Q: I am part of the senior leadership team at a national not-for-profit. We are hiring a new executive director, and I was asked to review references for the two finalists. Most of the references were superb. However, there was a reference for one of the candidates (“Candidate One”) was absolutely scathing. It seemed so out of line with what the other references shared that I am inclined to disregard it. What do you suggest?
A: As you now realize, assessing and evaluating references can be tricky. To determine the best course of action as to what to do with this particular reference, you should, first, analyze the favorable references. See if they all fall into any major categories in terms of gender, educational backgrounds and other social affiliations. You may be able to identify some trends. (For instance, I once performed a reference check on an outstanding male candidate who received rave reviews from his male peers but very lukewarm reviews from women and those junior to him.) Sort through what you have, and see if you can detect any pattern(s) to the favorable references. If there is a pattern, and the unkind reference “breaks” the pattern, you may want to consider the outlier represents a group not generally represented by the positive commentators (which may require additional details to confirm this conclusion). If not, and if those making kind comments are diverse, then you need to think about how to get more details about the circumstances surrounding that negative commentary.
Identify A Referee
Locate someone else at the organization with whom both the candidate and the negative reference person (“NRP”) interact/ed, and have him/her act as a “referee” (“RF”) of sorts. Contact the RF confidentially, and ask whether (s)he knew both parties. After confirming, ask the RF most of the questions that triggered the initial negative comments to evaluate the NRP’s comments.
Follow-Up on the Referee’s Comments/Assessment
The RF will either validate the negativity in the NRP’s account or counter it. If the RF confirms the NRP, you can ask for other persons with knowledge of Candidate One’s performance at that organization. Serial references of at least two others can be used to confirm the NRP or to raise further questions about circumstances underlying the poor reference.
If the RF gives a mostly positive review, then proceed to conduct a couple of additional references to confirm the RF’s position. These can be from testimonials from within the organization or at another venue where Candidate One would have displayed his/her leadership style.
In addition, even if the RF provides positive feedback, ask why anyone would give a negative review. What possible motive could there be for the NRP response? Was there any interoffice drama, feud, animosity, major policy clash or difference of opinion that might have caused the NRP to harbor strong, negative feelings toward the candidate? You may want to take it one step further and ask the RF general questions about the NRP. Find out more about the NRP’s reputation for judgment, integrity, loyalty etc. to get a more complete picture of the dynamics at play.
Post-Serial Referencing; Make A Judgment
This extra process will either rehabilitate Candidate One, or it will reveal personal qualities that need further examination. The serial references will confirm Candidate One’s integrity, strength, independent judgment and leadership, or they will tend to highlight questionable qualities, lack of leadership, poor judgment, lack of accountability or other troubling traits. You can then report these independent findings to the search committee based on this additional tier of investigation. You will have given Candidate One the benefit of the doubt, and you will also have learned more about the circumstances of his/her leadership. This context is invaluable to evaluating a candidate’s fitness to take on a challenging leadership role.
Contact Karen Alphonse at Karena@execSearches.com or visit ExecSearches.com for more information about our career coaching services.
#
0 Comments