Hiring Secret: Best Way to Vet a Candidate(inc.com)
inc.com
Hiring Secret: Best Way to Vet a Candidate
http://www.inc.com/brian-halligan/hiring-process-vet-a-candidate.html
67 comments
This is pretty standard practice in the valley, particularly if you are being hired in anything more than an entry level position.
Nobody is going to be paid $140K+/year, and be trusted with access to the source code tree, intellectual property, and possible exposure to customers on the basis of 3-5 45 minute interviews and a few (supplied by the candidate) reference checks.
You are going to be hired if (A) we already know you or (B) someone we know can vouch for you that you've done good work for other companies.
Trying to hire on any other basis is just playing a crap shoot.
It's what I like to tell my employees - "None of you are working for this company. You are all working for the _next_ company - and every decision and action you take here, will reflect on whether your next employer will want to hire you."
Nobody is going to be paid $140K+/year, and be trusted with access to the source code tree, intellectual property, and possible exposure to customers on the basis of 3-5 45 minute interviews and a few (supplied by the candidate) reference checks.
You are going to be hired if (A) we already know you or (B) someone we know can vouch for you that you've done good work for other companies.
Trying to hire on any other basis is just playing a crap shoot.
It's what I like to tell my employees - "None of you are working for this company. You are all working for the _next_ company - and every decision and action you take here, will reflect on whether your next employer will want to hire you."
There's a huge difference between a personal voucher and a opinion randomly solicited off LinkedIn. The latter might nix some candidates, but is probably not very useful in determining the best ones.
This is so strange to me. 50% of jobs in the US are found through networking...which in essence is a vouch for the person you're hiring.
Networks do the background check for you, and that's why so many jobs are found that way. Surprised there was no mention of it in the article...
Networks do the background check for you, and that's why so many jobs are found that way. Surprised there was no mention of it in the article...
Patrick: Good to connect again, though I wish it were happier circumstances. :)
Disclosure: Brian Halligan (the author of the article) is my co-founder and friend at HubSpot.
It's late here in Boston, and it doesn't look like he's going to get a chance to respond tonight, but I wanted to address a couple of the points you've made (and that have been echoed by others in the HN community).
1. This particular tactic of his is usually near the very end of the process. He doesn't start by doing reference checks. He still goes through standard interviews, and in most cases, has them meet several members of the team.
2. Brian is super-sensitive about not putting potential employees in an uncomfortable position by disclosing that they are seeking employment. That would be a jerk move, and he's not a jerk. And it's also bad business.
3. His express purpose is not to solicit negative comments (though it comes off that way in the article). He's trying to get a more complete picture of the truth. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. The focus is on what this persons "super powers" are. Most of the discussion is positive (For someone to have made it that far in the process, in just about all cases, there's going to be more strengths than weaknesses). But, he does deliberately open the door for negative comments.
4. We actually encourage anyone that is looking to join the HubSpot team to do deep due diligence on us. We think it's not only fair, but good for both parties. They can talk to any employee (or ex-employee), any customer, any investor, any partner. We aim to be as transparent as possible in this process and have found that the kinds of people that we like to recruit value that particular aspect of the company culture.
One thing I will say for sure: Brian is one of the most ethical people I know. He's going to be disappointed when he reads this thread that folks though him to be shady.
There is no way for me to prove that Brian's one of the good-guys. But, there's a way for you to do it (turn the tables, if you will). Do some blind reference checks. That would make for an interesting follow-up post.
Thanks for reading. Sorry it was so long -- it's been a long day, and I didn't have a chance to make it shorter.
Regards, Dharmesh
p.s. I don't usually write HN comments in letter form, but it felt right in this particular case as I think of Patrick as a friend.
Disclosure: Brian Halligan (the author of the article) is my co-founder and friend at HubSpot.
It's late here in Boston, and it doesn't look like he's going to get a chance to respond tonight, but I wanted to address a couple of the points you've made (and that have been echoed by others in the HN community).
1. This particular tactic of his is usually near the very end of the process. He doesn't start by doing reference checks. He still goes through standard interviews, and in most cases, has them meet several members of the team.
2. Brian is super-sensitive about not putting potential employees in an uncomfortable position by disclosing that they are seeking employment. That would be a jerk move, and he's not a jerk. And it's also bad business.
3. His express purpose is not to solicit negative comments (though it comes off that way in the article). He's trying to get a more complete picture of the truth. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. The focus is on what this persons "super powers" are. Most of the discussion is positive (For someone to have made it that far in the process, in just about all cases, there's going to be more strengths than weaknesses). But, he does deliberately open the door for negative comments.
4. We actually encourage anyone that is looking to join the HubSpot team to do deep due diligence on us. We think it's not only fair, but good for both parties. They can talk to any employee (or ex-employee), any customer, any investor, any partner. We aim to be as transparent as possible in this process and have found that the kinds of people that we like to recruit value that particular aspect of the company culture.
One thing I will say for sure: Brian is one of the most ethical people I know. He's going to be disappointed when he reads this thread that folks though him to be shady.
There is no way for me to prove that Brian's one of the good-guys. But, there's a way for you to do it (turn the tables, if you will). Do some blind reference checks. That would make for an interesting follow-up post.
Thanks for reading. Sorry it was so long -- it's been a long day, and I didn't have a chance to make it shorter.
Regards, Dharmesh
p.s. I don't usually write HN comments in letter form, but it felt right in this particular case as I think of Patrick as a friend.
Just to be clear: You and Brian are advocating that a potential employer will do a deep dive on my background without my permission?
I love it when psychopaths write articles. They're being serious, but they sound like they're writing an Onion article! Hilarious and sad.
Anyway, this is why I never answer the phone. Nobody calls you because they have something for you. They call you because they want something from you. Why should I give you an honest review of my friend? If I lie and say he's a 10, my friend will like me more and I will have a laugh at your expense. If I tell the truth, my friend will like me less and the end result will be having no friends. Why would I do that just to save you, some douchebag I've never met, some money? It just doesn't make sense.
Anyway, this is why I never answer the phone. Nobody calls you because they have something for you. They call you because they want something from you. Why should I give you an honest review of my friend? If I lie and say he's a 10, my friend will like me more and I will have a laugh at your expense. If I tell the truth, my friend will like me less and the end result will be having no friends. Why would I do that just to save you, some douchebag I've never met, some money? It just doesn't make sense.
This alone does not make the tactic invalid. A glowing review at least means that the candidate was able to make friends which is still a plus in the context of hiring.
The real danger is that the person you called is unethical and feels the need to get even for things like the candidate having exposed their own incompetence - clearly not a minus in the context of hiring.
The real danger is that the person you called is unethical and feels the need to get even for things like the candidate having exposed their own incompetence - clearly not a minus in the context of hiring.
You can't be a software engineer for long without working in some shitty environments filled with TPS reports, dysfunctional management, and clueless executives. It's especially discouraging when you're formerly thriving company starts devolving into this said mess, usually when it fails to manage its growth appropriately ("production went down! no more production logins for anyone except our horribly understaffed sysadmin staff!") or when its core product starts showing its age ("we're going to pivot! to high growth markets! best in class! jack dorsey! jack dorsey!")
Not all of us handle this well, and I don't know about everyone else, but I have at least one job in my past that I left with some burned bridges. The idea of interviewing for a job and having my potential new employer calling the Bill Lumbergh-equivalent whom I eventually lost my shit about and publicly chewed out for being a moron, for an opinion about me, literally puts me in a cold sweat.
So this article would worry me, but I've seen it in practice a few times, since the Los Angeles tech scene is small enough that a lot of people have at least one stint at a small set of companies (e.g. Yahoo, MySpace, PriceGrabber, Citygrid, etc). Usually it's not quite so deliberate as the article paints of stalking mutual connections on LinkedIn. The typical scenario is someone on another engineering team asking, "hey I'm interviewing X, did you work with him when you were at Y company?" and I'll say, "yeah, he was really badass" or some equivalent. Even if I don't have a great opinion of him, it's usually something like, "Well I think he got let go when they did layoffs in 2009, but his manager was a dick so who knows."
Software engineering one of the few meritocracies left. If your quality of your work is good and you're respected by your peers, then Bill Lumbergh's opinion of you probably doesn't matter. And if it does, it's probably not a place you want to work at anyway.
Not all of us handle this well, and I don't know about everyone else, but I have at least one job in my past that I left with some burned bridges. The idea of interviewing for a job and having my potential new employer calling the Bill Lumbergh-equivalent whom I eventually lost my shit about and publicly chewed out for being a moron, for an opinion about me, literally puts me in a cold sweat.
So this article would worry me, but I've seen it in practice a few times, since the Los Angeles tech scene is small enough that a lot of people have at least one stint at a small set of companies (e.g. Yahoo, MySpace, PriceGrabber, Citygrid, etc). Usually it's not quite so deliberate as the article paints of stalking mutual connections on LinkedIn. The typical scenario is someone on another engineering team asking, "hey I'm interviewing X, did you work with him when you were at Y company?" and I'll say, "yeah, he was really badass" or some equivalent. Even if I don't have a great opinion of him, it's usually something like, "Well I think he got let go when they did layoffs in 2009, but his manager was a dick so who knows."
Software engineering one of the few meritocracies left. If your quality of your work is good and you're respected by your peers, then Bill Lumbergh's opinion of you probably doesn't matter. And if it does, it's probably not a place you want to work at anyway.
Can you elaborate on the Jack Dorsey reference?
Oh wow, these are helpful comments. I now realize the author is advocating actually stalking down someone's personal acquaintances. Yeah, the professional protocol here is contact the provided references only. Going outside that and engaging in web stalking is a huge no no. If I found out someone had done that to me, I would be extremely reticent to accept a subsequent offer, it's a clear privacy violation. I would definitely be wondering what other lines they would feel no hesitation in crossing.
Awful. This could destroy a company's hiring pipeline.
The cost of retaliation by a spurned candidate are HUGE. All it takes is a few tweets or blog post about how company X is going to blow your cover during your job hunt, and all the candidates that are currently employed will run to the hills.
Has this guy ever actually done this trick, or did he just have an idea in the shower this morning?
The cost of retaliation by a spurned candidate are HUGE. All it takes is a few tweets or blog post about how company X is going to blow your cover during your job hunt, and all the candidates that are currently employed will run to the hills.
Has this guy ever actually done this trick, or did he just have an idea in the shower this morning?
This doesn't seem like a very good way to hire a developer to me. Why not actually ask them direct questions to find out if they can code? Why not look at and talk through some code they have written, or even ask them to write some code there and then discuss it?
Why go through all the levels of indirection of a LinkedIn search and then sift through hearsay? Why assume that the one or two people you talk to actually know what they're talking about? You haven't even vetted the candidate, so you're going to put blind faith in the two strangers you find via LinkedIn? What if they are not very good, or have poor judgement, or what if they hate your candidate because he was really good and they weren't (or for any other irrational reason)?
I'm not trying to be rude, and maybe I'm missing something brilliant here ... but I just don't see any "secret sauce" here.
Why go through all the levels of indirection of a LinkedIn search and then sift through hearsay? Why assume that the one or two people you talk to actually know what they're talking about? You haven't even vetted the candidate, so you're going to put blind faith in the two strangers you find via LinkedIn? What if they are not very good, or have poor judgement, or what if they hate your candidate because he was really good and they weren't (or for any other irrational reason)?
