This is the second follow-up to the piece I wrote about whether or not personal references are a waste of time.  The first follow-up had to do with students who are just out of school and have never really had a full-time job.  Now the question has arisen about the value of references from those who have only had part-time jobs during the summer while in school.  I alluded to this in the previous piece, but it deserves expansion.

 If all your jobs have been short-term summer jobs or part-time jobs while in school – and that’s all you have to work with – references from at least three people you’ve worked with during the summer or on weekends or a few hours a day during the school day will usually be satisfactory to prospective employers.  One of the keys to job performance-based reference checking is looking for consistency among what references have to say.  Even for a part-time or summer job, an employer will have a fair sense of qualities like dependability, overall job performance, attitude on the job, career development needs, and so forth.  If the assessments of at least three references are consistent, then the prospective employer can make a more informed hiring decision based on those comments.
 
 The only real disadvantage to references that are shorter term in nature is they’re not quite as reliable as references that knew and worked with the candidate over an extended period of time.  “He only worked here three months during the summer” isn’t as obviously reliable a predictor of future job performance as, “He and I worked together for over five years.”  But, if short-term work references are all you have, they’re better than none at all and certainly better than a next-door neighbor who can only comment on how often you washed the car!

 The secret to the selection of references lies not so much with whom you choose, but the quality and consistency of your job performance between employers and over time.  If, for example, three different summer employers, extending over three summers, describe you the same way, then a prospective employer’s hiring decision will be that much easier.  So, ultimately, it’s how well the candidate for employment has performed – regardless of the length of time on the job – that really matters.  If you’ve done a good job for a summer or part-time employer, it won’t really matter whom you ask to be your references because you’ll know what they’re likely to say!
 
 It’s important to note that I’m not advocating working while going to school as an essential part of the hiring process.  Summer jobs usually make more sense than working during school, assuming that’s an optional decision.  The key to landing that first real job after graduation is simply to have done the best job possible for every employer regardless of the type of job it was or the length of time you were there.

In every tough market, candidates become more willing to do whatever it takes to ensure their resume comes out on top of the pile. It’s our job, as your provider of professional reference checks and background screens, to ensure that their proclaimed accomplishments meet the sniff test. Educational verifications are a very straightforward service offering and one that should be included in the evaluation of candidates for every position where a degree is required. With educational verifications, we can capture not only attendance information but degrees completed and certificates awarded, sometimes revealing the important difference between simply “being present” and actually completing the program.

 This is a follow-up piece to the one about the problem of listing personal references on a job application or resume.  The question has been subsequently asked, “But what if I’m just out of school and have never really had a full-time job before, will I not have to use personal references?”  Not really. 

 Here is what job seekers who truly haven’t held a traditional 9-to-5 job should do.  First, realize that the focus of the reference checking exercise has shifted slightly for new graduates from an evaluation of past job performance to an estimate of job performance potential!  Second, identify people you’ve “worked” with while in school.  Folks who fit this category include a major professor who remembers you and can comment on qualities like attendance, getting projects done on time, participation in class, grades, ability to work effectively as a member of a team, and an estimate of how you would be likely to perform on the job.

 Another ideal reference would be an activity advisor who oversaw some campus activity in which you were involved.  Then the questions tend to be about qualities like dependability; willingness to take on extra responsibility; leadership; ability to work effectively with others; and other qualities like attitude, interpersonal skill, and ambition – all qualities a prospective employer would be interested in knowing.

 A third reference could be a coach, a counselor, or another adult you interacted with as part of some community service activity.  The same sort of questions would apply to any of these “personal” references.

 Finally, even if it was only a summer job or a job just on weekends during school, whoever supervised your work will have some sense of your dependability, willingness to get the job done, attitude on the job, and other similar qualities that suggest what sort of employee you’ll be.  Taken altogether, these types of “personal” references can give a prospective employer a very good sense of your job performance potential.

