New study says 4 job references are ideal
The pundits are still arguing about the value of job references. A recent Huffington Post story said job references are pointless. “Who’s going to give a prospective employer references who’d say bad things about him?”
Even though hotly debated over the decades, job references remain an essential cog in the job hunting machinery.
Checkster, a San Francisco, human resources research company, finds that when it comes to checking on new hires, four references is the ideal number of quality hires to prevent turnover. Here is the reasoning behind that conclusion, according to Checkster: “Data analysis of the total number of references who provided feedback on the candidates in the study was correlated with first year turnover. Candidates who had three or less references providing feedback showed significantly higher rates of turnover and no shows on first day of employment. The biggest difference between obtaining two and four references was an increase in involuntary turnover and no show by as much as 80%.”
While companies tend to call an average of 2.4 references when using traditional methods, digital automation tools allow hiring managers to access many more references than would be feasible with phone calls. Because of the confidentiality of the digital process, references feel more comfortable giving candid feedback about candidates.
“It’s a myth that reference checking is a waste a time,” said Checkster CEO Yves Lermusi. “Research has shown that digital reference checking is one of the best selection processes and checking four references ensures that candidates aren’t cherrypicking the few references who will say good things about them.”
Unlike traditional phone reference checks, automated reference checking tools allow employers to gather more references in a fraction of the time compared to manual methods, increasing the quality of reference checks.”
Digital reference checks collect information from a variety of sources, allowing employers to see the rater’s relationship with the candidate and to inform them whether they’re getting information from a supervisor, peer, or subordinate. This presents a holistic picture of the candidate’s quality in a way that is more similar to peer reports than traditional reference checks, which only gather information from previous managers.
While Checkster makes a good case for using four references for most jobs, for senior level job experts suggest listing five to eight. Obviously list your strongest (“heavy-hitters”) first. If it’s not obvious why you’re using them, provide a brief explanation.
Despite reference-checking’s obvious flaws, the process has ascended to an obligatory part of the job-hunting machinery.
It’s doubtful it will ever change. With the added sophistication of new social media technologies, expect the reference checking process to become more sophisticated, especially with high-value jobs.
Here are three reference-checking commandments to remember:
1. Don’t assume a reference candidate will want to be your reference. Ask permission first. Additionally, tell them a little about the job you’re applying for so they can think about what they’ll tell the interviewer.
2. Pick references carefully. Respected employers or authorities in their respective industries are ideal references. Most important, they’re familiar with your work and can speak to its value.
3. Send prospective references a copy of your resume. They might have some insightful suggestions or opinions.