I'm not trying to be rude, and maybe I'm missing something brilliant here ... but I just don't see any "secret sauce" here.
Given he is the CEO, I think he's making many more non-technical hires such as Operations, Sales and Marketing folk. The secret sauce is that he's getting info that the candidate hasn't presented himself or hasn't cherry picked people to provide on his behalf.
Of course, I have a major problem with it because it can "blow up someone's spot" as they say - alerting people you may not want to know you're on the job hunt (current employer/clients).
Of course, I have a major problem with it because it can "blow up someone's spot" as they say - alerting people you may not want to know you're on the job hunt (current employer/clients).
Code is the output; gathering requirements, taking direction, reacting to bug reports, and various other interactions with co-workers are the inputs. If you only look at the outputs, you're not seeing the whole process.
How many employers want to hire someone who writes beautifully elegant jewel-like code that doesn't meet their needs, because the developer is incompetent at the input side of the development process? Talking to people they've worked with can tell you "this candidate is incredibly abrasive and drives away their teammates (but can hide the abrasiveness for a day or so of interviews)" or "this candidate is incredibly helpful, teaching and mentoring junior members of the team, and providing insight to non-technical managers". If the two candidates code equally well, which would you want to hire?
How many employers want to hire someone who writes beautifully elegant jewel-like code that doesn't meet their needs, because the developer is incompetent at the input side of the development process? Talking to people they've worked with can tell you "this candidate is incredibly abrasive and drives away their teammates (but can hide the abrasiveness for a day or so of interviews)" or "this candidate is incredibly helpful, teaching and mentoring junior members of the team, and providing insight to non-technical managers". If the two candidates code equally well, which would you want to hire?
I've worked for the same small cluster of entrepreneurs, who are all very close personal friends, for my entire career. If you cold called people I'm professionally related to, and not on my list of references, then changes are very good that you're calling someone I currently work for or with. And chances are very good that my employer will find out.
Now, I have an excellent relationship with my company's owners and would certainly not get fired for such a thing, but others in my position might. And regardless, that's not information that you have any business giving out to my current employer. That's a discussion that must happen on my terms -- if my boss found out that I was interviewing other companies from your sloppy hiring practices, I would be pissed.
edit: Just realized that if you're going from LinkedIn contacts, you might be calling one of my current clients. That would be absolutely disastrous for myself and my employer -- yeah, go ahead and throw them under the bus by instilling doubt in our customers, thanks.
Now, I have an excellent relationship with my company's owners and would certainly not get fired for such a thing, but others in my position might. And regardless, that's not information that you have any business giving out to my current employer. That's a discussion that must happen on my terms -- if my boss found out that I was interviewing other companies from your sloppy hiring practices, I would be pissed.
edit: Just realized that if you're going from LinkedIn contacts, you might be calling one of my current clients. That would be absolutely disastrous for myself and my employer -- yeah, go ahead and throw them under the bus by instilling doubt in our customers, thanks.
I'm going with the majority opinion on this.
It's perfectly fine for you to look up my past work relationships for people you know and trust for an objective opinion of my skills - but you damn well better let me know and get my permissions before-hand. I'd like to know whom of my associates you're calling and get their permissions for it beforehand. Skipping this step is just an unbelievable dick move on your part and will make me seriously reconsider working for you.
It's perfectly fine for you to look up my past work relationships for people you know and trust for an objective opinion of my skills - but you damn well better let me know and get my permissions before-hand. I'd like to know whom of my associates you're calling and get their permissions for it beforehand. Skipping this step is just an unbelievable dick move on your part and will make me seriously reconsider working for you.
I'd personally be a bit surprised if a friend who I hadn't listed on a job application was randomly contacted by a potential employer.
Has this happened to any of you? It doesn't seem unethical but is definitely a little sneaky.
Has this happened to any of you? It doesn't seem unethical but is definitely a little sneaky.
Whenever I have been called, my first question is, "Does X know that you are contacting me?" If not, I close the conversation.
honestly with banks sniffing your Facebook friends for their creditworthiness, nothing surprises me nowadays
Well, in Australia at least everything you post to Facebook is (according to the courts) public knowledge anyway.
// not sure if this is a reflection of the techno-cluelessness of the legal system, or a very astute/cynical technical assessment of Facebooks so called security.
// not sure if this is a reflection of the techno-cluelessness of the legal system, or a very astute/cynical technical assessment of Facebooks so called security.
That is completely unethical. So unethical that I'd go out of my way to let people know about this company.
The job search should be at least semi-private. My LinkedIn network are work connections. If I'm leaving my current employer the last thing I want is for someone to contact my manager's best friend or a customer that my current employer is trying to close a deal with ("Oh Ken's leaving? Why? What's wrong with the company? Did he say?").
Especially in the valley, the circles are a lot tighter than you think -- and if you're doing blind calls there's a good chance you just made my prospects at my current job very uncomfortable.
This is a horrible practice and I'd say that I'd recommend to anyone to avoid this place -- unless you're currently unemployed or just don't care.
Also, if someone cold called or emailed me about someone, the first thing I'd do is contact the person in question and let them know someone was snooping about them. I definitely would not answer any questions -- especially if I had a high opinion of the person.
The job search should be at least semi-private. My LinkedIn network are work connections. If I'm leaving my current employer the last thing I want is for someone to contact my manager's best friend or a customer that my current employer is trying to close a deal with ("Oh Ken's leaving? Why? What's wrong with the company? Did he say?").
