[georgespencer]

I'm absolutely amazed that there isn't a single mention of referencing in here. It's by far the most important thing we do in our hiring cycle.

Here's what we do, which is a little different:

1/ We'll spend in the order of 5-6 hours with a mid-to-senior hire before we recruit them. We pick one topic from their CV (the project they're proudest of or happiest with), and dive into it in huge detail: everything from the people involved to the outcomes and recognition of success. It helps to illustrate what the person is truly like.

2/ Where it's possible, we'll pay the person a pro rata salary equivalent to spend a day with us actually working in the role. I know a couple of other companies doing this and it's really great.

3/ If we like the person we immediately throw out whatever references they provide and spend a few hours dredging up people they worked with from our networks. We also look at the people they named in the project example. Once we've got a list of 6-10 people, we ask the candidate if we can reference using those people.

4/ Typically at this point we've decided that on paper we want to make an offer. Referencing is the last opportunity we have to really assess the person's ability to cope under pressure, how quickly they drop their "new job" act and get into being themselves, and crucially what "themselves" is like. I nearly always only ask questions which could be perceived as negative at this point -- what makes them throw their laptop across the room? What stresses them out? How do they communicate when under pressure? What are the things you told them they need to work on in their last review?

Referencing probably only accounts for 10-20% of the time I spend on a candidate, but the weighting I give it is huge when it comes to working with and managing that candidate when they're on the team.

A million different ways of doing things -- but referencing is so often overlooked and I've never understood why.

[avitzurel]

Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working for a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing them out".

This does not mean I disagree with you. We had someone working for us, we're connected on LinkedIn. That person since then switched multiple jobs and I know for a hard fact that he'd never get a job if the company just called people working with him. No way.

[georgespencer]

> Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working for a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing them out".

I totally used to think that too, but whenever I've asked people about our process they say - "sure when you're making an offer, make it contingent on references and do a bunch of them."

I never revoke an offer unless we find out something truly bad at reference stage. Everyone has their foibles, and it's just useful to have more information about how to work with them.

[ptero]

So, is the reference checking goal to look for truly bad things that would disqualify a candidate? If so, are you trying to see if the candidate is an ass who was not acting this way during the interviews? This, to me, is the only way that could in principle be caught during referencing, but I wonder if it actually does.

I thought someone (a reference) who would badmouth a colleague to a prospective employer would not be a reliable source of the information. This is an honest question -- I do wonder when you find disqualifying things what do they look like?

[avitzurel]

To me, references are like a polygraph. It's a nice thing to have but in a politically driven world, it can also be vindictive.

I listened to a podcast a while back about bankers that were given horrible references by vindictive bosses because they didn't cooperate with some loan policy or something like that.

[georgespencer]

It's a great question!

Firstly by taking a bigger sample of references it's more likely we will find commonalities in the negative points.

Secondly we get different perspectives on negative traits. The man you fired who hates you because you were a micromanager is balanced by the woman who was your boss and wanted you to keep close to the person underneath.

Disqualifying things are generally not specific. It's a multiplicity of people saying "do not hire this person."

[rz2k]

That sounds unbelievably risky for the people giving the references to have long, nuanced conversations about someone's potential weaknesses in a new job. I can imagine many ways these conversations could be made off the record, but the people providing the references are at the mercy of your interpretations and how their statements are later represented. Even if you don't hire the person for entirely different reasons they could end of being held liable for loss of earnings if it's decided that some of the information was untruthful, unsubstantiated or illegal.

[georgespencer]

> That sounds unbelievably risky for the people giving the references to have long, nuanced conversations about someone's potential weaknesses in a new job.

I don't think I said anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong) that we're asking anything to do with their ability in the new job. We're asking about how they performed in their previous job.

> the people providing the references are at the mercy of your interpretations and how their statements are later represented.

I think this is a major reason why people don't reference. I'm always honest with my references. A competitor hired away a disastrous hire I made a few years ago. I met the CEO a few months later, after the guy had been let go from there, and said "Why didn't you just call!" -- he'd have saved a bunch of time and money.

