My last post, You Didn’t Hear it from Me, Okay?, prompted a few readers to e-mail me directly to inquire about the ethics of going “off list” to collect intelligence on employment candidates. Questions ranged from, “Are we allowed to contact people other than references given by the candidate?” to “At what point (if ever) do we let the candidate know that we are going to be calling around?”
Let me say at the very start that a hiring committee that relies exclusively on references given by a candidate is just begging for trouble. Most people, regardless of their qualifications and character, can scare up at least three people to say something positive. That’s why I absolutely advocate going “off list” in pursuit of the truth. That said, there are essential protocols to be followed when doing this, and hiring committees who “go rogue” at this step of the process can find themselves in a heap of trouble.
A key rule of thumb is to remember that going off list must be reserved only for serious candidates. While it is great fun to call friends and associates to get the scoop on people who have applied for positions, it is bad, bad form to do so. If your institution or department becomes known for this, you can forget about having good people apply in the future.
It is also critical to seek the candidate’s permission to contact people not on the original reference list. Having the candidate sign a waiver authorizing these inquiries is a very good practice and can offer your institution cover if things go badly during the information-collection process. The waiver should be general enough to allow you to make inquiries of anyone you want. When you make calls to off-list information sources, you can assure them that you have a waiver and even offer to send them a copy.
In some cases, a candidate may be reluctant to allow you free access to any and all people who might have information to share. Depending on the situation, you might want to negotiate a list of people: For example, we need to talk with two former students, two colleagues within your department, a member of a committee on which you served, and so on.
I also think it is good idea to ask candidates if there are people who might have negative personal agendas. I recall speaking with a candidate who let me know that she had filed sexual-harassment charges against a colleague in her department, and he had been bent on destroying her ever since. When the search committee spoke with him, he didn’t mention that, but he provided an extensive list of her professional failings — none of which were corroborated by her other colleagues.
That story leads me to my final piece of advice: Corroboration is key. When, for example, an off-list reference says, “He’s known to steal others’ research ideas,” your response should be, “Can you give me the names of others who can tell me more about that?” In many cases, the response will be serious stammering. In the event that potential corroborators are provided, it’s essential that you contact them, but the conversation should not begin with, “I’ve been told [candidate] is known to steal research ideas. What can you tell me about that?” The last thing you want is to be charged with defamation of character when that gets back to the candidate.
The stakes for each new hire are high, so search committees have an obligation to vet candidates thoroughly. There are ways to do this well and there are ways to do this poorly. What is your experience in collecting or providing off-list references?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader: