Skeleton references - a bad thing?

sangie595

techra02 wrote: »

I actually work in HR and currently due to a lot of legislative restrictions I would only expect references that state start and end dates. The reason is that potential employers should use the interview process to determine if you have the right experience/attitude to do the job. I would not worry plenty of people don't have work references due to career breaks and why would an employer take the word of someone they don't know and have never met over their own judgement. Don't give them the power.


s

But that is still your personal opinion. And does not reflect many employers or working environments. A great many employers seem to be keen to know if you got sacked, or were lousy at your work, or caused the team's you work with problems. An interview process is a single snapshot - easy to fake. We all know people who are good at playing the interview game, but not such great employees. There is no right or wrong answer here. It depends on what the employers want - not what the employee wants.

elsien

When I used to recruit, several years ago now, a skeleton reference was very unusual in the sector and my first thought was generally "what are they hiding?"

The one time I withdrew a job offer was when the reference said very little so I phoned to check. Turns out the person was very good at their job but had lied about some relevant information during interview. So going just on the "snapshot" I'd have employed them because at that point I didn't know about their dishonesty. Interview isn't the whole picture.
And the person wasn't in the least surprised when the job offer was withdrawn because they knew they were in the wrong, just hoping to get away with it.

TELLIT01

What the new employer wants isn't necessarily what the former / current employer is willing to give. If the former/current employer will not provide any information beyond start and end dates should that prevent the employee from obtaining another job?