Dr. John Sullivan wrote an interesting part one article, Whats Wrong With Reference Checking? Pretty Much Everything, on professional reference checks and how they are often a waste of time. As I tend to agree with at least some of what Dr. Sullivan has to say, I thought it fitting to post Part Two of his article where he explains when reference checks may indeed prove beneficial. Dr. Sullivan covers the spectrum pretty well in his assessments of reference verification background checks as part of an employer’s employment screening program. He offers mindful tips that do make sense.
Dr. Sullivan suggests that reference verification background checks are beneficial when —
”
Question 2 — When do you recommend usingreference and background checks?
As I said in the first part of this article, it’s okay to use one or more reference and background checking approaches provided that you understand why you are doing so and that you have designed a process that can be consistently executed to limit exposure to the vast majority of limitations found in the typical traditional process. If you have read my stuff for a while, you will know that I look at references as future candidates, so getting current candidates to identify their network through any process is a win, even if it wasn’t the intended focus of the process.
Two good reasons that would make doing references essential:
- A correlation with quality of hire — any time you have supporting data showing that at your company there is a positive correlation between a candidate’s on-the-job performance and retention after one year (quality of hire) and a scale-based recommendation output by your reference/background checking process.
- When there is a legal requirement — when you are hiring for roles that require due diligence to confirm proper licensure, certification, education, etc.”
Personally when conducting professional reference checks, I have found them to be beneficial with creative people, technical employees, and the sales staff. I have received excellent input on an employment candidate’s creative capacity. If it’s a writer, for example, whether he is best at structure, dialog or character development. Graphic artists referenc verifications can provide feedback on skill sets within the printing or digital media as well as facility with special programs, sense of color, design, etc.
With sales people one gets the sense through a professional reference of how well they are networked, their existing client base, and what they can bring to the part when they make the transition from one company to another. There are questions about activity and how well they not only sold to clients but whether they worked t providing clients with creative programs for difficult marketing campaigns. I have found out from references how good sales people are at cold calling and how well they build lasting relationships. I learn whether or not the sales person has met his quota.
With IT people there are issues about fluency with programs and how well the candidate has addressed problems, performed trouble shooting, and kept current with new technology.
And then, like Dr. Sullivan asserts, there are times when I have questioned the wisdom of a specific reference check as the reference provider only knew the employment candidate way back when and has little knowledge of the candidate’s current skill sets and whether or not they developed experience, overcame obstacles, and, for example, did development management capability.
So, yes, there are pros and cons to reference verification checks. More cons than pros, maintains Dr.Sullivan. Read his part two and determine for yourself. An interesting read, for sure.