> Even if you don't hire the person for entirely different reasons they could end of being held liable for loss of earnings if it's decided that some of the information was untruthful, unsubstantiated or illegal.

If you're an adult about it then there's not a lot which can put you off a hire at the referencing stage. You just have to recognise that not everyone gets along, and everyone has different sensibilities and cultural pros and cons. The point of our referencing is that we want to work with this person, so we want to be prepared to help them excel and hit the ground running.

[rz2k]

I do agree with what you're saying, but also know of instances in finance where people have been fired for theft, then fired for the same thing again, because people were too wary of giving any information other than period of employment. Similar stories also occur among managers that move from one small town government to the next.

The laws that these people are benefiting from are meant to protect people like whistleblowers, those who fought back against discrimination, or just personality conflicts from following people the rest of their careers, but there can be a risk even when this extra background information is above board.

[user5994461]

These laws also protect you against the manager who didn't like you, the terrible boss, or simply the co-worker who had different business goals than you.

There characters are far more common than cases of thefts. Don't want them to have lasting implications on your career.

[rz2k]

Do I think people in tech should be subject to the type of popularity contests that domestic workers in Imperial Britain experienced? No.

My point was that there is enough caution around these sorts of conversations with references, that companies already avoid them, even though it might expose them to other dangers.

I think it was a potentially harmful suggestion, because if it were a more widespread practice, people's career prospects would increasingly change for non-meritocratic reasons, and therefore the productivity within the industry as a whole would suffer. However, it's simply easier to talk about the potential legal jeopardy it puts people in in the near term.

[user5994461]

> A million different ways of doing things -- but referencing is so often overlooked and I've never understood why.

Because it's worthless.

There is a 1% chance that you'll find out that "that guy" was a drug dealed and he was let go.

The other 99%. It's impossible to know if you're calling a friend of him, if you're talking with an ex-grumpy manager who's backstabby (that may be why the guy left in the first place), if you're reaching someone at all (do you seriously expect employees to have valid phone numbers from people they've worked with 5 years ago and the numbers are still valid??? wtf), and of course you can't get nor trust references for the current company (you're not only rattling him out but the reference may have a serious incentive to lie to you in ways you can't possible understand).

And last but not least, all consulting and sweat shops will ask and insist for name and references of everything, not to hire you BUT to go harass your companies as potential customers for their services.

IMO: references are optimizing against everything they're supposed to help with. Never do referencing. Stop interviews when people insist on references.

[P.S. Answering reference requests is a liability that's putting you at risk (and it's forbidden in a lot of places). Don't do it. The only acceptable answer is "That guy has worked with us around <that period of time>. That's all I can tell you."]

[flukus]

> 1/ We'll spend in the order of 5-6 hours with a mid-to-senior hire before we recruit them.

That's great if they're unemployed, but not so good if they have a job. Most employers won't do after hours interviews either. Is a currently employed person meant to call in sick?

It's absolutely terrible if you are one of a million generic companies that candidates aren't excited to work for.

[poikniok]

Wow this truly sounds horrible, glad I have never had to go through something like this.

[georgespencer]

What in particular sounds horrible? It's been a very effective way of making sure we ramp up hires quickly because we have opinions from multiple people who worked with them.

[nrjdhsbsid]

References are stupid to rely on. Opinions are just... Opinions. If a shop was asking around for what is essentially gossip about me I would run for the hills.

Some real problems relying on references that aren't really fixable too:

#1 good luck getting references from anyone they weren't friends with. If you "find your own" you're a special kind of evil if they're still employed. You could make someone lose their job without even making an offer. It's lose-lose

#2 It's so easy to fake references that the people you don't want will have you talking to "the king of timbuktu". The best references will come from the biggest liars

[georgespencer]

> Opinions are just... Opinions. If a shop was asking around for what is essentially gossip about me I would run for the hills.

This is insane. By this logic one would never take any advice about how to work productively with someone, what someone's strengths and weaknesses are… centuries of management theory have been reduced to "opinions and gossip".

[twic]

> spend a few hours dredging up people they worked with from our networks

What if there aren't any?