 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
opportunity : Diversity Positive recruitment
:
Tips and tools
Checking References
General
1 The most appropriate use of references is:
- to confirm selection committee perceptions of the candidate;
- to alert the selection committee to weaknesses that were not apparent at interview; and
- to clarify any questions which may have arisen during the interview process.
2 Therefore the most appropriate
time to check references is after the interview.
Why not check references prior to the interview?
3 If one or more committee members check references
prior to interviews, they are potentially bringing a bias to the interview.
Consequently the selection committee is not providing a level playing
field for all candidates. The Center is also potentially wasting a lot
of time, because it may be gathering a lot of information about candidates
who don’t even make it to the short list. The selection committee
may also find it has to go back to some referees after the interview,
particularly in relation to issues 1(a) and 1(c) above.
4 Furthermore, most people are able to find
at least three people who will vouch for their character. Therefore, a
general reference check is rarely that revealing.
Pre-screening issues
5 As discussed earlier, pre-screening of applicants
should be based on their match to the selection criteria, not on the basis
of who they know. The selection committee is most interested in learning
what they have done that is relevant to the position being filled, and
the real level of their competencies, rather than who they know.
6 If a Center finds it desirable to prescreen
candidates as part of the short-listing process, it is preferable to telephone
interview them (or video-conference interview them), or ask them to complete
a job-related task.
7 Do not use references to pre-screen applications.
This infers that if someone has eminent connections, they are a stronger
applicant. Basing screening on the list of referees introduces a bias
that may particularly disadvantage candidates from developing countries
and/or women.
Respecting candidates’ confidentiality
8 Selection committee members must
respect the confidentiality of every application. If they discuss
applicants with people outside the Center (or even outside their own committee),
they may jeopardize the current employment of those applicants. The Center
consequently would get a bad name in relevant professional circles, and
people in those circles would be discouraged from applying for Center
vacancies.
9 Committee members therefore must resist
any tendency to “call around” to find out about the applicant.
If the confidentiality of the application is jeopardized, the impact could
be the withdrawal of a candidate – either because their organization
responded for fear of losing them or because they did not want to risk
their security in their current job.
10 The same principle applies to contacting
referees. Before contacting any referee, the committee should ask the
candidate to inform the referee that it will be contacting them. This
not only forewarns the candidate that the committee is about to take this
step, it increases the chances that the referee will be available.
Best practice for checking references
11 When checking references, the best way
to find relevant information is if the Center:
- provides the role description and selection criteria to the referee
in advance,
so that he/she has the opportunity to reflect on the Center’s requirements; and - telephones the referee, rather than writing to him/her.
12 The principal reasons for telephoning are that:
- people will usually be more forthcoming in speech, particularly about negative aspects of the candidate. Many referees will not put any negative comments about the candidate in writing, for fear of backlash including, possibly, litigation; and
- the interviewer can focus the feedback.
13 If the reference check is in relation to a role description (“what is their suitability for this type of role?”) or in relation to an interview (“I was concerned about their ability to handle pressure”), then each referee’s comments can be quite valuable. Not only may it help the final selection decision, but it may also give the hiring manager useful information on how to support and manage the appointee.
Putting referees’ comments
in perspective
14 Ultimately the selection committee has
to trust its own judgment about people. Consequently its collective perception
should weigh more strongly than a third party reference. If the selection
committee puts a referee’s opinion above its own, and the appointee
turns out to be less suitable than the selection committee had anticipated
from the referee’s comments, the problem is entirely the Center’s.
© CGIAR Gender & Diversity
Program 2006