Especially in the valley, the circles are a lot tighter than you think -- and if you're doing blind calls there's a good chance you just made my prospects at my current job very uncomfortable.
This is a horrible practice and I'd say that I'd recommend to anyone to avoid this place -- unless you're currently unemployed or just don't care.
Also, if someone cold called or emailed me about someone, the first thing I'd do is contact the person in question and let them know someone was snooping about them. I definitely would not answer any questions -- especially if I had a high opinion of the person.
A while back I interviewed at a startup that contacted "someone they knew who worked where I did" who claimed to not even know who I was. The person tried to use it as leverage against me. They were also my bosses boss. I left for somewhere better than both, but the only word I have to describe both is "scum".
Why are you publishing all your professional relationships to the world on LinkedIn and then feeling like your privacy has been violated if someone actually uses that information?
I publicly go to lunch with friends too -- so if you follow me to lunch and then ask some of the people I went to lunch with about how I'd be at this new job --you're saying this is acceptable or simply a natural consequence of going out in public with people?
The name of my child is public record too. So it's OK for you to go by his school and ask his teacher how I am as a parent?
There's a lot of public information that exists. Those who have the inability to recognize that there exists a line between simply unethical and illegal are people I'd prefer not to associate with -- much less work for.
The name of my child is public record too. So it's OK for you to go by his school and ask his teacher how I am as a parent?
There's a lot of public information that exists. Those who have the inability to recognize that there exists a line between simply unethical and illegal are people I'd prefer not to associate with -- much less work for.
I agree there's a line. Following me around yeah, that's over the line.
Using information I've published to the world on a website, I think is probably not.
Using information I've published to the world on a website, I think is probably not.
The relationship may be public, but the knowledge that I'm job-hunting should not be. In a similar way, the hiring manager knows who I work for now, but expect them not to tell my employer that I'm job hunting.
Just because something is on LinkedIn (or any website) doesn't mean that it can be used for any purpose.
Why not call up a candidate's mom and ex-girlfriends as well? Maybe former classmates too.
Funny you mention that, I once had a company track down and call my mother, who lived in another city. You can bet that the first thing she did was call me afterwards. It doomed my relationship with that company and I told people that story every chance I got, and not a single person wasn't shocked. When I heard the company went bankrupt a year later, probably because it couldn't hire any competent talent, I was relieved.
Contacting your parents and elementary school classmates is fine for an FBI background check as part of getting a top secret clearance. Key elements of that is they tell you in advance they are going to do so, get your permission, and what they find out is held in strict confidence by people trained to keep sensitive information secret. That's not at all the case with random employers calling up people they find you socially linked to.
Contacting your parents and elementary school classmates is fine for an FBI background check as part of getting a top secret clearance. Key elements of that is they tell you in advance they are going to do so, get your permission, and what they find out is held in strict confidence by people trained to keep sensitive information secret. That's not at all the case with random employers calling up people they find you socially linked to.
Doesn't matter because your job history is on your resume. Even if you aren't on LinkedIn, it can be used to dig up former coworkers.
It happened to me with a recruiter. They were calling people that were somehow connected to me to try to get my phone number. What I found most upsetting was how they treated the people that they called. The recruiter was very persistent, and pretty rude. It was enough to prompt my coworker and another friend to find all instances of their phone number online and try to get it removed (which is generally a good idea).
The opposite is also quite true: Best way to Vet a company. Find someone who used to work there...
I always get sort of angry about the whole reference thing. It seems that employers are entitled to reference checks but candidates somehow are not allowed to reference check a company?
How many times have you heard the story of someone who got hired into a role to find out on their first day that they are the 4th or so person in that role in 5 months... It's OK for companies to lie, or not fully disclose the truth, but oh boy, if a candidate's reference doesn't check out...
I always get sort of angry about the whole reference thing. It seems that employers are entitled to reference checks but candidates somehow are not allowed to reference check a company?
How many times have you heard the story of someone who got hired into a role to find out on their first day that they are the 4th or so person in that role in 5 months... It's OK for companies to lie, or not fully disclose the truth, but oh boy, if a candidate's reference doesn't check out...
What worries me is that people will see this on the front page, and as many never read the comments here, will think that this is community supported advice.
Luckily the facebook comments on the article are going a similar way as those here, but I wonder is they carry as much weight as the community feeling in this thread?
Luckily the facebook comments on the article are going a similar way as those here, but I wonder is they carry as much weight as the community feeling in this thread?
Hi folks. Sorry I haven't had a chance to respond. I've got some family in town for the holidays and have been tied up.
I stick to the advice in the article. The one thing I didn't mention was that I only do these references if the potential employee is cool with it. I ask the potential employee if I may check blind references and 95% of the time, they are cool with it...this happens toward the end of the process. Sometimes when that employee is not leaving their current employer, they ask me to only reach out to folks from their previous employers which is totally cool w/ me.
Once I get the green light, I go through my LinkedIn and find folks who I know who have worked with the candidate -- Boston's a small town and I don't have to look too far. I reach out and ask them about them. I must say, I do ask some pretty "open" questions and leave the door wide open for someone to say something negative about the person because I don't feel like a get a full picture about the weaknesses from the "given" references.
I totally agree with those who say it is not cool to do this without the employees consent.
I'll give you a case where this worked. Last month, we went through the interview process with someone from Microsoft. The person did well on the interviews (I've noticed that humans are getting better and better at interviews over time) and it was time to do the blind refs. The candidate was fine with us doing them. In this case, they were already out of Microsoft. I happen to know a bunch of folks at Microsoft. I talked to them and they all said the same basic things and were all pretty negative. We ended up passing. Personally, I think we dodged a bullet there.
This method is one I learned from vc's. In our venture rounds, I give them 5-6 references to call for me. They usually call them, but spend the majority of their time calling mutual connections that I didn't provide. Imho, this is smart! ...There was one venture capitalist who I thought went a bit too far. They called everyone they could find that had worked at HubSpot at one time, but no longer did. That's not a long list, so all of those folks were calling me asking, "Are you getting funded by ____."
I stick to the advice in the article. The one thing I didn't mention was that I only do these references if the potential employee is cool with it. I ask the potential employee if I may check blind references and 95% of the time, they are cool with it...this happens toward the end of the process. Sometimes when that employee is not leaving their current employer, they ask me to only reach out to folks from their previous employers which is totally cool w/ me.
Once I get the green light, I go through my LinkedIn and find folks who I know who have worked with the candidate -- Boston's a small town and I don't have to look too far. I reach out and ask them about them. I must say, I do ask some pretty "open" questions and leave the door wide open for someone to say something negative about the person because I don't feel like a get a full picture about the weaknesses from the "given" references.
I totally agree with those who say it is not cool to do this without the employees consent.
I'll give you a case where this worked. Last month, we went through the interview process with someone from Microsoft. The person did well on the interviews (I've noticed that humans are getting better and better at interviews over time) and it was time to do the blind refs. The candidate was fine with us doing them. In this case, they were already out of Microsoft. I happen to know a bunch of folks at Microsoft. I talked to them and they all said the same basic things and were all pretty negative. We ended up passing. Personally, I think we dodged a bullet there.
This method is one I learned from vc's. In our venture rounds, I give them 5-6 references to call for me. They usually call them, but spend the majority of their time calling mutual connections that I didn't provide. Imho, this is smart! ...There was one venture capitalist who I thought went a bit too far. They called everyone they could find that had worked at HubSpot at one time, but no longer did. That's not a long list, so all of those folks were calling me asking, "Are you getting funded by ____."
I guess it's important to be a contrarian in this thread. I am a lawyer (although I acknowledge I have practiced very little in employment law), and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the practice described in the article is legal in the majority of states of the United States and perhaps in plenty of other places. I suppose it's more of a matter of opinion whether asking someone whom you didn't name specifically on your application as a reference is "ethical" or not, but it's simply a matter of fact that your whole reputation in the workplace may be of interest to the next person you work for or work with. AFTER EDIT, ADDITION TO THIS PARAGRAPH: A reply posted as I was replying helpfully refers to a website
http://www.crimcheck.com/resources/job-reference-shield-laws...
that summarizes some tips for employers about what they can say in response to requests for reference checks. The short summary of the various state laws is that employers can tell the truth. No employer may lie, but in general someone who knows you through an employment relationship is permitted to truthfully answer questions about your work, and you have no legal ground to sue the person who answers reference check questions (whose identity, as a practical matter, is likely to remain unknown to you).
I'll give an example of the hiring practice of one large (137 million dollars of revenue per year) organization in my town. The organization, which happens to be my friendly local public school district, has for more than a decade checked out candidates to be district superintendent by having resume-checkers telephone the references listed on the candidates' applications. The reference-checkers follow a protocol developed by a hiring practices consultant to conduct the reference check, and one question on the protocol is "Do you know anyone else who knows this candidate?" That person will be called, and the same question is asked, among all the other reference-checking questions.
The school district chief personnel officer, in a report to the school board just last month, mentioned that now a practice like this is followed for all new hires of teachers in the school district. The goal is to talk to multiple third-order references for each new person hired by the district. Going two degrees of reference out from the original references, and asking the right questions, does a lot to distinguish the best candidates for the job, in the personnel director's opinion. The practice mentioned in the submitted article, where the interviewer uses the candidate's self-disclosed social network information to find second-degree and third-degree references, seems fully legal and similarly likely to turn up more information about a candidate than just contacting the references mentioned by the candidate.
The school district chief personnel officer noted that when teachers are separated from our district's employment for poor performance, it is rare for anyone ever to contact our district even to verify the barest details of the teachers' job performance. So it appears that some organizations still don't check references or employment history at all. That is the organizations' choice, but it should hardly surprise a job candidate that some organizations check work histories very carefully, especially for positions of great responsibility like teaching young people. It is EXPENSIVE to make a hiring mistake for any organization, so quite a lot of time and effort is justified in making hiring decisions carefully.
In an earlier reply in another thread 58 days ago,
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3148100
I linked to some external sources about legal reference-checking practices that I'll post here again as information for fellow Hacker News participants:
http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hi...
http://www.drgnyc.com/list_serve/Jan24_2005.htm
http://www.acadweb.wwu.edu/hr/Employment/InfoForHiringOffici...
http://www.best-job-interview.com/reference-check-questions....
http://www.k-state.edu/hr/employment/referencecheck.htm
http://pbsbo.ucsc.edu/personnel_payroll/staff/recruit/ref_ch...
http://www.bridgestar.org/Library/HiringToolkit/ReferenceChe...
http://jobsearch.about.com/od/referencesrecommendations/a/re...
http://www.crimcheck.com/resources/job-reference-shield-laws...
that summarizes some tips for employers about what they can say in response to requests for reference checks. The short summary of the various state laws is that employers can tell the truth. No employer may lie, but in general someone who knows you through an employment relationship is permitted to truthfully answer questions about your work, and you have no legal ground to sue the person who answers reference check questions (whose identity, as a practical matter, is likely to remain unknown to you).
I'll give an example of the hiring practice of one large (137 million dollars of revenue per year) organization in my town. The organization, which happens to be my friendly local public school district, has for more than a decade checked out candidates to be district superintendent by having resume-checkers telephone the references listed on the candidates' applications. The reference-checkers follow a protocol developed by a hiring practices consultant to conduct the reference check, and one question on the protocol is "Do you know anyone else who knows this candidate?" That person will be called, and the same question is asked, among all the other reference-checking questions.
The school district chief personnel officer, in a report to the school board just last month, mentioned that now a practice like this is followed for all new hires of teachers in the school district. The goal is to talk to multiple third-order references for each new person hired by the district. Going two degrees of reference out from the original references, and asking the right questions, does a lot to distinguish the best candidates for the job, in the personnel director's opinion. The practice mentioned in the submitted article, where the interviewer uses the candidate's self-disclosed social network information to find second-degree and third-degree references, seems fully legal and similarly likely to turn up more information about a candidate than just contacting the references mentioned by the candidate.
The school district chief personnel officer noted that when teachers are separated from our district's employment for poor performance, it is rare for anyone ever to contact our district even to verify the barest details of the teachers' job performance. So it appears that some organizations still don't check references or employment history at all. That is the organizations' choice, but it should hardly surprise a job candidate that some organizations check work histories very carefully, especially for positions of great responsibility like teaching young people. It is EXPENSIVE to make a hiring mistake for any organization, so quite a lot of time and effort is justified in making hiring decisions carefully.
In an earlier reply in another thread 58 days ago,
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3148100
I linked to some external sources about legal reference-checking practices that I'll post here again as information for fellow Hacker News participants:
http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hi...
http://www.drgnyc.com/list_serve/Jan24_2005.htm
http://www.acadweb.wwu.edu/hr/Employment/InfoForHiringOffici...
http://www.best-job-interview.com/reference-check-questions....
http://www.k-state.edu/hr/employment/referencecheck.htm
http://pbsbo.ucsc.edu/personnel_payroll/staff/recruit/ref_ch...
http://www.bridgestar.org/Library/HiringToolkit/ReferenceChe...
http://jobsearch.about.com/od/referencesrecommendations/a/re...
I would like to add my voice to those who have noted that this is in fact poor advice with potential legal consequences. This should not be on the front page.
LinkedIn is not a replacement for common sense.
This is the method the government uses when investigating jobs requiring a security clearance.
FYI.
FYI.
It's more reasonable when the security of the nation is at stake, rather than a successful hire at a small company.
Safety of 300 million Americans > Hiring the right person for a company no one's heard of.
Safety of 300 million Americans > Hiring the right person for a company no one's heard of.
See also: how to make sure that someone who had a horrible work environment never, ever, finds a better one.
I am shocked that this isn't standard practice.
Last time I got a job offer, the first thing I did was call up two people who'd sold their companies to that employer, one guy who worked there, one guy who'd quit, and one who'd been offered another job and turned it down. Next time I'll try the "scale of ten" trick, too.
All management positions are to some extent sales positions, and part of a good sales technique is to shape the truth so the good parts are obvious and the bad parts aren't. The more someone's naturally talented at this, the easier it is for them to fudge the truth.
This is much easier to accept if you consider it in the other direction. Would you really think it unethical to do this kind of due diligence on a prospective employer? Would your boss find it creepy? I was open about it.
Last time I got a job offer, the first thing I did was call up two people who'd sold their companies to that employer, one guy who worked there, one guy who'd quit, and one who'd been offered another job and turned it down. Next time I'll try the "scale of ten" trick, too.
All management positions are to some extent sales positions, and part of a good sales technique is to shape the truth so the good parts are obvious and the bad parts aren't. The more someone's naturally talented at this, the easier it is for them to fudge the truth.
This is much easier to accept if you consider it in the other direction. Would you really think it unethical to do this kind of due diligence on a prospective employer? Would your boss find it creepy? I was open about it.
Your prospective employer doesn't have a job they can lose.
It's simply not a symmetric relationshop.
It's simply not a symmetric relationshop.
I agree with kenjackson. Me checking on an employer is worlds away from an employer coldcalling my contacts without informing me. A company isn't a person so I can check on the company. A company checking on the applicant without notifying them is a dealbreaker.
This is interesting, but I keep seeing articles that reduce down to "kiss up to everyone on LinkedIn or your career will suffer".
It is the Orwellian overtones implicit in these kind of glowing references for LinkedIn that I find disturbing.
Oh yes, that and the fact that everyone who seems to be heavily into LinkedIn is a colossal douchebag.
It is the Orwellian overtones implicit in these kind of glowing references for LinkedIn that I find disturbing.
Oh yes, that and the fact that everyone who seems to be heavily into LinkedIn is a colossal douchebag.
This seems like a good reason to (continue to) avoid LinkedIn.
Klout, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc... sociopathic MBAs just see these as tools to justify their bonuses. Anything that can be done will be done, because there are a lot of empty suits running around trying to find a way to justify their paycheck.
[deleted]
I think if the company gives some notice that they're going to do this it might be tolerable but in general it would seem like a huge disincentive to work there. If the employer can't be straightforward with you at the very beginning of your relationship, it's hard to imagine the situation improving with time.
Here's the next step in this arms race: cold-call people who know the candidate and then lie about why you're asking. Then you don't necessarily get "caught", and you don't say where you're calling from.
Lies that will potentially work here: "I'm doing a background check for a security clearance". "I'm a private investigator checking out (some other person or company)." "(Person) was supplied as a reference and I'm checking their quality to see how seriously I should take it."
It may be a tough time to be a (real, actual) security clearance background checker in a few years.
Lies that will potentially work here: "I'm doing a background check for a security clearance". "I'm a private investigator checking out (some other person or company)." "(Person) was supplied as a reference and I'm checking their quality to see how seriously I should take it."
It may be a tough time to be a (real, actual) security clearance background checker in a few years.
