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!

the other side of the coin is why you have a reference. For my job it was just to confirm I had worked where I said I worked. A reference is there to just confirm that. In fact when I was interviewed for my current role they did not even ask why I left my last job - they did not want to know.

What a pile of toss - if a whole company can suffer catastrophic damage due to one employee it shouldn’t be in business anyway! (Hypothetically, I know)

The post says the candidate confirms there is an agreement in place!

I would appoint but I would ensure a lengthy probation period with regular reviews in place during that. I’d make the line manager aware and ensure any potential issues were highlighted early.

I'm pleased that the majority view is that the candidate deserves to be appointed based on their interview performance and that they did a good job of showcasing their capabilities with no reason to have concerns about performance.

References nowadays are a final check and balance and very often there are additional ways to triangulate a person's good character, eg National Vetting and Security, DBS, enhanced DBS.

Let's face it there are no guarantees in life, no individual is likely to cause catastrophic failure all by themselves (OK so Nick Leason did but there aren't many of him around - where there are humans risks will exist. Its dangerous to assume a SA has been entered into and as previously stated it could quite feasibly be the fault of the employer, eg due to harassment

ie to mitigate tribunal costs

I'd want to know how long the candidate had been in their role at that company, and whether they had worked anywhere else inbetween that one and the 10 year-old reference. If they had, I'd be wondering why the candidate had not given them as a reference instead.

There's always the grapevine - somebody somewhere, on LinkedIn or in the business community, will know of this person.

If the job was offered, then I'd expect there to be a totally watertight probationary period just in case.

I have recently been applying for roles in primary schools, my school has a policy that the reference is a basic one, dates etc.

I left by mutual agreement and signed an nda. (Which the company managed to breach within a day by sending an email to me disclosing details, they sent the email to my old work email which then auto forwarded to other employees!!).

So I could have told new employers that it was mutual agreement, but not that it was due to maternity issues which they mishandled and had to pay me out for.

Worked there for six years, was steadily promoted and zero negativity before that.
Very much a pregnant then screwed scenario.

I would hire and watch during probation

I have been told that person X is sullen and unco-operative and they have been an absolutely joy to have on my team, dedicated and hard working and a really lovely person (internal move from a dept that clearly had some management issues because I've lost track of the number of people who moved from that dept and whose personalities transformed when they worked elsewhere). Bad management can make the best performer disengage. Within industries you tend to end up knowing that Company Y is a nightmare employer but Company Z is OK and so whether to place much weight on the references or not.

I agree that many employers only give a basic reference these days so you can't read anything into that.

Also I have left a role under a settlement before. Due to a proper arsehole boss and discrimination. I've left other roles under happier circumstances and am still friends with former colleagues many years on. The settlement agreement was a reflection of arsehole boss, not me.

Mutual agreement can also include cases where whistleblowers are unable/unwilling to return to their role. A previous employer in that position is never going to give details of how amazing they are at uncovering systemic fraud and honesty/integrity in ensuring the matter was addressed. They'll come to a mutual agreement that the person leaves and a factual reference is provided.

I would hire and see how it goes in probation. We had someone leave my mutual agreement in my (relatively) new job but all intents and purposes everyone respected her. The employee was driven out by a narcissistic person and everyone warned me about that person when I arrived at the job. Now my boss and me are being subject to the same behaviour from this person so wish me luck! My point being they might have been driven out rather than having wanted to leave.

Appoint, but ensuring a probationary period.

I would not put any weight on references whatsoever, other than to confirm that they were indeed employed there.