WEBVTT
00:00:00.719 --> 00:00:06.240
Welcome to HR Peep Show, where we pull back the curtain of life and human resources in the United States.
00:00:06.480 --> 00:00:07.679
I'm Annie Gamer.
00:00:07.759 --> 00:00:09.039
I'm Claire Baker.
00:00:09.279 --> 00:00:11.599
I'm Krista Lane, and we are your hosts.
00:00:11.839 --> 00:00:15.279
We may be new to podcasting, but not when it comes to people work.
00:00:15.519 --> 00:00:24.719
We are each fractional consultants at the intersection of people and operations with a collective several decades of experience both in-house and consulting under our belts.
00:00:25.440 --> 00:00:32.399
Today we're peeking behind the HR curtain to learn about reference checks.
00:00:32.640 --> 00:00:33.920
Do they help?
00:00:34.240 --> 00:00:35.840
Do we even care?
00:00:36.479 --> 00:00:40.000
Are reference checks just a box to tick?
00:00:40.240 --> 00:00:49.840
And what are the legal or moral obligations that we have when we are running reference checks on somebody?
00:00:50.000 --> 00:01:10.159
And I should just say with a reference check, I'm talking about the phase usually at the end of an interview process, often before the offer, sometimes after the offer, where they dig up all of the people from your past and ask uncomfortable questions about you behind your back.
00:01:10.560 --> 00:01:14.879
And does this process actually serve a purpose?
00:01:15.200 --> 00:01:19.599
And what is that purpose and how can we achieve it better?
00:01:19.840 --> 00:01:26.319
So I know both of you have strong opinions on this topic.
00:01:26.719 --> 00:01:31.680
So Krista, Annie, reference checks, yay or no.
00:01:32.079 --> 00:01:40.719
I mean, I don't mind if you do them, but I care that they are carefully constructed as part of a well-built hiring process.
00:01:41.120 --> 00:01:48.000
So, and I think the framework is not getting more information from your reference.
00:01:48.239 --> 00:01:53.439
It's how do we help make sure that this person is successful in the role?
00:01:53.840 --> 00:01:59.760
Um You should already have made a hiring decision about wanting to move forward with this person.
00:01:59.840 --> 00:02:05.359
You don't have to tell the reference that, but like internally that decision should already be made.
00:02:05.519 --> 00:02:08.560
So the reference should not influence that decision.
00:02:08.800 --> 00:02:16.800
Um, maybe if there's some like horrifying revelation that you find, but like that's really the exception and not the norm.
00:02:17.360 --> 00:02:20.159
Yeah, I think that's that's a a good place to start.
00:02:20.479 --> 00:02:21.840
I agree with that.
00:02:22.479 --> 00:02:26.639
Which makes sense because I learned a lot of what I think about reference checks from Krista.
00:02:27.199 --> 00:02:29.039
So that checks out.
00:02:29.280 --> 00:02:47.280
I would say the only thing I can add on to it is if you are going into reference checks trying to learn key information that will inform if this person is the right fit for the role, that means your interview process wasn't awesome.
00:02:47.520 --> 00:02:50.719
Or it means you don't have confidence in your interview process.
00:02:50.879 --> 00:02:53.120
Maybe your interview process was awesome, but you don't trust it.
00:02:53.199 --> 00:02:53.919
I don't know.
00:02:54.159 --> 00:03:01.280
But if you're having to get a lot of new information from your reference checks, time to take another look at your interview process.
00:03:01.759 --> 00:03:06.240
Damn hot takes Annie, laying down the knowledge.
00:03:06.479 --> 00:03:31.680
So, okay, so like if we are actually using the reference check to give us valuable information about this candidate, hopefully new hire, um, what should we be asking during those reference checks to get useful information that is not problematic?
00:03:31.919 --> 00:03:36.719
I'll start with when we should do the reference checks and I'll let Krista speak to the specific questions.
00:03:37.039 --> 00:03:47.599
I think reference checks should be done after all of the interviews have finished and you have narrowed it down to, you know, your two final decision candidates.
00:03:47.919 --> 00:03:51.759
And I think you should run reference checks on your top candidate first.
00:03:51.919 --> 00:04:00.800
You shouldn't run reference checks on all of your candidates because you are using your candidates' social capital in a way to talk to their references.
00:04:01.599 --> 00:04:08.319
So if you're running them for five different people, like first of all, that's a lot of your time as a hiring manager.
00:04:08.479 --> 00:04:14.080
Second of all, you're asking a lot of your candidates, people who raise their hands to be references.
00:04:14.319 --> 00:04:20.879
So I think run it at the end of the process before you give an offer and start it with your top candidate.
00:04:21.199 --> 00:04:24.560
And really you're just making sure that they're not a serial killer.
00:04:24.720 --> 00:04:28.000
That's kind of my goal of the reference checks.
00:04:28.399 --> 00:04:36.160
And that if you're trying to check for serial killers, you should run a background check, not a reference check.
00:04:36.319 --> 00:04:41.199
The reference check, I mean, I'm half kidding, but I'm also not kidding.
00:04:41.439 --> 00:04:50.560
Like if if you're just trying to find out if this person is a sleaze ball, there are other ways to find that out.
00:04:50.639 --> 00:05:05.759
And you should not waste this person's social capital or the very valuable time of some of the more kind of busy and powerful people that they know getting a reference check.
00:05:06.000 --> 00:05:07.839
You can just run a background check.
00:05:08.000 --> 00:05:15.920
I think to your question about what to ask, I want to understand from the references perspective, like what is their relationship to the candidate?
00:05:16.079 --> 00:05:17.759
Were they a manager, were they a peer?
00:05:17.920 --> 00:05:19.439
In what capacity did they work together?
00:05:19.600 --> 00:05:24.879
Like maybe they were cross-team, maybe the manager on a different team or something that worked closely.
00:05:24.959 --> 00:05:28.240
Like I want to get a sense of how closely they actually work together.
00:05:28.480 --> 00:05:34.959
Once I understand that relationship a bit better, I want to ask questions about like what would help make them successful, right?
00:05:35.040 --> 00:05:41.120
Like what are areas where, like, you know, what kind of management style do you think that they respond well to?
00:05:41.439 --> 00:05:50.560
Or, you know, what's something that they, you know, that you feel this person is most successful at um in terms of like maybe types of projects they do?
00:05:50.879 --> 00:05:58.800
Um, you know, do they want to get like an autonomous big meaty project that they go off and like do on their own, or like they're more collaborative with it?
00:05:59.040 --> 00:06:00.480
Like getting that kind of a sense.
00:06:00.560 --> 00:06:05.360
And it's and again, it's like not about informing you for making the decision.
00:06:05.439 --> 00:06:14.720
It's just about how can I make sure that this person will be successful on this team from someone else's perspective that isn't me and isn't that person.
00:06:15.199 --> 00:06:21.199
Um that said, I also have to understand that like references are are most often positive.
00:06:21.600 --> 00:06:27.439
Um, you know, typically a candidate is not presenting someone who isn't thinking favorably about them in the first place.
00:06:27.600 --> 00:06:35.199
If that isn't the case, I would be so like sometimes that's a surprise to that candidate if it's not a positive reference.
00:06:35.360 --> 00:06:47.279
Um and sometimes they just weren't they were taking the question really literally about like who to select for references um without considering too much about that.
00:06:47.439 --> 00:06:54.160
So there's there's an element too about like knowing systemically that like this is gonna be a positive reference in the first place.
00:06:54.240 --> 00:07:13.040
So it's really just about like what information do I need to know to help make sure that this person has a successful experience of this company um in ways it like in those decision points where, you know, maybe I'm deciding, maybe like I've already decided I want to hire this person, but I don't know what team I should put them on.
00:07:13.360 --> 00:07:26.560
Like there's you know, maybe two project manager roles open and I'm deciding between this team or this team, having that insight into their management style preferences or communication preferences or types of work preferences.
00:07:26.720 --> 00:07:35.600
Um and of course I would have a conversation with this candidate about it too once I hired them, but if I'm thinking about a team assignment or something like that, that can be really helpful for that.
00:07:35.759 --> 00:07:36.079
I don't know.
00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:38.399
Those are those are really I don't I try to keep it short.
00:07:38.480 --> 00:07:40.399
It's like 15 minutes max.
00:07:40.879 --> 00:07:46.160
Um and if if they're gonna tell me something that's like red a big red flag or something, they'll tell me pretty quickly.
00:07:46.480 --> 00:07:56.879
Well, and I I forget if we've had this argument before on this podcast, but um back channel references.
00:07:57.199 --> 00:07:58.560
Yeah, I'm not a fan.
00:07:58.800 --> 00:08:05.519
I especially if it's going to compromise that person's current role by saying that they're interviewing.
00:08:05.600 --> 00:08:14.399
So if you're talking to someone who works at the place that this person currently works at and you're saying, oh, they're interviewing, that could impact their role there.
00:08:14.959 --> 00:08:17.360
And I am not a fan of that.
00:08:17.600 --> 00:08:21.439
And I also just think it's not necessarily helpful.
00:08:21.759 --> 00:08:27.600
And more importantly, it's what I was saying before, it's a reflection of a poor interview process.
00:08:27.839 --> 00:08:42.080
If you trust what your friend is gonna gossip to you with about another company more than what you're learning in your interview process, look at your interview process again and see if you can improve that because that's gonna help you make better hires long term.
00:08:42.159 --> 00:08:45.279
You're not gonna have a friend who you can back channel with everywhere.
00:08:45.600 --> 00:08:48.399
I'm the lone dissenting opinion on this one.
00:08:48.639 --> 00:08:59.360
Yeah, I so I think the positions that I have often hired people into, it is the only.
00:08:59.919 --> 00:09:03.759
Um, and so there aren't 10 of them on the team.
00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:06.879
Um, and I agree with you.
00:09:07.039 --> 00:09:11.759
Like, don't go to their current job if they're still working, do not do that.
00:09:11.919 --> 00:09:21.120
Um, but I I think that you get a lot of useful information about what's this person like to work with.
00:09:21.360 --> 00:09:39.440
Um, and I I think I have heard stories and I have known a few people who have stories about somebody who like interviews really well and presents really well, but then working with them is not the same experience.
00:09:39.759 --> 00:10:03.440
And um, like I mean, there there are people, I'm thinking of one situation in particular, but like where this person had been such a negative force at enough companies in Silicon Valley, like kind of in this, which is a pretty small network, that they basically got run out of town.
00:10:03.600 --> 00:10:10.000
Like they they could not find another job um in that startup network again.
00:10:10.159 --> 00:10:38.799
And I like I think if you're making key hires um or if it's something that how they're going to work in a very specific situation or with another person um is really important, like having that signal on what that person is really like to work with day to day beyond the honeymoon period is really useful.
00:10:39.200 --> 00:10:54.720
But you you really have to be careful when you're on both sides of that conversation, that it isn't violating privacy, that it isn't getting into defamation, you need to be respectful about the questions that you ask.
00:10:54.960 --> 00:11:13.120
And I think you need to be um cognizant about the feedback that you give because like if you do give negative feedback and it is say an opinion or but you present it as facts, like that legit can be an actionable thing.
00:11:13.200 --> 00:11:15.440
So you have to be very, very careful about it.
00:11:15.679 --> 00:11:17.120
Okay, you know what?
00:11:17.840 --> 00:11:19.360
I'm convinced.
00:11:19.919 --> 00:11:21.440
I didn't expect Oh, I'm not.
00:11:21.759 --> 00:11:24.799
Great, great, okay, let's let's break it down.
00:11:25.120 --> 00:11:28.879
So I think that's a really good point, Claire.
00:11:28.960 --> 00:11:38.159
And what that made me think of was an organization that I was at that was interviewing someone for a big deal leadership role.
00:11:38.720 --> 00:11:42.399
I was the recruiting coordinator for this position.
00:11:42.720 --> 00:11:48.960
Someone at the company pulled me aside and said, Hey, I need you to know I've worked with this person before.
00:11:49.120 --> 00:11:50.799
Well, I haven't had an issue with them.
00:11:50.960 --> 00:11:54.399
I know someone who has, and it's a pretty serious issue.
00:11:54.799 --> 00:11:58.240
And we should maybe not hire this person because of it.
00:11:58.399 --> 00:12:01.440
If you want more information, I can give you more information.
00:12:01.519 --> 00:12:05.200
And I hadn't thought of it as a back channel at the time because I didn't ask for it.
00:12:05.360 --> 00:12:07.360
It just kind of like came to me.
00:12:08.080 --> 00:12:13.840
And the longer story of this is we didn't end up factoring it in.
00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:15.759
We did hire this person.
00:12:16.159 --> 00:12:22.399
This person repeated that behavior, and that person ended up being walked out by security.
00:12:22.960 --> 00:12:27.759
So probably should have listened to the back channel in that circumstance.
00:12:27.840 --> 00:12:29.360
And that's kind of what made me think of it.
00:12:29.440 --> 00:12:31.840
But I'm not necessarily thinking of it as a back channel.
00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:39.440
I'm thinking of it as trust people's lived experiences when they have worked with someone and when they're coming forward with this information.
00:12:39.679 --> 00:12:52.080
Obviously, approach with skepticism when we need to, but that was a time where I wish I had trusted someone's lived experience and push for the team to have a more critical look at something because this person just interviewed really well.
00:12:52.320 --> 00:12:56.799
I do think it's fair to consider that like some people interview really well.
00:12:56.879 --> 00:13:09.840
And I think at higher levels, there are more like you run into back channel more often because so much of that world is like who you know and how you know it.
00:13:10.480 --> 00:13:32.559
But I also think that it's that there are always going to be two perspectives to every story, and like, yes, just because something bad did happen the one time that you didn't factor in this warning that you had about someone does not mean that the circumstances wouldn't be completely different in your employ in your place of employment, right?
00:13:32.720 --> 00:13:50.720
The contexts of every organization are so different that like one person reacting badly to a toxic situation in a toxic environment at a time when their life was like up in flames, you know, some people act badly and it should not reflect on their whole career.
00:13:50.960 --> 00:13:58.240
Um and so if I like so I don't want to solicit like looking for that type of information because you will always find it.
00:13:58.399 --> 00:14:12.480
You will always find the time that you blew up in a meeting and like pissed off the wrong person, that's inevitably just karmically going to be the person that someone back channel has a conversation about because you worked at the same place, right?
00:14:12.960 --> 00:14:15.600
Um and they'll remember that one thing that you did, right?
00:14:15.679 --> 00:14:20.159
And like I don't think anybody should be judged on that like the basis of one incident.
00:14:20.879 --> 00:14:36.559
Um obviously it's regrettable that this other person repeated the behavior, but at the same time, you also had processes and policies in place that allowed you to quickly identify that that person was not a fit and was not appropriate.