I've received a few calls asking for information to be confirmed during a security clearance background check and each time I knew before hand that I might receive the call. I would be highly suspicious of any call claiming to be on that subject without the person in question notifying me before.
edit - I should also note that I don't give out information about anyone I know without their prior consent so this wouldn't work anyway. I would also notify the person about the snooping.
edit - I should also note that I don't give out information about anyone I know without their prior consent so this wouldn't work anyway. I would also notify the person about the snooping.
What if I don't want word getting around that I'm looking for new work? This seems creepy, especially because I don't really expect that this company would disclose the fact that they are running unsolicited background checks to me.
I once reached out to someone I knew personally who wasn't as a reference, who then told me that it was his understanding that contacting people for references without the permission of your candidate is illegal. (I'm based in Vancouver, BC, Canada) Can anyone with more knowledge comment further?
It almost certainly is illegal in Europe under a variety of different laws ranging from data protection to breach of confidence.
The important takeaway here is that if you're going to do it you should clear it with the candidate first.
The important takeaway here is that if you're going to do it you should clear it with the candidate first.
Best hires: people referred by current (good) employees.
Next best: people with good references.
If you have either of the above, you'd have to really blow the interview. I've never done "blind" reference checks; it's surprising how many employers don't check references at all and base everything on the interview and maybe a few "gotcha" puzzles or coding tests.
Next best: people with good references.
If you have either of the above, you'd have to really blow the interview. I've never done "blind" reference checks; it's surprising how many employers don't check references at all and base everything on the interview and maybe a few "gotcha" puzzles or coding tests.
Great way to staff a project within a firm, but violates the confidence of a job search. The only thing I think that might be ok is asking people within your own firm who know them.
Wow. This is horrible advice. I'm sure it works for the hiring company to get a better picture of the candidate, but this is unethical and potentially illegal in some states/countries. Legal issues are why many companies recommend/require references in a specific format- 'this person worked here from [date] to [date]', etc... devoid of any 'opinion' statements.
Here is a per-state summary of job reference shield laws (sorry, not sure how current it is): http://www.crimcheck.com/resources/job-reference-shield-laws...
Here is a per-state summary of job reference shield laws (sorry, not sure how current it is): http://www.crimcheck.com/resources/job-reference-shield-laws...
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe responding to a guy like this might put your company in legal jeopardy in relation to the former employee.
We have been explicitly told in the past that we cannot discuss former employees' performance with interviewers who call for a reference. We can only state that they were employed with us, and what specific job functions they performed.
We have been explicitly told in the past that we cannot discuss former employees' performance with interviewers who call for a reference. We can only state that they were employed with us, and what specific job functions they performed.
I think that one of the key things in the article that people a overlooking is the part about finding someone that you and the candidate know in common. He's not advocating just randomly calling people from the candidates LinkedIn connections, but trying to find someone you both know in common that you could speak to in confidence. My guess is the article got edited down a bit too much and didn't make this key point clear enough.
FWIW to the people who are commenting that they are highly turned off by this tactic... I know Brian Halligan and have worked with him twice (the last time being at HubSpot), he's a very professional and ethical guy overall (IMO) and I don't think he'd recommend doing something that put a candidates current employment in jeopardy. He is also not the only person I know who uses this approach. I've known several people to take this approach, and I've also personally been contacted by people who trust me, in order for those folks to get an unbiased back channel on candidates they were hiring.
FWIW to the people who are commenting that they are highly turned off by this tactic... I know Brian Halligan and have worked with him twice (the last time being at HubSpot), he's a very professional and ethical guy overall (IMO) and I don't think he'd recommend doing something that put a candidates current employment in jeopardy. He is also not the only person I know who uses this approach. I've known several people to take this approach, and I've also personally been contacted by people who trust me, in order for those folks to get an unbiased back channel on candidates they were hiring.
It still doesn't make any sense. Just because Brian knows some person doesn't mean he necessarily knows potential problems in mentioning the candidates name (unless it's always Brian's BFF -- but I suspect it's really just some person who Brian happened to have some degree of contact with in the past decade).
Why does this need to be blind at all? If there's someone that Brian would like to talk to, just ask the candidate, "I saw from LinkedIn you know Sheila. I'm good friends with Sheila. Would it be OK for me to contact her as a reference, or would that pose any problem for you?"
And I think it's also on Brian's shoulders to make clear why Sheila provides values. "Sheila is someone I've worked with in the past and value her opinion." Brian should also give you the option of giving her heads up, otherwise Sheila may view the cold-call from Brian as you dropping the ball.
All in all, just seems like a bad idea. And frankly, I'd really like to see the data that shows he's gotten better hires from this.
Why does this need to be blind at all? If there's someone that Brian would like to talk to, just ask the candidate, "I saw from LinkedIn you know Sheila. I'm good friends with Sheila. Would it be OK for me to contact her as a reference, or would that pose any problem for you?"
And I think it's also on Brian's shoulders to make clear why Sheila provides values. "Sheila is someone I've worked with in the past and value her opinion." Brian should also give you the option of giving her heads up, otherwise Sheila may view the cold-call from Brian as you dropping the ball.
All in all, just seems like a bad idea. And frankly, I'd really like to see the data that shows he's gotten better hires from this.
The interviewing process would usually flow along a line of screening out candidates that are potential hires and THEN trolling their LinkedIn profiles to see who you both know in common. I think it would be tiresome to do that for EVERY candidate so that you can ask them during the interview "Mind if I contact Foo.".
As long you apply a little discretion about it I don't see what the big deal is. EG: don't contact someone at the candidates current company unless that contact really IS you BFF and you know they can keep the conversation private.
