An informal background check
A CV should be treated as a short work of fiction with the narrator as hero.
It is not always backstabbing to talk about someone who is absent, or not within hearing distance. Sometimes, it’s a simple character check. Informal personality tracking is sometimes solicited from former associates who may not even be aware that the curiosity regarding an individual is connected to a process of evaluation on fitness for a job. The question may even be straightforward — would you hire him? If I can afford to hire him, why not?
This request for a quick evaluation is not as formal as credit investigations (Does he have unpaid credit card bills?) or character references that a job applicant lists down as possible suppliers of comments on reliability, skills as a team player, penchant for submitting work on time, or previous accomplishments. The reference list submitted in a formal application is selected solely for eliciting positive comments. Potential critics are excluded from this list.
The casual character check seems almost like small talk — do you know a Ms. Cornucopia? The respondent remembers her as a former colleague, once an analyst in his firm. He recalls her once being tardy for work coming in just before lunch and needing her report due that day to be revised by a supervisor. This sketchy profile may be based on a single incident of tardiness when the subject’s mother was rushed to the hospital for a mild stroke.
Even in politics, newbies are not evaluated by their campaign poster of achievements. It’s better to ask businessmen in their town how this former mayor ran the city. Reports of non-harassment, scooting around in the dark to catch smokers, and rumors of the eradication of criminals are accepted without further details. Does this fish in his small pond behave differently in the swirling ocean of the capital? The change in behavior may be surprising, and not always on the pleasant side.
Off-the-cuff comments are considered objective, premised on the belief that an informant has nothing to gain by providing a spurious evaluation. Still, there is the problem of sweeping statements unsupported by facts, and sometimes based on gossip. How often was she late? Was that a habit or just an aberration? Selection of informants is based on availability and it is never clear how well the evaluator knows his subject, and what kind of relationship the former had with the latter. Often, associations of longstanding are an amalgam of envy, admiration ( less frequent),
rivalry, credit grabbing, and even unrequited affections.
Business circles in this country, whether in media, banking, or real estate, are small. The supposition is that any individual belonging to that circle is capable of giving a considered opinion on another. Often, the evaluations are almost binary — incompetent or well-respected, and nothing in between. No effort is given to support such general characterizations. In this context, a wronged person has little chance to clear himself and few know the complexity of his situation to hazard a more nuanced character sketch — he’s very principled but when the mistress of his boss asked for the janitorial contract that he turned down, his fortunes took a turn for the worse and he was quickly considered redundant.
When asked for opinions on someone known only vaguely ( you don’t even know her nickname) it is best to demur and say that one knows the person only superficially and cannot give an intelligent opinion on her workrelated skills or habits.
The executive recruitment business screens and vets the qualifications of their candidates. They also rely on “industry sources,” including interviewing competitors. The first layer for evaluating a candidate is her own curriculum vitae. This can be an unreliable self-diagnosis as it is highly selective hiding faults and exaggerating achievements. Except for age, and maybe schooling, though not necessarily the actual completion of a degree or citation of academic honors received, a CV should be treated as a short work of fiction with the narrator as hero.
Most recruiters then rely on the personal interview as the make-or-break moment of truth. But here again, the articulate ones have an edge over silent doers. Too often, the smooth talker lands the job. He will then employ these same verbal skills in his variance analysis on why he consistently fails to achieve his goals.
Maybe the casual character check can be useful after all — he never ran a profitable business but has excellent excuses. He talks too much and never listens except to the boss... whoever that is at the moment.