion.

I have had to get rid of people in the probation period who came in with glowing references from previous employers. So pretty much meaningless in many cases...

Exactly...

Just because someone I don't know rates them, they might not be good for me.

Similarly, if I need to exit someone, doesn't mean they're crap, just means it didn't work out here. I wish them well finding their perfect fit.

Interviewers who want to rake the old coals and play amateur detective are never normally the best IME.

It's so common to just get dates these days that half the time I'm sure that they don't get read.
We had a graduate trainee a few years ago who was dreadful at her role and untrainable. We extended probation but were forced to let her go. It was only at that point that the HR file came out. If anyone had read the exceptionally detailed and honest academic reference we would never have employed her.

Oh I should add, my dad was in academia and use to give the most glowing references about staff who were a bit crap that he wanted to get rid of.

And that is exactly the reason professional businesses don't do it - they're not worth the paper they're written and just somebody's subjective opinions.

Academia runs a lot on personal prestige, so positive words from "high flying professor who everyone thinks is a genius" carry more weight than those same words from "obscure, junior person no-one has ever heard of". Hence why it is still the norm that references will come from a named person and be written for the specific applicant rather than being a proforma response from HR as happens in the corporate world.

Public sector seem to ask for all manner of shit, like sick record and stuff.

Private sector sensibly stopped giving that out years ago.

(Recently moved to public sector and couldn't work out why managers kept asking me for sick records)

I'd really love to give full and totally honest references for some people. One in particular who messed us about something chronic with endless absence and lateness and then left us a shitty review on indeed when we finally had no choice but to let them go. Now wants a reference.

Thing is, honesty brings a load of hassle, bad feeling and in some cases, you just really want them to get the job they've gone for so they're out of your hair, so simple, factual references it is.

I tend to accompany the factual reference with a warmly worded email when someone is good. Very plain and simple if not.

Why should a crappy former employer be able to mess up a leavers future employment in this way anyway?

In the early 1990s within the NHS - confirmation of dates of employment, salary scale and sickness days so I would say pretty standard practice for sometime now. However I pretty sure there would have been phone calls.......

I’m in education and I think my official reference is pretty boring BUT teaching in one area is a small world and ‘unofficially’ stuff gets passed on 🙄 eg. I don’t know how schools get away with it but you can’t accept a new job after having accepted one already, even if interviews are one day apart, and no one tries to hide the fact that you might lose out on both jobs if you try it cos the first school will tell the second one you’ve messed them around 😮

i know my friend had an academic reference that was 6 pages long for one of his fellowships- he said at that point anything less would have made it seem like he was a waste of space

Private early years setting - generally a reference request form with questions on it is sent out. If just a letter or email was sent back confirming dates worked, ignoring the form or refusing to answer the questions then yes, we would assume there is an issue with the candidate.

I've worked in Pharma, FMCG and Engineering, it was the same for all of them

As in a reference confirming dates and job title was standard

Oh and anything 'outside the norm' would raise some eyebrows, because they are most likely agreed as part of a settlement agreement

The job title(s) and dates have been common for all the different sectors I have worked. Ice also had calls from people worked with 5+ years before asking if x worked at y same time as me, and what were they like, unofficially. The unofficial reference seems very normal now.

I work in higher education and provide references often for former employees. Bland references are very very common when there is an HR department taking care of them.

From the reference requests I get, it is very rarely I am asked to send a reference letter, very often I get a form asking me the dates the person worked and whether they were honest, dependable or trustworthy in a scale if 1 to 5. There is not much space for building up the person profile.

@stormy you could find yourself in hot water for jumping to conclusions like that. You are out of step with current practice. Discrimination claims etc can start from point of interview.

May not happen, but never say never.

whenever i see a full Reference now I always wonder if there is a compromise agreement in place. Because this tends to be the only time I send out a wordy reference...

And this is how nepotism and confirmation biases continue to be rife! People writing good accounts to give better opportunities to those that they like, who may have the same attributes (protected characteristics) and others missing out due to subjective opinions and not any objective criteria. It’s also how bad academics stay in senior positions even if they are awful, everyone tip toeing around them for fear of getting a bad reference. As an HR professional I can only see massive risks as a consequence of this practice, especially around discrimination.