00:14:36.720 --> 00:14:46.720
Um, and and that's kind of the like check and balance, I think, that you give is that like, yes, there is a lot of trust that we build through a rigorous interview process.
00:14:46.960 --> 00:14:49.200
It's it can't catch everything.
00:14:49.440 --> 00:14:59.120
And also, like, this is also why you have good onboarding processes that help follow through and help identify like when you need to cut ties quickly.
00:14:59.519 --> 00:15:00.320
Also true.
00:15:00.559 --> 00:15:22.080
Well, and I mean, I think that brings up another question about if if you are the reference, and let's say it's not one of the situations where the person has asked you to serve as a reference, but like they just need to speak to the manager, and you were the manager.
00:15:22.480 --> 00:15:31.679
Um and a lot of companies have policies about only confirming employment dates and that you worked there and your job title.
00:15:31.919 --> 00:16:01.519
Um, and and so when do you guys think it is appropriate to, and the way that I'd written this question is dish the dirt, but after our last like what we were just talking about, I don't think that's the right one because I like I feel pretty strongly that you should unless there's a real red flag, like you should find positive things to say about the person and only say negative things if directly asked.
00:16:01.840 --> 00:16:13.360
But um how do you how do you decide when to only disclose the things that you legally have to disclose and when to share a little bit more?
00:16:13.600 --> 00:16:24.799
I guess as HR, I'm only ever sharing, you know, they worked here, these were the dates, this was their title, because I'm just doing like an employment check more than anything.
00:16:25.120 --> 00:16:31.519
And then when I'm a reference check, someone has asked me to be their reference, and I've either said yes or no.
00:16:31.600 --> 00:16:37.279
And if I've said yes, then I'm ready to do this reference, and I know what I'm gonna say.
00:16:37.440 --> 00:16:44.080
I don't say yes to being someone's reference that I'm not prepared to give a positive reference to.
00:16:44.240 --> 00:16:46.000
That's that's me, that's how I do it.
00:16:46.080 --> 00:16:50.080
I don't know if everybody else does it, but those are my two roles as reference check.
00:16:50.159 --> 00:17:00.399
I'm either HR and I'm only telling you the things that you absolutely need to know, or I've agreed to be your reference check and I know what I'm going to say, and it's gonna be a positive reference check.
00:17:00.639 --> 00:17:12.079
Yeah, I think the scenarios in which I have found most often like I find that candidates get put in a really tough spot whenever a company is asking for a very specific type of reference.
00:17:12.240 --> 00:17:21.440
Like they're like, we want exactly three peers and three managers and three cross-team managers or whatever it is.
00:17:21.680 --> 00:17:33.200
Um, and I understand the impetus because you do want perspectives that represent different roles in an organization that have different, you know, visibility into your role.
00:17:33.599 --> 00:17:40.000
But that can be really hard, and it can put references in a really uncomfortable position if they didn't work that closely with someone.
00:17:40.240 --> 00:17:52.960
Um so I can definitely appreciate that like you I have been asked before and had to have a hard conversation about with someone that's like, we didn't really work that closely together.
00:17:53.119 --> 00:17:55.440
I don't know why you're asking me to be a reference.
00:17:55.759 --> 00:18:08.079
I don't feel comfortable lending like my social capital to you in this way because we haven't worked that closely together, and the experiences I do have with you are not like remarkable, right?
00:18:08.160 --> 00:18:13.759
Because you can have really remarkable limited experience with someone that really impressed you, right?
00:18:13.839 --> 00:18:23.200
And I'm like, you were a perfectly average employee, and I as far as I can tell, and I have no additional reference to offer that would be helpful or valuable.
00:18:23.359 --> 00:18:28.319
But they're really just trying to check this box, and so they're like, uh you didn't actively hate me.
00:18:28.480 --> 00:18:29.519
Could you be my reference?
00:18:29.759 --> 00:18:35.440
So, you know, I would say like I I try not to be that person if I can help it.
00:18:35.519 --> 00:18:43.519
It's like I really just want to be like, I really want to, you know, uh to Annie's point, like if I'm HR, yes, I'm just like confirming the details.
00:18:43.680 --> 00:18:57.279
But um if I'm a person that someone worked with, um I'm like, all right, well, under what circumstances did we work together and was do do I feel like I actually have a perspective to offer um that could be helpful or valuable.
00:18:57.519 --> 00:19:12.640
I do empathize, like I want people to feel like they have someone in their corner, but um, especially if they're in a bind, um, but it can be a challenging conversation to have to say, I don't know that I'm really gonna be the best reference for you.
00:19:12.720 --> 00:19:18.160
Um, even if I don't have anything actively negative to say, but I still don't think I'm gonna be the best reference for you.
00:19:18.480 --> 00:19:23.920
Yeah, I write a lot of LinkedIn references actually, like rather than on the phone.
00:19:24.079 --> 00:19:29.680
And I, God, I have so much fun with those because I don't have to do it off the cuff.
00:19:29.759 --> 00:19:31.920
I can think about what I'm trying to say.
00:19:32.160 --> 00:19:51.680
And I always try to think of a specific situation that really stood out and then pick out the specific things in that situation that that person is especially good at that would transfer to a different, um, a different environment.
00:19:51.920 --> 00:20:01.680
And I just have so much fun with that because I just think that like there aren't enough opportunities in life to give people recognition when they did something really well.
00:20:01.839 --> 00:20:15.680
And and sometimes it's not sometimes the most powerful references are not the big projects, they're like in those in-between moments where somebody just like did something really amazing and showed who they are.
00:20:15.920 --> 00:20:31.839
So I I guess like when you are answering these questions and when you're deciding like how to talk about somebody um and their working life in a way that really matters, how do you decide what to talk about in that reference call?
00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:41.440
And also, besides just not, you know, slandering them or gossiping, like what don't you say in those reference calls?
00:20:41.680 --> 00:20:43.200
I love that example of LinkedIn.
00:20:43.279 --> 00:20:45.359
That's such an underused part of LinkedIn.
00:20:45.519 --> 00:20:48.079
Like overall, I hate LinkedIn.
00:20:48.240 --> 00:20:51.039
That's a whole separate thing, but that's a really good part of it.
00:20:51.119 --> 00:20:52.400
So I love that you do that.
00:20:52.559 --> 00:21:05.759
To answer your question though, I try to, if I can, get a sense for the role that this person is interviewing for and applying for and try to kind of shape my answers based on that.
00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:06.240
Yeah.
00:21:06.319 --> 00:21:12.079
So I try to either see the job description or understand the role or understand what that person's excited about.
00:21:12.160 --> 00:21:17.119
So then I can kind of tailor any examples I give to speak to that.
00:21:17.440 --> 00:21:21.039
And I also try to understand how that person is using me.
00:21:21.200 --> 00:21:28.240
Like, am I their peer or am I someone who, like, what is my proximity to them that they want me to emphasize?
00:21:28.480 --> 00:21:30.160
And that's how I try to frame it.
00:21:30.400 --> 00:21:33.440
I also try to give specific examples, like you said, Claire.
00:21:33.519 --> 00:21:42.000
And yes, maybe big projects, but also the things that they might not think to talk about in their interview process that I want to emphasize that they're good at.
00:21:42.160 --> 00:21:45.359
You know, they don't get to brag as much as I get to brag about them.
00:21:45.519 --> 00:21:49.680
And if I'm being a reference check for someone, that means I'm really proud of them and something they did.
00:21:49.759 --> 00:21:57.119
And so I try to use it as an opportunity to kind of say the things that they might not be saying when they are in the room.
