There are so many things involved in the hiring process. First, the company needs to publish job requirements, gather job applicants from interested candidates, then they need to screen resumes, and finally, the interview is held. But there is one crucial and hidden aspect of this hiring process: reference checking. It is one major piece of information that the applicant does not provide, and it calls several problems related to the information the applicant provided. In addition, it often links to the embellishment, faking, and omissions related to past experiences and works.
Experts at Global Investment Strategies state that many companies are currently abandoning this practice of reference checks since it is very time-consuming. Moreover, companies find it troublesome due to less meaningful information provided by the concerned references. As a result, managers are even looking for different ways to gather relevant information about potential employees.
There is no clear idea of what works effectively and what doesn’t regarding reference checks. It is just because there is significantly less research available regarding these practices, mainly because the information is usually gathered using the phone. In a few studies where reference checks happen via letters, it was observed that they typically contain some biased content to protect job applicants, and the length of such letters is also used poorly to make decisions. In addition, a literature review doesn’t provide solid evidence on the correlation of the recommendation length with the job success or other desirable outcomes associated with the candidate.
So, how can you gain insights into the effectiveness of reference checks? In a recent survey, it was observed that feedbacks generally involve ratings on a candidate’s work competencies and open-ended comments. Most of the reference feedback provided information on the applicant’s strengths and the potential areas of improvement. There were possible short phrases used by most of the feedback, irrespective of the nature of the reference feedback. The analyzers used some special tools and analytics software to track down the short phrases and words used in references, and the most common terms identified in the text were “problem-solving,” “communication,” and the ability to “accept criticism.”
It was observed that delivering negative feedback is not a desirable task for most people, and it is actively avoided. As a result, it is possible to find very little information on reference letters’ weaknesses. However, another observation states that the online reference feedback collection helped reference providers be more candid and open with the comments. The three theme areas identified for improvement, in this case, were communication, knowledge, and confidence.
Although work improvement themes were more related to the specific job than the themes used for strengths, a few common examples of job-specific themes for areas of improvement include time management, delegating for project managers, attention to detail, handling stress, and work-life balance. In addition, it is believed that when reference feedback is gathered confidentially, it can provide more transparency and accurate data on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate.