Would this be a recruitment red flag for you?

[TraceyTheHamster]

Im
going to preference this by saying this is all hypothetical; and does not reflect a real recruitment activity.

Recently at work; during a training session we were given a selection of “recruitment scenarios” and asked to discuss if we would appoint for not.

This one in particular split the room, so I’d be interested to see what others think.

”You are recruiting for a management position. Poor performance in this role could be catastrophic for the company, so it is vitally important that the correct decision is made. Following interviews one candidate is offered the post subject to satisfactory references. You ask the references to answer specific questions relevant to the role.

The reference from their present employer is positive but basic. It indicates no disciplinary or performance issues. They refuse to answer the role specific questions. This is obviously an agreed reference indicating that the candidate is leaving under a settlement agreement.

The second reference is provides positive answers to the role specific questions but is much older. The candidate has not worked with second reference for ten years.

You speak to the candidate who confirms that they are leaving their present employer “under a mutual agreement” ; but the terms of the agreement prohibit them from providing any more details beyond the agreement’s existence.

Would you recommend confirmation or withdrawal of the job offer?”

My thoughts were to still appoint, as there were no performance issues and there would be a probationary period. Others thought that given the nature of the role it would be too risky.

Interested to hear other’s thoughts!

I would appoint, particularly if they stayed at the most recent job for over ten years but I would check for any employment gaps.

By mutual agreement can cover alot of murky practice on the employer side too.

This. Often nothing the employee has done.

For fairness I would hire but pay careful attention in probation

I'd appoint but I don't think the question is a good one really - lots of places will only give the most basic of information and it doesn't indicate any kind of compromise agreement in place.

Depends who the alternative candidates were.

I’d try to avoid it as many (not all, I know) people who leave in these circumstances do so because of poor behaviour/ attitude/ management style, which can be far more damaging than straightforward incompetence!

But if there were no decent alternatives and they seemed otherwise good, I might try and hope for the best.

Also this. Our HR policy is standard reference only. They simply won't provide anything further.

I would never answer specific suitability questions in a reference.

@Infusionist

Good point, it’s all a hypothetical scenario so we don’t know if they knocked it out the park at interview or just pipped the second place candidate to the post.

Id probably still appoint though if there were no issues raised. Like a pop said maybe keep a closer eye than normal during probationary period.

I don’t know any companies these days who would answer those questions or supply anything other than basic standard details on employment dates etc.

A mutual agreement could be something as non-controversial as voluntary severance. It doesn't necessarily mean sacking or disciplinary matters. It could be a financial decision for both parties.

This - basic references are the standard these days and indicate nothing

The NHS tend to only confirm working dates, it’s frustrating in a way because bad employees get the same reference as a good one.

Nope. lots of places don't give anything more than they worked here and here on these dates. generally becoming more common as worried about being sued for a bad reference

Like others, I'd use the probationary period to make a judgment call for myself. There has been a time when I received a negative reference on someone who went on to become an exemplary employee. It was almost as if the reference didn't match the person

But isn’t it normal practice to ask a colleague/line manager to give your a personal reference when the company only gives a basic one? I would wonder why there is no personal reference.

I would still employ, quite a few of our senior leavers have left under agreement following a change of CEO and direction of the business. They were not bad at their job just the company has changed and they wanted fresh blood. Didn't make them bad at their previous role.

Mutual agreements come about by all sorts of reasons, not necessarily indicating poor performance. Change of management, poor management who don't like your face, change of role and restructure, toxic and bullying workplace etc.

Probationary could be used to make a judgement call - people perform very differently in different environments & in different roles.

I agree with you and PPs OP. Continue with the appointment, but either extend probation period, and monitor very closely during that time.

Not being able to say why they're leaving could be due to confidentiality reasons, disciplinary reasons, restructuring or the fact that the employee has discovered something really dodgy that the employer is doing/has done that they've taken a settlement to just leave without causing a fuss. Something like the employee had experienced sexual harassment from one of the directors and they're avoiding a lawsuit.

No, it isn't. Many, possibly most, companies that only give a basic reference make it a disciplinary offence for anyone to give a personal reference for an ex-employee. They insist that all reference requests must be referred to HR who will only give a basic reference.

And I agree with others that you can't assume someone is leaving with a settlement agreement just because their employer only gives a basic reference. And most NDAs in settlement agreements won't even allow the employee to reveal the existence of the agreement. Even if the agreement did allow disclosure, I can't see any reason the candidate would disclose it. However, if the situation arose, I would confirm the offer.

In my role I regularly see references and about half of them the company state they do not provide full references and just confirm the dates the employee worked for them. This does not reflect how they preformed in the role.

Also agree some people do really well at one organisation but then don't at other recruitment is a risk hence probationary periods.

We only ever give basic references, means nothing

Because we don't want to open ourselves to risk of suing from either party if we give an "incorrect" reference that is opinion based.

All the responses here are fixating on the reference only giving basic details which as others have said is very common practice but the questions indicates that the candidate was spoken to and confirms they left under a settlement agreement.

The question is really,'Would you employ someone who left 'by mutual agreement' but there is no indication of the reasons for this'?

Having personal experience of what a 'mutual agreement' might involve from the employer's side - I would hire (and watch, obviously; but that would apply for any appointment).