If the purpose of a reference check is to gather the truth about a candidate's working habits and abilities, is it really so much to expect the truth?
Name, rank and serial number. According to movie lore, that’s all you’re supposed to utter if captured as a prisoner of war.
But many organizations also adopted that credo when it came to something far less dramatic: The reference check. For decades, there has been a debate about how HR professionals and managers should answer questions about past employees.
Some employment lawyers have been vocal in their opinion that there is almost zero risk in providing an honest assessment, while others have proffered risk averse strategies that say no information should be shared other than confirming job titles and employment dates.
Back in 2003, in one of my first articles written for Canadian HR Reporter, I dove deep into the issue of reference checks.
“More and more HR professionals are being frustrated in their efforts to get information on candidates as organizations adjust policies for fear of the legal ramifications of giving a bad reference,” I wrote.
Janice Stubbs, who at the time was HR managers for the Town of Orangeville in Ontario, said she was having issues getting reference information from previous employers about 30 per cent of the time. She called it “unfortunate if employers can’t get information if there is someone you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy as an employee.”
Article Spotted by : Kathryn Benson
Article Published by : HR Canadian Reporter
Article Written by : Todd Humber
No comments:
Post a Comment