Are References Still Relevant To Job Applications In 2014?

From the age of 16 (or possibly even earlier) it’s drilled into you that you need great references on your CV because these will always be checked and they could affect your chances of getting a new job… but you might be surprised to learn that that isn’t always the case, particularly in 2014.

You see, references are actually extremely complicated these days – and I’d even go as far as to say that references are one of the most tricky and complex parts of the job application process in 2014 – so much so in fact that a large numbers of employers don’t even bother checking references because they can turn out to be more bother than they’re worth – not that they’d ever announce it of course!

While an employer could once give out honest references of employee performance, attitude and skills, these days that’s just not an option – because there are so many potential risks – and one wrong move could lead to a big lawsuit not only from the employee involved but the other company they’re providing the reference to too.

Not sure what I mean? Let me explain… When an employer provides a reference for a former employee, rather than giving the honest, personalised references of the past, you’ll find that nowadays a lot of them will only answer a standard set of questions which really just come down to fact checking (ie. checking the position held and employment duration), rather than a personal comment on the employee’s actual performance and abilities – and it’s all to do with avoiding potential future legal action against them.

You see, while things like confirming facts will never get the former employer in trouble, making personal comments on the employee’s performance and skills could… and not just from the employee in question but the end company too!

We’ll look at it from the employee-perspective first. Should a former employer provide a reference for the employee that the employee doesn’t agree with or thinks is unfair, there’s a potential for the employee to sue their former employer for defamation (damage of reputation) – particularly if the reference has caused the employee to miss out on a new position.

Of course, there’s a strong chance the employee will never see the reference… and of course, as I know from my days of studying Journalism Law at university, for a defamation case to be won, the employee would need to be able to prove a number of things (eg. the statement is false and it has led them to be disparaged in their profession (among other things))… but there’s still a massive risk attached for an employer… and it’s one that not many companies are willing to take anymore.

As I said earlier, in addition to potential defamation risks, should an employer provide a less than truthful reference for a former employee – and that employee is then taken on by the company that received the reference and performs badly and ends up damaging the company in some way (eg. financially), there’s potential for the company to sue the original employer for giving a false reference which led to them taking on that employee. Of course, as with the employee defamation case, there are lots of things that need to be proven in order for this case to be successful… but there’s still another huge risk there.

When you consider those things, it’s no wonder that employers are becoming more and more cautious about what they put on an employee reference – and like I said earlier, a lot of the time these days, the reference will only confirm key details of the employee’s time at the company.

That said; on a lot of standard references that are now being given out, there is one key question which almost allows an employer to still give a bit of an opinion on an employee – “Would you re-employ this employee?”.

As you can imagine, with three possible answers to this question (‘yes’, ‘no’ unanswered), the question is weighted heavily out of favour of the employee… but it does give the employer the chance to give an honest answer – and one which is probably the most important answer they could give in regards to a former employee eg. this is the answer the company that’s receiving the reference will be the most interested in. What’s more, because this is the employer’s personal opinion, there’s no risks involved in terms of the answer coming back and biting them on the bum.

As I’ve mentioned, these days references are very different to what they used to be – which means for many, they’re just not seen as useful and/or relevant because of the lack of detail involved and the kind of things employers can and can’t say.

While some companies no longer consider references as an essential component of their recruitment process, there are some that will still methodically carry out reference checks for every employee – so in that respect I can’t imagine they’ll ever disappear completely… but whether these companies will continue these processes in the future as laws (particularly in respect of data and privacy) continue to tighten remains to be seen.

In terms of whether references are still relevant to job applications in 2014, I’d be inclined to say ‘yes’ in terms of fact-checking but ‘no’ in terms of a real, personal, honest reference and review of the candidate’s performance and attitude.

As ever, I’m keen to hear what you think on this controversial topic. Do you think references are still an intrinsic part of the recruitment process? Or do you think they’re not worth the paper they’re written on? Similarly, from a candidate perspective – are you worried about new employers checking on your references? Or have you failed to get a new job because of a bad reference?

Are References Still Relevant To Job Applications In 2014?