 There’s another tangential point that should be fairly obvious to anyone who’s still in school.  Taking part in campus life is very important.  The individual who’s going to have the most trouble landing a solid entry-level job is the one who did nothing but go back and forth to class, who took part in no campus activities, and who spent all free time doing nothing but studying.  The point is most employers want well-rounded graduates who were good students and who were active in campus and/or community activities.  Given the choice between two students who made comparable grades – one of whom was active in campus life and the other who just went back and forth to class – whom do you think the prospective employer is going to choose when the time comes to make a job offer?  Well, the answer is obvious.  By taking part in campus life, a student will be able to provide suitable references who will be happy to discuss job performance potential and, in some cases, actual job performance!

 Frequently, job seekers will provide a prospective employer with a list of “personal” references.  Prospective employers will often compound the problem of using these personal references by making simplistic inquiries, like, “Is Mary a nice person?” (or some other innocuous inquiry similar to that).  By definition, a personal reference is someone who has never worked with the job seeker.  Personal references can be anyone from a favorite teacher, next-door neighbor, minister, golfing buddy, scoutmaster, to a shirttail relative.  While these types of people would all make great references if the person listing them needs a character reference to apply for membership to the local Elks Club, for employment purposes, they’re totally inappropriate on a job application.
 
 Why?  Because checking references for employment, by definition, requires references to be people familiar with the applicant’s overall job performance over time.  Employment references are people with whom the candidate has actually worked on a day-to-day basis within the last five to seven years.  From the prospective employer’s standpoint, it’s important to know, among other things, exactly what the candidate’s responsibilities were on the job.  It’s important to know how a coworker or supervisor would assess the candidate’s strengths and career development needs.  What are the chances that the candidate’s favorite teacher, for example, would have even the remotest clue about any questions like that?
 The minister may be able to say that the candidate was a generous contributor to the church’s building fund, but there’s no way he or she will have any idea what the candidate’s main strength was on the job. 
 Unless the prospective employer is only interested in finding out if the candidate is a nice person or a good student or won ten merit badges, a personal reference is – to be blunt – a waste of time.  Ninety-nine percent of the time, personal references simply won’t know anything about the details of the candidate’s job performance.  How could they?  Well, the answer is – they couldn’t.  That’s why it’s so important for employers to insist that candidates for employment provide the names of work-related references.  While it might be nice to know that the candidate is kind to children and small animals, kindness suggests nothing about a candidate’s career development needs, management style, or ability to supervise others.
 Employers, therefore, need to make sure what sort of references are being provided on a job application or resume.  If they’re personal references, as defined in this article, it’s the prospective employer’s responsibility to insist that the candidate provide work-related references.  If the candidate cannot do that, a red flag of major proportions should obviously go up immediately.

          “Since, most of the time, candidates seeking employment provide their own references, what’s the point in calling them since they’re just going to say good things about the candidate,” or so the excuse often goes for not checking.  While “saying good things” may well be what a reference tries to do, if the person doing the checking knows how to go about it, this potential pitfall can normally be avoided – no matter how much the reference tries to praise the candidate’s overall ability.

          For example, asking what the candidate’s responsibilities were on the job would be difficult for a reference to embellish.  And, frankly, there’s no reason for a reference to say the candidate was responsible for more tasks than he really was.  If that were to happen, and I can’t really imagine why it would, it could set up the candidate for failure if the employer expects him to be able to handle tasks he has never done before!  So, trying to embellish job responsibilities could really backfire on the candidate.

          As noted in an earlier piece, asking the reference to describe the candidate’s management style is equally difficult to fudge because there’s no way the reference can know what management style the prospective employer is seeking! 

          Another question difficult to exaggerate in response is, “If you had to describe a weakness in so-and-so’s overall job performance, what would it be – keeping in mind that nobody’s perfect?”  Since nobody IS perfect, the reference is usually compelled to suggest something in the candidate’s overall job performance that could be improved!  However, I have had references say something like, “Gosh, Charlie was just outstanding at everything!”  But all that response does is tip off the person doing the reference checking that the reference isn’t being totally honest – because, I reiterate, nobody is perfect!  My response in instances like this one is to politely push a little more and say something like, “Oh, come on!  Nobody does everything perfectly.  There must be some area in which Charlie could improve.”

          Akin to the previous question is this one:  “In what area do you think Charlie needs improvement.  What could he do better?”  A response, again, like, “Charlie just does a great job at everything.  I can’t think of anything he could do better,” is also a giveaway that the reference is being less than candid.  In rare situations like this, the best advice to the prospective employer is to add a developed reference, because it’s obvious that the rest of the responses given by this sort of reference are going to be suspect.

The ultimate point is that careful reference checking will, more often than not, disarm the person who only wants to rave about the candidate seeking employment; and, of equal importance, that’s why it’s never sufficient to contact just one reference.  My recommendation is to always talk to a minimum of three references that have worked with the candidate and carefully compare their responses to each question.     Sometimes it’s necessary to rule out one set of comments that are obvious overstatements; but, by politely pushing beyond the initial response and asking for specific examples from the reference, it’s ordinarily possible to get a far more accurate assessment of actual job performance – even from a reference who only wants to say “good things.”

 The most accurate answer to the question in the title of this piece is, “it depends.”  And what it depends on is how the release which the candidate has signed is worded.  From the standpoint of the prospective employer, the release should contain a sentence that reads something like, “I hereby give express permission to the XYZ Company to contact the references I have provided and anyone else familiar with my job performance at any of the companies listed in my work history.”  A sentence like that broadens the scope the prospective employer has regarding the contact of others not necessarily listed as references by the candidate seeking employment.

 Why would a prospective employer need to seek out others for additional job performance information when the job seeker has provided appropriate names of specific references?  There are really only two reasons: first, if the prospective employer believes that references provided by the candidate are likely to have been coached to say only positive things about the candidate or, second, if the references themselves cannot provide responses sufficiently detailed for the prospective employer to draw any reasonable conclusions about the candidate’s overall job performance.
 
 In the first instance, coached or not, someone trained in careful reference checking normally won’t have any trouble getting past a “coached” response.  The way to do it is to ask open-ended questions that don’t lend themselves to an obvious answer.  For example, instead of asking if so-and-so was a “hands-on” manager, the question should be asked as follows: “How would you describe so-and-so’s management style?”  There’s no way a reference can second-guess what sort of answer the prospective employer is looking for, regardless of whether he has been coached or not!  Here’s another example, instead of asking if the candidate did tasks A, B, and C as part of his overall job responsibilities, ask the question this way: “What were so-and-so’s primary responsibilities on the job?”  Again, even a coached reference is going to have a very difficult time doing anything but answering the question honestly – because the question doesn’t ask for a subjective evaluation of how well the candidate did the tasks the job required.

 Generally speaking, however, the primary reason for contacting “developed” references is to seek clarification or explanation of responses that are vague or which fall into the category of a “glittering generality,” such as, “Oh, Charlie did everything well.”  In a situation like this, it might be wise, at the end of the conversation, to ask the reference who else at the XYZ company might be familiar with so-and-so’s responsibilities on the job.  Most of the time, the reference will suggest making contact with another person who worked with the candidate.  Then, when the call is placed to that individual, the approach is to say something like, “Your name was suggested as a reference for so-and-so, and I was wondering if we could chat about him for a few minutes.  He’s being considered for a position with our company.”  It’s in situations like these where it makes sense to seek out “developed references” to get more thorough information to make a better, more accurate, and more objective assessment of the candidate’s past job performance.

According to The Institute for Trend Research, there are currently approximately 3.5 million job openings in this country, despite an unemployment rate hovering at 8.3%.  Current job openings represent a 20.9% increase over one year ago.  How can that be so, one might be inclined to ask?  Institute experts suggest that the in-demand jobs are in areas like manufacturing engineering and bioengineering.  Other areas of high demand include advanced manufacturing and the life sciences, all of which typically require years of education.  One of the areas hardest hit during the recession was construction jobs; and, as a result, construction skills don’t easily translate into the requirements of the job skills most in demand now.

The net effect, as the Institute points out, is, “the education divide between the in-demand jobs and the skill set of the unemployed suggests the unemployment rate will likely stay high in coming years, even with the economy expanding.”

 The gap between the skills of the unemployed and the skill requirements of the most in-demand jobs, suggests that careful reference checking will continue to be an important component of an effective hiring strategy.  Making sure that candidates for employment have the skills the job requires will be only half of the challenge, however.  A careful evaluation of soft skills will also be necessary to avoid costly hiring mistakes.
 
 It’s really a two-step process.  The first step is objectively determining if the candidate’s qualifications for the job are in line with the requirements of the job.  The second part of the process is to determine if the candidate has the soft skills – such as the ability to think creatively, solve problems, work as a member of a team, and communicate effectively – required by the majority of the jobs that are emerging as the economy grows.  In many instances, the long-term unemployed will need training in both areas in order the meet the job skill needs of today’s employers.

 What must also be kept in mind is that it’s one thing to claim to have a particular skill set and quite another to actually possess the higher level skills of the jobs that are currently going unfilled.  Careful reference checking, therefore, is one of the surest ways to guard against those job seekers who claim to have skills they really don’t possess.  A large part of the problem for the unemployed is the time required to acquire the threshold educational skills necessary in a changing economy.  The other part of the problem, especially in the short-run, will be acquiring the soft skills necessary to function effectively in the emerging workplace where the in-demand jobs are.
 
Stated another way, as the economy grows stronger, despite high unemployment, it will be critical to make the best hiring decisions possible.  As more and more of the unemployed become increasingly desperate to find a job, the tendency to embellish, overstate, and simply be less-than-honest on a job application or resume will likely increase.
 
The importance, therefore, of making sure the candidate is who he or she claims to be will be surpassed only by insuring that the candidate has all the requisite skills – both the technical skills and the soft skills – necessary to do the job successfully.

 Despite claims to the contrary, real reference checking will never be reduced to an objective impersonal “science.”  There will always be an element of subjective “art” in it.  Why is that?  Unless one is willing to settle for a standardized set of questions that can be answered with a numerical value or choosing between abstractions like “good,” “fair,” and “poor” as responses to job performance questions, there will always be subjective elements of interpretation that can only be classified as “art.”  And “art” can only come through the use of real human skills like experience, intuition, good judgment, and an inquisitive mind.

 For instance, suppose diametrically opposite responses are given by two equally qualified references – let’s say two coworkers who have worked with the candidate for about the same length of time.  Suppose one reference says the candidate’s job performance was top-notch, while the other says the candidate’s performance was, at best, mediocre.  How can those two very different assessments be reconciled?  One is by comparing the responses to other job performance-related questions.  Are all the responses at opposite ends of the spectrum or just the answers to the question about job performance?  What was the tone of the two references?  Is it possible to tell that one reference liked the candidate while, for whatever reason, the other did not?  Another technique is by contacting a third reference to see how he or she answers the job performance question – and then following up with a question like, “It’s interesting that two of you rated the candidate’s job performance highly and the third reference did not.  Why do you suppose there’s such a difference?”  What could be concluded if the third reference were to say, “Oh, Charlie didn’t get the promotion he wanted.  The candidate got it.  Charlie really didn’t handle the rejection well, and that’s probably why he’s not giving the candidate a very good rating.”  Okay, now we have a logical explanation for the conflicting responses!
 
 The foregoing example clearly contains elements of good judgment, intuition, and inquisitiveness that could never be reduced to an objective “yes” or “no” computer evaluation.  Real reference checking takes all of the previously mentioned human skills to sort through conflicting responses about a candidate for employment – if one is to make the best hiring decision.  Things as subtle as a hesitation in responding to a question could easily promote an experienced reference checker to say, “You seemed to hesitate a little on that question.  Is there a concern there that’s bothering you?”  That’s intuition and experience taking over; neither of these qualities can be integrated into a computer program with limited response options.

 In the long run, the “art” of reference checking will always produce a better result for the prospective employer than an impersonal evaluation that eliminates the human element.

 Since the object of checking references is to determine if the candidate being considered for employment is right for the job, the types of questions asked should be limited to only those which relate to some aspect of job performance – all the way from asking what the candidate’s responsibilities were on the job, to why the candidate left his or her last job.
  
 Put another way, what prospective employers should not ask a candidate’s references is anything unrelated to some aspect of job performance.  Non-job-related questions include anything about the candidate’s personal life or any questions that are forbidden by EEOC regulations – things like age, race, sex, religion, marital status, national origin, or any disability issues covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
 
 That seems to leave a fairly large gray area where no clear answer exists about whether a particular question should be asked or not!  Take the employer who wants to make sure that a candidate’s personality will be compatible with the company’s “corporate culture.”  Can the prospective employer ask about this or not?  Or course, it can be asked; and here’s how it can be done.  Simply say, “How would your describe so-and-so’s personality on the job?”  As with nearly any inquiry that could have a bearing on how well the candidate will fit the requirements of the job, questions that address that fit are perfectly fine to ask.
 
 There is a certain logic to prohibiting questions that have nothing to do with job performance.  For example, why would an employer ever ask a candidate’s references about his or her religion?  What possible impact could a candidate’s religion have to do with his or her ability to do the job?  On the other hand, asking about the candidate’s ability to work with others in a job setting is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
 
 Broadly speaking, questions employers should ask should include past job responsibilities, strengths, weaknesses, personality on the job, management style, career development needs, ability to work with others on the job, reasons for leaving, and eligibility for re-hire.  There are all sorts of ways to get at the legitimate issues an employer needs to know about a candidate for employment in an unbiased way.   For instance, employers should avoid leading questions – like, “Would you say so-and-so was a hands-on manager?”  A better way to ask that question would be to say, “Could you describe so-and-so’s management style.”  By asking the question in that manner, there’s no way that a reference can second guess the answer the employer is hoping to hear.

 To summarize as succinctly as possible, if a question is about some aspect of job performance, it’s perfectly fine to ask.  If it isn’t, don’t ask it!

 The answer to this question, if one already knows it, is about as obvious as it can be.  If one does not know it, however, the answer can be disconcerting, confusing, and seemingly very complicated.

 The answer comes in two parts.  The first part is that the only questions a reference should ever answer are ones about job performance – and nothing else.  The second part is a reference can say anything he or she wants to say – as long as it is (1) true or (2) an honestly held opinion.
 
 Let’s look at the first requirement more closely.  There’s all the difference in the world between asking, “How did so-and-so get along with other people?” and “How did so-and-so get along with other people on the job?”  If the former question is asked, a reference should limit his or her response by saying something like, “As far as his/her ability to get along with others on the job, I would say he/she did well.”  The same can be said of every other question a reference is asked.  As long as the question and/or the response is limited to an on the job response, there’s no reason not to respond.
 
 So, understanding that every response should be strictly limited to observations from the workplace, we can move ahead to the second part – truth and honestly held opinions.  As most people know, “the truth is an absolute defense,” we’re good to move on.  If, for example, a prospective employer asks a reference why the candidate left his/her last job, and the answer is, “He was fired for stealing company property,” and it’s TRUE, there’s no reason not to say it.  Or, if a prospective employer should ask, “What did you think of so-and-so’s ability to manage others?” and the reference says, “I thought he had a lot to learn about delegating responsibility instead of trying to do it all himself,” and that’s the reference’s honestly held opinion, again, there’s no reason not to say so.
 
 The danger comes when a reference decides to lie about the candidate.  It’s important to note that it’s equally as dangerous to lie and say a poor performer actually performed well, as it is to lie and say a good performer performed poorly.  Stated another way, trying to make a mediocre candidate look good by lying about his job performance is just as risky to the reference as trying to make a highly qualified candidate look bad by lying about some aspect of his job performance.  Intentionally lying about a candidate is a bad strategy for any reference, regardless of whether it’s to help or hurt the candidate.
 
 So, in summary, a reference can legally answer any job-related question as long as the answer is true or is an honestly held opinion.  To do otherwise opens the reference to the possibility of being sued – either by the candidate who is denied employment on the basis of what was said or by the company that relied on what was said and was “injured” in some respect.

 As much of a cliché as it is to say, “Honesty is always the best policy.”