next »

[comp_queen]

http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/02/2008021501c/careers.html

Me again with logic from someone who's spent at least a little time outside academe.  The arrogance of this article is astounding.  The attitude on the part of this author about the sort of information he and other hiring folks are entitled to receive . . . wow.  There is a reason that, in every other field I know of, the only reference information that people will provide is "So-and-So worked here from XYZ date to PQR date."

Illegal activity will come up in a background check.  Anything else is none of you da*n business.  Someone whose name the candidate did not give you, you should not call.  This is basic MANNERS, in addition to being good sense.

Someday some off-list reference will let slip information about someone's disability or something like that, and the person won't get hired, and will find out about the off-list call, and then there will be a lawsuit, and then maybe this 19th-century nonsense will stop--we've all read those novels where a girl can't get a job as a maid because a man lied about her virtue, yes?

I personally would never say anything negative in this kind of a situation, more because of concerns about karma than any professional idea . . . but . . . just . . . wow.

[octoprof]

The author is an executive search firm guy...  Need we say more?  Ugh!

[canadatourismguy]

A good rule of thumb is to never say anything to someone else that you would not say face to face to that person.

CTG

[mended_drum]

I think I understand what you all are saying here, but I can easily imagine a situation in which I might feel compelled to say something about a candidate that I would not want to say to him or her face to face, probably because the candidate, while not having been convicted of anything, has done something seriously unethical.  If I had personal knowledge, for example, that someone was guilty of sexual harassment or was given to fits of rage (and I've seen both of these in academia), I would either have to refuse to give a recommendation altogether or be honest about my reservations.  Bland, non-committal recs--threat of lawsuit or not--can put future colleagues and students in dangerous situations.  I don't think I could handle being guilty of quietly passing along a problem just to be rid of it.

[aandsdean]

Take note, y'all, that the author is from an executive search firm.  These are the people that help hire deans, provosts, vice-presidents, and presidents. 

Anyone who's realistically pursuing such positions (believe me, I know, from both sides of the table) can very easily cherry-pick references from a long career; I've been at three schools, and when I compose a list of references it wouldn't be hard for me to assemble a list of 20 or even more, all of whom would have really great and completely unambiguous things to say about me.

Everyone in the same position can do the same thing.

So:  since there's such a great deal of complaining about the incompetence, stupidity, nastiness, lack of vision, favoritism, laziness, rotten attitudes, control-freakiness, and God knows how many other bad qualities of your institutions' executive leadership, don't you think it's a good idea to check out candidates with people who have not been cherry-picked by the candidates?

I do.  As a candidate, it does make me nervous:  my career is, of course, in question, and I'd be mighty sorry if I didn't get a job as a result of an anonymous character assassination.  However, most of the search consultants I've worked with--again from both sides of the table--are very savvy, smart and thorough, and they know how to "read" what they hear from references.  Mostly, I'm pretty sure they can recognize a vendetta as opposed to legitimate information.

On the other hand, if you want to hire your bosses based on the word of their buddies--or people who are so desperate to get rid of them that they'll lie through their teeth about their qualities--go right ahead.

[acrimone]

Anyone who thinks that a set of policies or even laws can prevent people from asking people they know about people who want to work for them is either stupid, insane, or both.

Anyone who thinks that people shouldn't ask other people they know about people who want to work for them is either being unrealistic or is just odd.  Or both.

If you were thinking about buying a Subaru, and one of your friends owned one, wouldn't you ask your friend about it?  Or would you just go down to the dealership and read their advertising material?  I submit it's ill-advised not to check all your sources when making a major decision.  And if there happen to be laws against it, it's ill-advised to get caught doing it, but still the smart thing to do.

[lotsoquestions]

  Bland, non-committal recs--threat of lawsuit or not--can put future colleagues and students in dangerous situations.  I don't think I could handle being guilty of quietly passing along a problem just to be rid of it.

Actually, some of the academic analyses of the whole idea of letters of reference would say that there is no such thing as a bland, noncommittal letter of reference.  There was a study that researchers did comparing the nice, mundane letters of reference written for less than stellar candidates for jobs in research labs that pointed out that (a.)  letters of recommendation for women candidates were more likely to comment on how well she handled both her family responsibilities and her demanding job (b.)  letters of recommendation for African-
American female candidates were significantly more likely to comment on (stereotypical) physical characteristics, describing candidates as "exotic" and "statuesque" (c.)  letters of recommendation for women were more likely to describe than in positive but passive terms while letters of recommendation for men were more likely to describe than in terms of their research.  What was fascinating was that the bias was so widespread that even in situations where recommenders thought they were writing a good letter, they still displayed many of these patterns.  There were even differences in the number of positive adjectives given to different groups, which varied by sex and race.  I guess my worst fear is that they contact Professor Windbag who has a bias against women candidates in general/nontraditional candidates in general/minority candidates in general and the recruiter, not knowing about this widespread bias, takes the recommendation at face value.   Sometimes when people LEAVE people off of their list of references, it's not because they themselves didn't do well, but because they know that the person is biased.  I'm kind of surprised that the author of this article didn't acknolwedge this possibility.  It made me feel like perhaps he's not consciously aware of it.
 

[aandsdean]

  Bland, non-committal recs--threat of lawsuit or not--can put future colleagues and students in dangerous situations.  I don't think I could handle being guilty of quietly passing along a problem just to be rid of it.

Actually, some of the academic analyses of the whole idea of letters of reference would say that there is no such thing as a bland, noncommittal letter of reference.  There was a study that researchers did comparing the nice, mundane letters of reference written for less than stellar candidates for jobs in research labs that pointed out that (a.)  letters of recommendation for women candidates were more likely to comment on how well she handled both her family responsibilities and her demanding job (b.)  letters of recommendation for African-
American female candidates were significantly more likely to comment on (stereotypical) physical characteristics, describing candidates as "exotic" and "statuesque" (c.)  letters of recommendation for women were more likely to describe than in positive but passive terms while letters of recommendation for men were more likely to describe than in terms of their research.  What was fascinating was that the bias was so widespread that even in situations where recommenders thought they were writing a good letter, they still displayed many of these patterns.  There were even differences in the number of positive adjectives given to different groups, which varied by sex and race.  I guess my worst fear is that they contact Professor Windbag who has a bias against women candidates in general/nontraditional candidates in general/minority candidates in general and the recruiter, not knowing about this widespread bias, takes the recommendation at face value.   Sometimes when people LEAVE people off of their list of references, it's not because they themselves didn't do well, but because they know that the person is biased.  I'm kind of surprised that the author of this article didn't acknolwedge this possibility.  It made me feel like perhaps he's not consciously aware of it.
 

No experienced executive recruiter is unaware of the kinds of biases you mention.  Believe me, I've dealt with quite a few of them, and they're hypersensitive to these biases, not least because colleges and universities (for the most part) really want to diversify their senior leadership.

PS:  The kinds of recs he's talking about almost inevitably involve phone calls, not letters.

[kaysixteen]

I was all set to get this great job last year.  The SC chair told me I was going to be hired, all he had to do was perform a perfunctory reference check.  Somehow things sorrta got messed up.  Someone gave him a name, and before I could do anything about it, my psychiatrist was telling the chair that I was 'almost cured'.  What exactly does 'paranoid schizophrenic with raving homicidal delusions' mean, anyhow?  Ah well... back to Wal-Mart.