Also, if you do get any odd reviews you'd probably also want to give the candidate room to explain. I wouldn't have a big issue with someone contacting random ex-coworkers of mine as references. There is one person in particular though that probably wouldn't have good things to say, but digging further on that guy you'd realize he's a complete nutjob. So, you'd just want to make sure you properly tempered all the feedback, but in that scenario you should see overall trends and be able to spot outliers.
I guess I'm also not highly opposed to this because I think most current interview tactics suck as screening methods, and everyone hand-picks their references anyway, so you kind of need to go out of band to get a really reliable reference.
I'll also add that I think it depends somewhat on the level of person you're hiring. I don't know if Halligan still personally interviews everyone coming into HubSpot. If he does, I'm pretty sure he is not the one checking references for a level-1 phone jockey. So, we're talking mostly about the higher-order candidates, key individual contributors and managers that he's doing this for. It just doesn't strike me as such a deplorable practice.
As long you apply a little discretion about it I don't see what the big deal is. EG: don't contact someone at the candidates current company unless that contact really IS you BFF and you know they can keep the conversation private.
Also, if you do get any odd reviews you'd probably also want to give the candidate room to explain. I wouldn't have a big issue with someone contacting random ex-coworkers of mine as references. There is one person in particular though that probably wouldn't have good things to say, but digging further on that guy you'd realize he's a complete nutjob. So, you'd just want to make sure you properly tempered all the feedback, but in that scenario you should see overall trends and be able to spot outliers.
I guess I'm also not highly opposed to this because I think most current interview tactics suck as screening methods, and everyone hand-picks their references anyway, so you kind of need to go out of band to get a really reliable reference.
I'll also add that I think it depends somewhat on the level of person you're hiring. I don't know if Halligan still personally interviews everyone coming into HubSpot. If he does, I'm pretty sure he is not the one checking references for a level-1 phone jockey. So, we're talking mostly about the higher-order candidates, key individual contributors and managers that he's doing this for. It just doesn't strike me as such a deplorable practice.
Unfortunately it's difficult to guarantee discretion - for all you know the person you're contacting is the brother of the candidate's boss's girlfriend, for instance.
Furthermore, in my experience, references like to know in advance that they will be contacted: in my culture, any ethical reference is going to want to know who's asking, why, and whether they have permission to speak on the candidate's behalf.
Finally, there may be personal issues between the person you're contacting and the candidate that would make the reference biased.
Ultimately it seems pretty straightforward and professional to simply ask the candidate outright whether you can contact X, Y and Z as additional references (unless you happen to know these people well enough that discretion is relatively certain). At that point the candidate can say, "sure, but let me speak to them first to see if they're OK with that", or perhaps "No, Bob stole my wife from me and I hate that guy."
Furthermore, in my experience, references like to know in advance that they will be contacted: in my culture, any ethical reference is going to want to know who's asking, why, and whether they have permission to speak on the candidate's behalf.
Finally, there may be personal issues between the person you're contacting and the candidate that would make the reference biased.
Ultimately it seems pretty straightforward and professional to simply ask the candidate outright whether you can contact X, Y and Z as additional references (unless you happen to know these people well enough that discretion is relatively certain). At that point the candidate can say, "sure, but let me speak to them first to see if they're OK with that", or perhaps "No, Bob stole my wife from me and I hate that guy."
You say Brian only contacts people he already knows but the article clearly states otherwise.
"The hardest part used to be finding someone that had worked with the candidate somewhere along the line, but LinkedIn has made that easy. It will tell you who you know that is connected to the candidate by one or two degrees."
He specifically states he is contacting someone he knows that knows someone you know (two degrees). Not just someone you both know directly.
"The hardest part used to be finding someone that had worked with the candidate somewhere along the line, but LinkedIn has made that easy. It will tell you who you know that is connected to the candidate by one or two degrees."
He specifically states he is contacting someone he knows that knows someone you know (two degrees). Not just someone you both know directly.
One way to thwart this: make your LinkedIn connections visible to you alone. http://min.us/mlinkedinconnections (shared connections are not hidden).
Wouldn't that only thwart people that don't collect tons of connections? I wonder how many connections a hiring manager would need in order to have a decent chance of having at least one shared connection with a given candidate.
I think people should be aware that this goes on, in the form of hiring managers saying "this candidate worked at X, my buddy/coworker/neighbor worked at X, I wonder what their opinion of this candidate is".
I would hope that people who do this only call people they know well and trust to keep the discussion confidential (or at worst, tell the candidate "hey, your prospective employer asked what I thought of you, they must be getting serious about hiring you").
On the other hand, I agree that doing this kind of reference-seeking with total strangers is really creepy, and stupid. If someone I didn't know called me out of the blue this way, I'd definitely tell my friend "your prospective employer called me, did you give my name as a reference?".
Still, the first kind of reference-checking is a good reason to do your best to leave every job on good terms (not just with your boss, but with coworkers as well), if at all possible. You never know who might talk to whom down the road.
I would hope that people who do this only call people they know well and trust to keep the discussion confidential (or at worst, tell the candidate "hey, your prospective employer asked what I thought of you, they must be getting serious about hiring you").
On the other hand, I agree that doing this kind of reference-seeking with total strangers is really creepy, and stupid. If someone I didn't know called me out of the blue this way, I'd definitely tell my friend "your prospective employer called me, did you give my name as a reference?".
Still, the first kind of reference-checking is a good reason to do your best to leave every job on good terms (not just with your boss, but with coworkers as well), if at all possible. You never know who might talk to whom down the road.
Suppose a candidate did a reverse background check on Hubspot by cold-calling an investor or customer, quietly, to solicit dirt on the company prior to evaluating a job offer? That strikes me as either a) too socially unaware to function as a professional or alternatively b) borderline sociopathic.