00:21:57.359 --> 00:21:58.319
That is so sweet.
00:21:58.480 --> 00:21:59.680
And I hope that.
00:22:00.160 --> 00:22:02.240
Someday you'll be a reference for me too.
00:22:03.440 --> 00:22:03.759
Always.
00:22:05.440 --> 00:22:06.000
I don't know.
00:22:06.079 --> 00:22:10.960
I will say I get I get the best hype from both of you of anybody I have ever met in my life.
00:22:11.200 --> 00:22:14.559
Um but and I I appreciate it very much.
00:22:14.799 --> 00:22:32.319
I think for me, like I really hope that a company asking me for a reference is asking me like specific questions that again like ideally speak to the philosophy that I have that I advise employers have about it, which is like we just want to make sure this person is successful.
00:22:32.400 --> 00:22:38.720
Um, and what you know, how can I help make sure they have a positive work experience at this next employer?
00:22:38.880 --> 00:22:47.680
I like I honestly I d I don't think that it doesn't come up that much um now that I've been like away from in-house work for so long.
00:22:48.160 --> 00:22:56.160
Um I you know, my colleagues from back when I was in-house are like maybe have better references to refer to now.
00:22:56.880 --> 00:22:58.480
So yeah, I guess I don't know.
00:22:58.559 --> 00:23:23.920
I just I think we're yeah, I like I like thinking about like what what would what is something that like to Annie's point earlier, like may or may not actually have been asked about in the interview process that would be beneficial for an employer to know that would be positive about like their character or their I like I think it does get into hairy territory to say even positive things, but I am not a legal expert, so I don't know that I can say that.
00:23:24.160 --> 00:23:50.160
Yeah, no, I mean I think you bring up a good point though, too, that a lot of times when you're serving as the reference, like you are often, I don't want to say senior to this person, but like keep in mind that the more credibility you have as a reference, the more your reference is more weight your reference is going to carry for that person.
00:23:50.480 --> 00:24:01.599
And so I who have a tendency to um be very casual and you know use casual language and stuff.
00:24:01.759 --> 00:24:19.440
Um, I I often have to remind myself to turn that off and and be a little bit more formal than I usually would, because I want this person to take me seriously so that they take my opinion about this person who is getting the job seriously.
00:24:19.680 --> 00:24:28.720
But then also I just I I want to like one thing that I wanted to hit on, and I don't know what the question is, so hopefully you can just jump in on this, Krista.
00:24:29.279 --> 00:24:36.480
But I I think that references are also there can be traps when you can let on too much.
00:24:36.880 --> 00:24:46.720
And so, like a ridiculous example is like, you know, if you get on and you're like, it's not true what they say.
00:24:46.799 --> 00:24:49.279
Like that skirt was really short.
00:24:49.359 --> 00:24:55.359
And you know, it it just like that's a ridiculous, exaggerated example.
00:24:55.599 --> 00:25:12.319
But I think sometimes you can let on inadvertently let on more about what maybe some of the other things that this person maybe wants to walk away from and leave behind them in your answers.
00:25:12.559 --> 00:25:25.759
And like, at least for me with the mouth that I have, like I often have to stop and think for a minute about like what are the things that this person may not want to carry with them?
00:25:26.240 --> 00:25:34.319
And what are the things that I want to scrub from my talking points before I make them?
00:25:34.880 --> 00:25:40.240
Because like I don't want to be asking follow-up questions about this thing.
00:25:40.480 --> 00:25:45.680
Not necessarily because they did anything wrong, but maybe sometimes like it's something that wasn't their fault.
00:25:45.920 --> 00:25:48.960
Explaining it would just like give the wrong impression.
00:25:49.119 --> 00:26:08.079
And I think if you're giving a reference, maybe this isn't something that everybody struggles with, but I've absolutely been on that call as well, where somebody just let drop a little bit too much, and and then we were like, Oh, I have follow-up questions.
00:26:08.400 --> 00:26:10.480
Yeah, I can definitely see that.
00:26:10.640 --> 00:26:30.799
I was thinking to Annie's point about like kind of being an advocate or like saying something where someone might not have said it themselves, that like that can be a really useful perspective coming from a really toxic place where like maybe the manager is not a person that can be a reference, or maybe there aren't that many peer references to choose from.
00:26:30.960 --> 00:26:50.960
Like if you are really the only one who can shed light on that, you know, the candidate may not have had a very like maybe they've completely ignored or been very diplomatic about the situation and like your view as a reference can be that like, no, this was like a pretty wild situation.
00:26:51.279 --> 00:26:54.640
Like you can help fill in that gap a little bit, but I don't know.
00:26:54.720 --> 00:27:11.200
It's it's uh it like that I think what can be hard about that line is knowing like where sometimes there's something that you like it could it can be revelatory for an employer, like even if you don't think it's a bad or a good thing, right?
00:27:11.279 --> 00:27:35.440
Like you might say something about how hard of a worker they are, how like you know they put in all the crazy hours, they do all the wild stuff, and maybe this is a company that really doesn't value that and it can unintentionally come across as something that isn't a positive attribute, you know, or vice versa, that like they're really well balanced and they, you know, get their work done, but then they go home and this company is like trying to get them to grind like crazy.
00:27:35.599 --> 00:27:36.000
I don't know.
00:27:36.240 --> 00:27:41.279
So it's like sometimes there can be a a values misalignment that gets revealed in that conversation.
00:27:41.519 --> 00:27:47.119
So I don't know, it's the the discernment is the name of the game, right, for everybody involved.
00:27:47.279 --> 00:28:06.160
Like you know, I think employers probably shouldn't put references in a position to have to walk that line, but also references should make sure that they're careful about what they're sharing in a way that is, you know, both legally compliant, but also what what someone needs to know for that person to be successful in their organization.
00:28:06.480 --> 00:28:06.720
Yeah.
00:28:06.880 --> 00:28:11.839
So we have covered a lot today about reference checks.
00:28:12.160 --> 00:28:30.880
And what we've found is that if you are going to use reference checks, you should be really intentional about what you're trying to get out of it, that this should be something that is just validating your choice in the final stages.
00:28:31.759 --> 00:28:44.400
And if you're still not sure if you're gonna hire this person coming into the reference check, then you probably should take a closer look at the earlier stages of the interview process.
00:28:44.640 --> 00:28:54.880
Um that reference checks, unless it's something really scary, should be a positive, even if it's a back channel reference.
00:28:55.039 --> 00:28:59.359
You should be speaking positively about the people that you have worked with.
00:28:59.759 --> 00:29:28.480
And that maybe it's something you can maybe it's something you can do away with if you are doing a really great job interviewing your folks, because we all have had uh jobs that were not a great fit or where we weren't at our best, and people should have an opportunity to do better next time, and who that person was in your organization may not be who they are today.
00:29:29.200 --> 00:29:55.440
And finally, just uh one little thing that we didn't actually hit on that much, but I feel like I should say um if it is a negative reference check, then you should keep it short, you should stick to facts, stay away from speculation, and if you have opin an opinion, you should very clearly disclose that it is an opinion, or maybe keep it to yourself.
00:29:55.759 --> 00:30:02.160
That's it for today's episode of HR Peep Show with your hosts Claire Baker, Annie Demer, and me, Krista Lane.
00:30:02.480 --> 00:30:10.319
Thank you for listening, and stay tuned for future episodes covering both hot takes and practical advice to build sustainable, people driven companies.
00:30:10.640 --> 00:30:16.960
To view transcripts and full credits, or find out more about us, go to hrpeepshow.com.
00:00:00.719 --> 00:00:06.240
Welcome to HR Peep Show, where we pull back the curtain of life and human resources in the United States.
00:00:06.480 --> 00:00:07.679
I'm Annie Gamer.
00:00:07.759 --> 00:00:09.039
I'm Claire Baker.
00:00:09.279 --> 00:00:11.599
I'm Krista Lane, and we are your hosts.
00:00:11.839 --> 00:00:15.279
We may be new to podcasting, but not when it comes to people work.
00:00:15.519 --> 00:00:24.719
We are each fractional consultants at the intersection of people and operations with a collective several decades of experience both in-house and consulting under our belts.
00:00:25.440 --> 00:00:32.399
Today we're peeking behind the HR curtain to learn about reference checks.
00:00:32.640 --> 00:00:33.920
Do they help?
00:00:34.240 --> 00:00:35.840
Do we even care?
00:00:36.479 --> 00:00:40.000
Are reference checks just a box to tick?
00:00:40.240 --> 00:00:49.840
And what are the legal or moral obligations that we have when we are running reference checks on somebody?
00:00:50.000 --> 00:01:10.159
And I should just say with a reference check, I'm talking about the phase usually at the end of an interview process, often before the offer, sometimes after the offer, where they dig up all of the people from your past and ask uncomfortable questions about you behind your back.
00:01:10.560 --> 00:01:14.879
And does this process actually serve a purpose?
00:01:15.200 --> 00:01:19.599
And what is that purpose and how can we achieve it better?
00:01:19.840 --> 00:01:26.319
So I know both of you have strong opinions on this topic.
00:01:26.719 --> 00:01:31.680
So Krista, Annie, reference checks, yay or no.
00:01:32.079 --> 00:01:40.719
I mean, I don't mind if you do them, but I care that they are carefully constructed as part of a well-built hiring process.
00:01:41.120 --> 00:01:48.000
So, and I think the framework is not getting more information from your reference.
00:01:48.239 --> 00:01:53.439
It's how do we help make sure that this person is successful in the role?
00:01:53.840 --> 00:01:59.760
Um You should already have made a hiring decision about wanting to move forward with this person.
00:01:59.840 --> 00:02:05.359
You don't have to tell the reference that, but like internally that decision should already be made.
00:02:05.519 --> 00:02:08.560
So the reference should not influence that decision.
00:02:08.800 --> 00:02:16.800
Um, maybe if there's some like horrifying revelation that you find, but like that's really the exception and not the norm.
00:02:17.360 --> 00:02:20.159
Yeah, I think that's that's a a good place to start.
00:02:20.479 --> 00:02:21.840
I agree with that.
00:02:22.479 --> 00:02:26.639
Which makes sense because I learned a lot of what I think about reference checks from Krista.
00:02:27.199 --> 00:02:29.039
So that checks out.
00:02:29.280 --> 00:02:47.280
I would say the only thing I can add on to it is if you are going into reference checks trying to learn key information that will inform if this person is the right fit for the role, that means your interview process wasn't awesome.
00:02:47.520 --> 00:02:50.719
Or it means you don't have confidence in your interview process.
00:02:50.879 --> 00:02:53.120
Maybe your interview process was awesome, but you don't trust it.
00:02:53.199 --> 00:02:53.919
I don't know.
00:02:54.159 --> 00:03:01.280
But if you're having to get a lot of new information from your reference checks, time to take another look at your interview process.
00:03:01.759 --> 00:03:06.240
Damn hot takes Annie, laying down the knowledge.
00:03:06.479 --> 00:03:31.680
So, okay, so like if we are actually using the reference check to give us valuable information about this candidate, hopefully new hire, um, what should we be asking during those reference checks to get useful information that is not problematic?
00:03:31.919 --> 00:03:36.719
I'll start with when we should do the reference checks and I'll let Krista speak to the specific questions.
00:03:37.039 --> 00:03:47.599
I think reference checks should be done after all of the interviews have finished and you have narrowed it down to, you know, your two final decision candidates.
00:03:47.919 --> 00:03:51.759
And I think you should run reference checks on your top candidate first.
00:03:51.919 --> 00:04:00.800
You shouldn't run reference checks on all of your candidates because you are using your candidates' social capital in a way to talk to their references.
00:04:01.599 --> 00:04:08.319
So if you're running them for five different people, like first of all, that's a lot of your time as a hiring manager.
00:04:08.479 --> 00:04:14.080
Second of all, you're asking a lot of your candidates, people who raise their hands to be references.
00:04:14.319 --> 00:04:20.879
So I think run it at the end of the process before you give an offer and start it with your top candidate.
00:04:21.199 --> 00:04:24.560
And really you're just making sure that they're not a serial killer.
00:04:24.720 --> 00:04:28.000
That's kind of my goal of the reference checks.
00:04:28.399 --> 00:04:36.160
And that if you're trying to check for serial killers, you should run a background check, not a reference check.
00:04:36.319 --> 00:04:41.199
The reference check, I mean, I'm half kidding, but I'm also not kidding.
00:04:41.439 --> 00:04:50.560
Like if if you're just trying to find out if this person is a sleaze ball, there are other ways to find that out.
00:04:50.639 --> 00:05:05.759
And you should not waste this person's social capital or the very valuable time of some of the more kind of busy and powerful people that they know getting a reference check.
00:05:06.000 --> 00:05:07.839
You can just run a background check.
00:05:08.000 --> 00:05:15.920
I think to your question about what to ask, I want to understand from the references perspective, like what is their relationship to the candidate?
00:05:16.079 --> 00:05:17.759
Were they a manager, were they a peer?
00:05:17.920 --> 00:05:19.439
In what capacity did they work together?
00:05:19.600 --> 00:05:24.879
Like maybe they were cross-team, maybe the manager on a different team or something that worked closely.
00:05:24.959 --> 00:05:28.240
Like I want to get a sense of how closely they actually work together.
00:05:28.480 --> 00:05:34.959
Once I understand that relationship a bit better, I want to ask questions about like what would help make them successful, right?
00:05:35.040 --> 00:05:41.120
Like what are areas where, like, you know, what kind of management style do you think that they respond well to?
00:05:41.439 --> 00:05:50.560
Or, you know, what's something that they, you know, that you feel this person is most successful at um in terms of like maybe types of projects they do?
00:05:50.879 --> 00:05:58.800
Um, you know, do they want to get like an autonomous big meaty project that they go off and like do on their own, or like they're more collaborative with it?
00:05:59.040 --> 00:06:00.480
Like getting that kind of a sense.
00:06:00.560 --> 00:06:05.360
And it's and again, it's like not about informing you for making the decision.
00:06:05.439 --> 00:06:14.720
It's just about how can I make sure that this person will be successful on this team from someone else's perspective that isn't me and isn't that person.
00:06:15.199 --> 00:06:21.199
Um that said, I also have to understand that like references are are most often positive.
00:06:21.600 --> 00:06:27.439
Um, you know, typically a candidate is not presenting someone who isn't thinking favorably about them in the first place.
00:06:27.600 --> 00:06:35.199
If that isn't the case, I would be so like sometimes that's a surprise to that candidate if it's not a positive reference.
00:06:35.360 --> 00:06:47.279
Um and sometimes they just weren't they were taking the question really literally about like who to select for references um without considering too much about that.
00:06:47.439 --> 00:06:54.160
So there's there's an element too about like knowing systemically that like this is gonna be a positive reference in the first place.
00:06:54.240 --> 00:07:13.040
So it's really just about like what information do I need to know to help make sure that this person has a successful experience of this company um in ways it like in those decision points where, you know, maybe I'm deciding, maybe like I've already decided I want to hire this person, but I don't know what team I should put them on.
00:07:13.360 --> 00:07:26.560
Like there's you know, maybe two project manager roles open and I'm deciding between this team or this team, having that insight into their management style preferences or communication preferences or types of work preferences.
00:07:26.720 --> 00:07:35.600
Um and of course I would have a conversation with this candidate about it too once I hired them, but if I'm thinking about a team assignment or something like that, that can be really helpful for that.
00:07:35.759 --> 00:07:36.079
I don't know.
00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:38.399
Those are those are really I don't I try to keep it short.
00:07:38.480 --> 00:07:40.399
It's like 15 minutes max.
00:07:40.879 --> 00:07:46.160
Um and if if they're gonna tell me something that's like red a big red flag or something, they'll tell me pretty quickly.
00:07:46.480 --> 00:07:56.879
Well, and I I forget if we've had this argument before on this podcast, but um back channel references.
00:07:57.199 --> 00:07:58.560
Yeah, I'm not a fan.
00:07:58.800 --> 00:08:05.519
I especially if it's going to compromise that person's current role by saying that they're interviewing.
00:08:05.600 --> 00:08:14.399
So if you're talking to someone who works at the place that this person currently works at and you're saying, oh, they're interviewing, that could impact their role there.
00:08:14.959 --> 00:08:17.360
And I am not a fan of that.
00:08:17.600 --> 00:08:21.439
And I also just think it's not necessarily helpful.
00:08:21.759 --> 00:08:27.600
And more importantly, it's what I was saying before, it's a reflection of a poor interview process.
00:08:27.839 --> 00:08:42.080
If you trust what your friend is gonna gossip to you with about another company more than what you're learning in your interview process, look at your interview process again and see if you can improve that because that's gonna help you make better hires long term.
00:08:42.159 --> 00:08:45.279
You're not gonna have a friend who you can back channel with everywhere.
00:08:45.600 --> 00:08:48.399
I'm the lone dissenting opinion on this one.
00:08:48.639 --> 00:08:59.360
Yeah, I so I think the positions that I have often hired people into, it is the only.
00:08:59.919 --> 00:09:03.759
Um, and so there aren't 10 of them on the team.
00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:06.879
Um, and I agree with you.
00:09:07.039 --> 00:09:11.759
Like, don't go to their current job if they're still working, do not do that.
00:09:11.919 --> 00:09:21.120
Um, but I I think that you get a lot of useful information about what's this person like to work with.
00:09:21.360 --> 00:09:39.440
Um, and I I think I have heard stories and I have known a few people who have stories about somebody who like interviews really well and presents really well, but then working with them is not the same experience.
00:09:39.759 --> 00:10:03.440
And um, like I mean, there there are people, I'm thinking of one situation in particular, but like where this person had been such a negative force at enough companies in Silicon Valley, like kind of in this, which is a pretty small network, that they basically got run out of town.
00:10:03.600 --> 00:10:10.000
Like they they could not find another job um in that startup network again.
00:10:10.159 --> 00:10:38.799
And I like I think if you're making key hires um or if it's something that how they're going to work in a very specific situation or with another person um is really important, like having that signal on what that person is really like to work with day to day beyond the honeymoon period is really useful.
00:10:39.200 --> 00:10:54.720
But you you really have to be careful when you're on both sides of that conversation, that it isn't violating privacy, that it isn't getting into defamation, you need to be respectful about the questions that you ask.
00:10:54.960 --> 00:11:13.120
And I think you need to be um cognizant about the feedback that you give because like if you do give negative feedback and it is say an opinion or but you present it as facts, like that legit can be an actionable thing.
00:11:13.200 --> 00:11:15.440
So you have to be very, very careful about it.
00:11:15.679 --> 00:11:17.120
Okay, you know what?
00:11:17.840 --> 00:11:19.360
I'm convinced.
00:11:19.919 --> 00:11:21.440
I didn't expect Oh, I'm not.
00:11:21.759 --> 00:11:24.799
Great, great, okay, let's let's break it down.
00:11:25.120 --> 00:11:28.879
So I think that's a really good point, Claire.
00:11:28.960 --> 00:11:38.159
And what that made me think of was an organization that I was at that was interviewing someone for a big deal leadership role.
00:11:38.720 --> 00:11:42.399
I was the recruiting coordinator for this position.
00:11:42.720 --> 00:11:48.960
Someone at the company pulled me aside and said, Hey, I need you to know I've worked with this person before.
00:11:49.120 --> 00:11:50.799
Well, I haven't had an issue with them.
00:11:50.960 --> 00:11:54.399
I know someone who has, and it's a pretty serious issue.
00:11:54.799 --> 00:11:58.240
And we should maybe not hire this person because of it.
00:11:58.399 --> 00:12:01.440
If you want more information, I can give you more information.
00:12:01.519 --> 00:12:05.200
And I hadn't thought of it as a back channel at the time because I didn't ask for it.
00:12:05.360 --> 00:12:07.360
It just kind of like came to me.
00:12:08.080 --> 00:12:13.840
And the longer story of this is we didn't end up factoring it in.
00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:15.759
We did hire this person.
00:12:16.159 --> 00:12:22.399
This person repeated that behavior, and that person ended up being walked out by security.
00:12:22.960 --> 00:12:27.759
So probably should have listened to the back channel in that circumstance.
00:12:27.840 --> 00:12:29.360
And that's kind of what made me think of it.
00:12:29.440 --> 00:12:31.840
But I'm not necessarily thinking of it as a back channel.
00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:39.440
I'm thinking of it as trust people's lived experiences when they have worked with someone and when they're coming forward with this information.
00:12:39.679 --> 00:12:52.080
Obviously, approach with skepticism when we need to, but that was a time where I wish I had trusted someone's lived experience and push for the team to have a more critical look at something because this person just interviewed really well.
00:12:52.320 --> 00:12:56.799
I do think it's fair to consider that like some people interview really well.
00:12:56.879 --> 00:13:09.840
And I think at higher levels, there are more like you run into back channel more often because so much of that world is like who you know and how you know it.
00:13:10.480 --> 00:13:32.559
But I also think that it's that there are always going to be two perspectives to every story, and like, yes, just because something bad did happen the one time that you didn't factor in this warning that you had about someone does not mean that the circumstances wouldn't be completely different in your employ in your place of employment, right?
00:13:32.720 --> 00:13:50.720
The contexts of every organization are so different that like one person reacting badly to a toxic situation in a toxic environment at a time when their life was like up in flames, you know, some people act badly and it should not reflect on their whole career.
00:13:50.960 --> 00:13:58.240
Um and so if I like so I don't want to solicit like looking for that type of information because you will always find it.
00:13:58.399 --> 00:14:12.480
You will always find the time that you blew up in a meeting and like pissed off the wrong person, that's inevitably just karmically going to be the person that someone back channel has a conversation about because you worked at the same place, right?
00:14:12.960 --> 00:14:15.600
Um and they'll remember that one thing that you did, right?
00:14:15.679 --> 00:14:20.159
And like I don't think anybody should be judged on that like the basis of one incident.
00:14:20.879 --> 00:14:36.559
Um obviously it's regrettable that this other person repeated the behavior, but at the same time, you also had processes and policies in place that allowed you to quickly identify that that person was not a fit and was not appropriate.
