This topic frequently comes up in our inclusive hiring workshops and leads to interesting debates (which I'm sometimes alone on one side of). I should start by saying that I understand certain types of referencing are mandatory for employers to obtain for compliance reasons, such as employment verification and background checks.
I'm referring to the scenario where a line manager, co-worker or subordinate is asked to give a point of view on a candidate's potential performance. In particular close-knit industries, this is sometimes without the candidate's knowledge or consent.
Over the many years I spent in recruitment, hiring managers asked me to seek these references as part of the decision-making process. My hiring managers would also frequently reach out to their connections to obtain a point of view on someone whose CV I had put forward for a role.
One time, whilst handling a senior-level vacancy, my hiring manager reached out to a connection to ask for a point of view on a female candidate I had interviewed and put forward for the next stage. The feedback from said connection was that this candidate could sometimes come across as aggressive. I pushed back, of course, and highlighted that if the candidate were a man, it was likely he would be regarded as assertive. This kind of unconscious gender bias is prevalent in referencing, and it doesn't end there.
Referencing of this kind doesn't favour inclusion or mitigate bias for the following reasons.
It doesn't consider mitigating circumstances such as bad company culture, poor leadership, under-supported or overworked employee, mental or physical health....the list could go on.
- Unless your referee is uniquely aware of your selection criteria, it is unlikely that any opinion they give you will be anything other than subjective and less reliable to you than a solid structured interview.
- You perpetuate the cycle of privilege as it is easier for candidates from privileged backgrounds to source impressive and well-connected referrers. It's just nepotism 2.0
What is the motivation for obtaining this type of reference? Are they a valid indicator of future performance or simply a way of reinforcing an already bias driven hiring decision? I'd love to understand some other points of view on this topic.
My preference for an inclusive approach would be to only take references for compliance reasons and opt for the referrer confirming dates of employment and job title rather than giving subjective opinions. Agree or disagree? Join the debate on LinkedIn
Author: Jennie Child, Founder of Balance
