[FrenchAmerican]

Taking references should be prohibited altogether, except for specific jobs (if the job implies interaction with children).

They remind me of house employees' conditions in the "Downtown Abbey" area.

It's just a sign of employees' subjection to the always more extreme capitalism.

If an employee is leaving or has been fired, it means that things were not doing well anymore. How can one tell apart truthful feedbacks from all the biases? Most of our biases are unconscious, so the person you're talking to will be sincere but still unfair.

It's sort of weird to pretend to be able to sort feedbacks on the phone while not being able to judge if a person will fit well despite often numerous interviews by different persons in the company.

What if a woman has been sexually harassed but can't talk about it, for fear of the reach of her harasser, a respected entrepreneur, or even to be sued for false accusations?

Can you a person of color easily denounce racist biases that blocked his/her career? What if the previous boss can't stand a gay person?

Can one say plainly that one has little herd bias so one's point of view make the group uncomfortable? You may need such a person in your organization - or not. That person may not be even capable of such a diagnosis.

A reference won't add more unbiased information than several interviews. A lot of money and time is spent screening because the on-boarding process is costly. That makes sense but we could as well change the on-boarding rather than keep refining the screen.

Talent is important but how the person fits in a team and the company's culture is much more important. So give people a try with a sort of temporary status, limited responsibility and light onboard process. Of course, people may try and fake to fit in, but that can't last very long. The feedbacks of your colleagues are much more reliable because you know them and therefore you can sort them.

And what if that person has great references but for some reason, there is a clash of personality with a major person of the firm? Totally unpredictable but that happens.

[CPLX]

This is a ridiculous argument. Reputation and social proof are basically the core concepts governing how humans interact with each other.

The process should certainly be made more equitable but discarding personal recommendation as a concept entirely makes as much sense as having all humans work at night and sleep during the day.

[FrenchAmerican]

I'm open to discussion of course, but I'd more a more argumentative reply.

My point is not about equity but just plain efficiency. I'm all for a more equitable recruitment - but that's not what I addressed here.

Of course reputation matters. But reputation is not provided by references - at least imo. That person is reputed in a community or not. If you are looking for a top-notch dev, her/his reputation will be apparent.

Social proof is of utter importance, hence the idea of hiring fast to see if that person fits well in your company. How is it relevant if that person did not fit well in the previous company? It may be in some cases, if you know that previous company well, like having work for them or at least with them.

If you are looking for someone who fits well anywhere, well, that can be a must for the role or you just prefer people without much personality.

Go fast, fail fast, anybody?

A human being behaves very differently in different social contexts. Your company's context is more often than not very different than the previous company's.

1 month trial is more efficient and costs less than 6 interviews + 3 references. Give people a chance and let them surprise you. Of course, that doesn't mean hiring the first resume received but if the person appears qualified and do well in 2 interviews (HR + the new boss or colleague), that's plenty enough.