00:14:36.720 --> 00:14:46.720
Um, and and that's kind of the like check and balance, I think, that you give is that like, yes, there is a lot of trust that we build through a rigorous interview process.
00:14:46.960 --> 00:14:49.200
It's it can't catch everything.
00:14:49.440 --> 00:14:59.120
And also, like, this is also why you have good onboarding processes that help follow through and help identify like when you need to cut ties quickly.
00:14:59.519 --> 00:15:00.320
Also true.
00:15:00.559 --> 00:15:22.080
Well, and I mean, I think that brings up another question about if if you are the reference, and let's say it's not one of the situations where the person has asked you to serve as a reference, but like they just need to speak to the manager, and you were the manager.
00:15:22.480 --> 00:15:31.679
Um and a lot of companies have policies about only confirming employment dates and that you worked there and your job title.
00:15:31.919 --> 00:16:01.519
Um, and and so when do you guys think it is appropriate to, and the way that I'd written this question is dish the dirt, but after our last like what we were just talking about, I don't think that's the right one because I like I feel pretty strongly that you should unless there's a real red flag, like you should find positive things to say about the person and only say negative things if directly asked.
00:16:01.840 --> 00:16:13.360
But um how do you how do you decide when to only disclose the things that you legally have to disclose and when to share a little bit more?
00:16:13.600 --> 00:16:24.799
I guess as HR, I'm only ever sharing, you know, they worked here, these were the dates, this was their title, because I'm just doing like an employment check more than anything.
00:16:25.120 --> 00:16:31.519
And then when I'm a reference check, someone has asked me to be their reference, and I've either said yes or no.
00:16:31.600 --> 00:16:37.279
And if I've said yes, then I'm ready to do this reference, and I know what I'm gonna say.
00:16:37.440 --> 00:16:44.080
I don't say yes to being someone's reference that I'm not prepared to give a positive reference to.
00:16:44.240 --> 00:16:46.000
That's that's me, that's how I do it.
00:16:46.080 --> 00:16:50.080
I don't know if everybody else does it, but those are my two roles as reference check.
00:16:50.159 --> 00:17:00.399
I'm either HR and I'm only telling you the things that you absolutely need to know, or I've agreed to be your reference check and I know what I'm going to say, and it's gonna be a positive reference check.
00:17:00.639 --> 00:17:12.079
Yeah, I think the scenarios in which I have found most often like I find that candidates get put in a really tough spot whenever a company is asking for a very specific type of reference.
00:17:12.240 --> 00:17:21.440
Like they're like, we want exactly three peers and three managers and three cross-team managers or whatever it is.
00:17:21.680 --> 00:17:33.200
Um, and I understand the impetus because you do want perspectives that represent different roles in an organization that have different, you know, visibility into your role.
00:17:33.599 --> 00:17:40.000
But that can be really hard, and it can put references in a really uncomfortable position if they didn't work that closely with someone.
00:17:40.240 --> 00:17:52.960
Um so I can definitely appreciate that like you I have been asked before and had to have a hard conversation about with someone that's like, we didn't really work that closely together.
00:17:53.119 --> 00:17:55.440
I don't know why you're asking me to be a reference.
00:17:55.759 --> 00:18:08.079
I don't feel comfortable lending like my social capital to you in this way because we haven't worked that closely together, and the experiences I do have with you are not like remarkable, right?
00:18:08.160 --> 00:18:13.759
Because you can have really remarkable limited experience with someone that really impressed you, right?
00:18:13.839 --> 00:18:23.200
And I'm like, you were a perfectly average employee, and I as far as I can tell, and I have no additional reference to offer that would be helpful or valuable.
00:18:23.359 --> 00:18:28.319
But they're really just trying to check this box, and so they're like, uh you didn't actively hate me.
00:18:28.480 --> 00:18:29.519
Could you be my reference?
00:18:29.759 --> 00:18:35.440
So, you know, I would say like I I try not to be that person if I can help it.
00:18:35.519 --> 00:18:43.519
It's like I really just want to be like, I really want to, you know, uh to Annie's point, like if I'm HR, yes, I'm just like confirming the details.
00:18:43.680 --> 00:18:57.279
But um if I'm a person that someone worked with, um I'm like, all right, well, under what circumstances did we work together and was do do I feel like I actually have a perspective to offer um that could be helpful or valuable.
00:18:57.519 --> 00:19:12.640
I do empathize, like I want people to feel like they have someone in their corner, but um, especially if they're in a bind, um, but it can be a challenging conversation to have to say, I don't know that I'm really gonna be the best reference for you.
00:19:12.720 --> 00:19:18.160
Um, even if I don't have anything actively negative to say, but I still don't think I'm gonna be the best reference for you.
00:19:18.480 --> 00:19:23.920
Yeah, I write a lot of LinkedIn references actually, like rather than on the phone.
00:19:24.079 --> 00:19:29.680
And I, God, I have so much fun with those because I don't have to do it off the cuff.
00:19:29.759 --> 00:19:31.920
I can think about what I'm trying to say.
00:19:32.160 --> 00:19:51.680
And I always try to think of a specific situation that really stood out and then pick out the specific things in that situation that that person is especially good at that would transfer to a different, um, a different environment.
00:19:51.920 --> 00:20:01.680
And I just have so much fun with that because I just think that like there aren't enough opportunities in life to give people recognition when they did something really well.
00:20:01.839 --> 00:20:15.680
And and sometimes it's not sometimes the most powerful references are not the big projects, they're like in those in-between moments where somebody just like did something really amazing and showed who they are.
00:20:15.920 --> 00:20:31.839
So I I guess like when you are answering these questions and when you're deciding like how to talk about somebody um and their working life in a way that really matters, how do you decide what to talk about in that reference call?
00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:41.440
And also, besides just not, you know, slandering them or gossiping, like what don't you say in those reference calls?
00:20:41.680 --> 00:20:43.200
I love that example of LinkedIn.
00:20:43.279 --> 00:20:45.359
That's such an underused part of LinkedIn.
00:20:45.519 --> 00:20:48.079
Like overall, I hate LinkedIn.
00:20:48.240 --> 00:20:51.039
That's a whole separate thing, but that's a really good part of it.
00:20:51.119 --> 00:20:52.400
So I love that you do that.
00:20:52.559 --> 00:21:05.759
To answer your question though, I try to, if I can, get a sense for the role that this person is interviewing for and applying for and try to kind of shape my answers based on that.
00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:06.240
Yeah.
00:21:06.319 --> 00:21:12.079
So I try to either see the job description or understand the role or understand what that person's excited about.
00:21:12.160 --> 00:21:17.119
So then I can kind of tailor any examples I give to speak to that.
00:21:17.440 --> 00:21:21.039
And I also try to understand how that person is using me.
00:21:21.200 --> 00:21:28.240
Like, am I their peer or am I someone who, like, what is my proximity to them that they want me to emphasize?
00:21:28.480 --> 00:21:30.160
And that's how I try to frame it.
00:21:30.400 --> 00:21:33.440
I also try to give specific examples, like you said, Claire.
00:21:33.519 --> 00:21:42.000
And yes, maybe big projects, but also the things that they might not think to talk about in their interview process that I want to emphasize that they're good at.
00:21:42.160 --> 00:21:45.359
You know, they don't get to brag as much as I get to brag about them.
00:21:45.519 --> 00:21:49.680
And if I'm being a reference check for someone, that means I'm really proud of them and something they did.
00:21:49.759 --> 00:21:57.119
And so I try to use it as an opportunity to kind of say the things that they might not be saying when they are in the room.
