Interview Tips: Provided references are no guarantee
Though the majority of employers do check references, others skip this step. Not only is it labor-intensive to check references for people who might not be poised for a job offer, but Jack Harsh, adjunct professor at the University of Richmond Robins School of Business, says that many employers worry about the risk of liability in rejecting a candidate based on poor references.
"[Hiring] decisions cannot be based on information that is discriminatory in nature, so to avoid any liability, the checks are forgone," Harsh says. "Sadly, the first reference the employer gets in such cases is from colleagues after employment has begun."
Steve Langerud, director of career development at Depauw University, adds that sometimes, the quality of references is benign.
"Everyone wants to be helpful and supportive to former employees, but in the end, they offer little substance to a new employer," he says. "Legally, they are limited by what they can or want to say about former employees. I think the old formal system of references is dead in most professional fields."
Langerud warns that just because an employer isn't checking personal references the traditional way doesn't mean he isn't checking references at all.
"Employers are more likely to check the informal, but tangible, behavioral reference sources like LinkedIn, Facebook, credit history [or] criminal history than the more subjective references provided by candidates," he says. "Candidates should be much more intentional about crafting a professional identity that serves the role of a 'reference' but within the context of the work, profession and colleagues you seek to engage. It eliminates the weaknesses inherent in the old style of references that become so watered down they are useless."
