Tips for navigating a difficult request for a job reference

Kathleen Driscoll, BridgeTower Media Newswires

“I received a call from someone looking for a reference for a recently departed employee. I’m ducking the caller because I don’t know what to do about this situation. The problem is that my former employee has seriously exaggerated his LinkedIn profile about the job he had in our company. I don’t want to mislead a prospective employer but on the other hand, I don’t want to lie, either. And I don’t want to hurt this former employee’s job opportunity especially in these challenging times. What should I do?”

This is a difficult dilemma given the widespread use of LinkedIn in recruiting, the legal concerns that employers have around providing any references at all, and the current challenges around job searching during COVID-19. Landmines everywhere.

While some managers think reference-checking is a total waste of time (after all, what candidate is going to give the name of a person providing a negative reference?), but many still consider it a crucial step in the process, something to be completed just before the offer.

For many employers, the legal issues around references outweigh everything else, which is why many employers have gone with “neutral reference policies,” that is, providing only the person’s title and dates of employment. “Providing a negative reference can result in a lawsuit, which is why most employers choose not to give a negative reference, even when one was earned,” says Peter Gray, president of Pyramid Real Estate Group.

And there are risks in the other direction, too, he says. “A good reference for a bad employee can also result in a lawsuit.”

When you set aside the legalities, your situation appears to be a classic “ethical” dilemma when all possible solutions seem to result in some type of harm, says Lynn Bowes-Sperry, associate professor of management at California State University at East Bay. “This is a stressful situation, especially if we’re short on time, so we stop searching for constructive ways to resolve it and frame it as a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation.”

So the choice is being framed as telling the truth or lying to the prospective employer and assuming negative outcomes for each possible action. However, if you do some more critical thinking and utilize a more formal decision-making process, the situation becomes less black and white, she says.

So do some fact-finding first. Obviously, what might constitute a ‘serious’ exaggeration to one person might be considered slight to another.

The level of exaggeration is important here, says Mark Herschberg, author of “The Career Toolkit, Essential Skills for Success that No One Taught You,” which addresses some issues in business ethics. “It could be a matter of perspective — someone saw himself as ‘leading’ a project while officially, and in the views of other people, he was one of three who were all equal doing the project.”

“It could have been an honest typo (someone who managed 10 people ‘fat fingered’ it to be 19 people). It could also be someone who changed a title because ‘Senior Engineering Leader II’ may have the same responsibilities as a ‘Director of Engineering’ and using the formal title confuses prospective employers,” Herschberg says. “Those are different cases than someone who intentionally lied and misled potential employers.”

Remember that it might be possible to be honest without ‘misleading’ the employer who is calling. While LinkedIn provides important information in the application process, it’s not necessarily going to be the focus of the caller. It is unlikely that the employer will ask you directly if the LinkedIn profile is accurate, says Bowes-Sperry.

“If the employer does not ask this question and the person giving the reference truthfully answers all questions that are asked, they are not misleading the employer,” she says. “Not volunteering information is an example of an ‘act of omission,’ which is typically viewed as less problematic than an ‘act of commission’ which would occur if you actually lied when responding to a direct question.”

“Unless the exaggeration is such that it could result in significant harm (e.g. claiming to have extensive knowledge of handling toxic materials when in reality they have limited knowledge), the reference giver’s omission of the exaggerated content is not likely to cause the employer significant harm,” she says.

Bowes-Sperry suggests that you consider reaching out to the former employee/applicant to clarify the issue. Sometimes people have skills, experiences, and accomplishments that you might not know about. Research is critical when making ethical decisions, she says. “Doing otherwise would constitute an ‘act of omission’ because your inaccurate perception might harm the employee by ‘unjustifiably’ preventing them from getting the job.”

For example, you might say, “I’ve been contacted to provide a reference for you and noticed that your LinkedIn page contains information of which I was unaware,” (and include specifics),” she says. “If they cannot provide an adequate explanation for the information, you could tell them that you are not comfortable providing a reference for them or that you will only provide a reference if they revise the content to better reflect their work-related experience and accomplishments.”

Charlette Beasley, a human resources and payroll manager at Fit Small Business, which provides digital resources for small business, agreed that discussing the problem is the first step. “Explain your dilemma to them and ask the reason they presented themselves that way,” she says. “Perhaps there are some correlations with the work they actually did do that you can help validate. Or maybe the former employee needs to reach out to their prospective employer and give them a more accurate account of their work history. Either way, just be sure they know you’re going to give an honest reference.”

There are other issues as well.  While your empathy for the job seeker here is laudable, this situation isn’t isolated from the rest of society, Herschberg says.  “It’s important to think not just about the person who has the exaggerated LinkedIn profile, but about everyone else who hasn’t. They are the people being hurt because they didn’t exaggerate their profiles and so look less competitive. If it’s an outright lie, then it should be explicitly addressed.”

“Who is hurting more? Who has more mouths to feed at home? Who is more likely to be a better employee to help the hiring company (potentially letting it grow and hire more employees) and who is more likely to hurt the hiring company (potentially leading to layoffs)? We don’t know the answer to any of this and it’s not our place to decide,” Herschberg says. “It’s ultimately up to the hiring company to decide what is best, but that requires working with accurate information.”

By letting this lie slide, other people are likely to be hurt. “While it can feel mean-spirited to undercut a job applicant, remember that doing so helps others and, in this case, the person getting hurt put him or herself in the situation by exaggerating in the first place.”

—————

Contact Kathleen Driscoll with questions or comments by email at kadriscoll20@gmail.com.