00:21:57.359 --> 00:21:58.319
That is so sweet.
00:21:58.480 --> 00:21:59.680
And I hope that.
00:22:00.160 --> 00:22:02.240
Someday you'll be a reference for me too.
00:22:03.440 --> 00:22:03.759
Always.
00:22:05.440 --> 00:22:06.000
I don't know.
00:22:06.079 --> 00:22:10.960
I will say I get I get the best hype from both of you of anybody I have ever met in my life.
00:22:11.200 --> 00:22:14.559
Um but and I I appreciate it very much.
00:22:14.799 --> 00:22:32.319
I think for me, like I really hope that a company asking me for a reference is asking me like specific questions that again like ideally speak to the philosophy that I have that I advise employers have about it, which is like we just want to make sure this person is successful.
00:22:32.400 --> 00:22:38.720
Um, and what you know, how can I help make sure they have a positive work experience at this next employer?
00:22:38.880 --> 00:22:47.680
I like I honestly I d I don't think that it doesn't come up that much um now that I've been like away from in-house work for so long.
00:22:48.160 --> 00:22:56.160
Um I you know, my colleagues from back when I was in-house are like maybe have better references to refer to now.
00:22:56.880 --> 00:22:58.480
So yeah, I guess I don't know.
00:22:58.559 --> 00:23:23.920
I just I think we're yeah, I like I like thinking about like what what would what is something that like to Annie's point earlier, like may or may not actually have been asked about in the interview process that would be beneficial for an employer to know that would be positive about like their character or their I like I think it does get into hairy territory to say even positive things, but I am not a legal expert, so I don't know that I can say that.
00:23:24.160 --> 00:23:50.160
Yeah, no, I mean I think you bring up a good point though, too, that a lot of times when you're serving as the reference, like you are often, I don't want to say senior to this person, but like keep in mind that the more credibility you have as a reference, the more your reference is more weight your reference is going to carry for that person.
00:23:50.480 --> 00:24:01.599
And so I who have a tendency to um be very casual and you know use casual language and stuff.
00:24:01.759 --> 00:24:19.440
Um, I I often have to remind myself to turn that off and and be a little bit more formal than I usually would, because I want this person to take me seriously so that they take my opinion about this person who is getting the job seriously.
00:24:19.680 --> 00:24:28.720
But then also I just I I want to like one thing that I wanted to hit on, and I don't know what the question is, so hopefully you can just jump in on this, Krista.
00:24:29.279 --> 00:24:36.480
But I I think that references are also there can be traps when you can let on too much.
00:24:36.880 --> 00:24:46.720
And so, like a ridiculous example is like, you know, if you get on and you're like, it's not true what they say.
00:24:46.799 --> 00:24:49.279
Like that skirt was really short.
00:24:49.359 --> 00:24:55.359
And you know, it it just like that's a ridiculous, exaggerated example.
00:24:55.599 --> 00:25:12.319
But I think sometimes you can let on inadvertently let on more about what maybe some of the other things that this person maybe wants to walk away from and leave behind them in your answers.
00:25:12.559 --> 00:25:25.759
And like, at least for me with the mouth that I have, like I often have to stop and think for a minute about like what are the things that this person may not want to carry with them?
00:25:26.240 --> 00:25:34.319
And what are the things that I want to scrub from my talking points before I make them?
00:25:34.880 --> 00:25:40.240
Because like I don't want to be asking follow-up questions about this thing.
00:25:40.480 --> 00:25:45.680
Not necessarily because they did anything wrong, but maybe sometimes like it's something that wasn't their fault.
00:25:45.920 --> 00:25:48.960
Explaining it would just like give the wrong impression.
00:25:49.119 --> 00:26:08.079
And I think if you're giving a reference, maybe this isn't something that everybody struggles with, but I've absolutely been on that call as well, where somebody just let drop a little bit too much, and and then we were like, Oh, I have follow-up questions.
00:26:08.400 --> 00:26:10.480
Yeah, I can definitely see that.
00:26:10.640 --> 00:26:30.799
I was thinking to Annie's point about like kind of being an advocate or like saying something where someone might not have said it themselves, that like that can be a really useful perspective coming from a really toxic place where like maybe the manager is not a person that can be a reference, or maybe there aren't that many peer references to choose from.
00:26:30.960 --> 00:26:50.960
Like if you are really the only one who can shed light on that, you know, the candidate may not have had a very like maybe they've completely ignored or been very diplomatic about the situation and like your view as a reference can be that like, no, this was like a pretty wild situation.
00:26:51.279 --> 00:26:54.640
Like you can help fill in that gap a little bit, but I don't know.
00:26:54.720 --> 00:27:11.200
It's it's uh it like that I think what can be hard about that line is knowing like where sometimes there's something that you like it could it can be revelatory for an employer, like even if you don't think it's a bad or a good thing, right?
00:27:11.279 --> 00:27:35.440
Like you might say something about how hard of a worker they are, how like you know they put in all the crazy hours, they do all the wild stuff, and maybe this is a company that really doesn't value that and it can unintentionally come across as something that isn't a positive attribute, you know, or vice versa, that like they're really well balanced and they, you know, get their work done, but then they go home and this company is like trying to get them to grind like crazy.
00:27:35.599 --> 00:27:36.000
I don't know.
00:27:36.240 --> 00:27:41.279
So it's like sometimes there can be a a values misalignment that gets revealed in that conversation.
00:27:41.519 --> 00:27:47.119
So I don't know, it's the the discernment is the name of the game, right, for everybody involved.
00:27:47.279 --> 00:28:06.160
Like you know, I think employers probably shouldn't put references in a position to have to walk that line, but also references should make sure that they're careful about what they're sharing in a way that is, you know, both legally compliant, but also what what someone needs to know for that person to be successful in their organization.
00:28:06.480 --> 00:28:06.720
Yeah.
00:28:06.880 --> 00:28:11.839
So we have covered a lot today about reference checks.
00:28:12.160 --> 00:28:30.880
And what we've found is that if you are going to use reference checks, you should be really intentional about what you're trying to get out of it, that this should be something that is just validating your choice in the final stages.
00:28:31.759 --> 00:28:44.400
And if you're still not sure if you're gonna hire this person coming into the reference check, then you probably should take a closer look at the earlier stages of the interview process.
00:28:44.640 --> 00:28:54.880
Um that reference checks, unless it's something really scary, should be a positive, even if it's a back channel reference.
00:28:55.039 --> 00:28:59.359
You should be speaking positively about the people that you have worked with.
00:28:59.759 --> 00:29:28.480
And that maybe it's something you can maybe it's something you can do away with if you are doing a really great job interviewing your folks, because we all have had uh jobs that were not a great fit or where we weren't at our best, and people should have an opportunity to do better next time, and who that person was in your organization may not be who they are today.
00:29:29.200 --> 00:29:55.440
And finally, just uh one little thing that we didn't actually hit on that much, but I feel like I should say um if it is a negative reference check, then you should keep it short, you should stick to facts, stay away from speculation, and if you have opin an opinion, you should very clearly disclose that it is an opinion, or maybe keep it to yourself.
00:29:55.759 --> 00:30:02.160
That's it for today's episode of HR Peep Show with your hosts Claire Baker, Annie Demer, and me, Krista Lane.
00:30:02.480 --> 00:30:10.319
Thank you for listening, and stay tuned for future episodes covering both hot takes and practical advice to build sustainable, people driven companies.
00:30:10.640 --> 00:30:16.960
To view transcripts and full credits, or find out more about us, go to hrpeepshow.com.
