No one likes to give a bad reference; many want to make their former colleagues look good, but stretching the truth has negative consequences for everyone.
A while back someone reached out to me with the following dilemma. A former employee, let’s call him Fred, was applying to a new job. The hiring manager at the new company reached out to Fred’s prior manager for a reference. Fred wasn’t that great. Nothing horrible, no theft or HR issues, but Fred was subpar. If the former manager tells the truth, Fred won’t get the job. If he stretches the truth a bit or actively omits key details, Fred likely will get the job.
What would you do?
Adding a bit of pressure, this was during a recessionary period. The economy was terrible for Fred’s location and industry; jobs were hard to come by. Fred also had a family to support.
Does this change your answer?
For many people the answer would be to help Fred by giving him a nice reference, even if he really didn’t deserve it. It might be different if he had been horrible, say if he had made a racist remark or showed up to work drunk. But Fred simply just wasn’t a good employee. Shouldn’t he get the job? Don’t he and his family deserve the opportunity?
It’s easy to want to help Fred. It might even feel like the right thing to do. The catch is helping Fred isn’t an act in isolation. There are other consequences beyond Fred’s life.
Consider that opportunities of this nature are a fixed commodity. There is only one job; and the job will be filled by only one person. When we just look at this single job applicant, Fred, it’s easy to tend towards compassion. But let’s take a step back and look at Fred’s larger community. Alice, Bob, Cindy, Dave, and many others are also looking for this type of job. They may also have families or be in hard times. We don’t know if Fred is better or worse than they are. When we help Fred, we make it harder for Alice and her peers.
You could try to argue that Alice and other better qualified candidates will have an easier time getting a job elsewhere because they are better qualified. But will they? What if there are other Freds whose managers also are willing to stretch the truth to help them get jobs. You did it; why wouldn’t other people? The very action of helping Fred undercuts the argument.
What about the manager and the company? They get a subpar option. How would you feel if someone misled you as you hired someone? You may never have hired someone, but how would you feel if you bought a new well-reviewed car only to discover the car was really junk and people had falsified or inflated the reviews because they were friends of the auto manufacturer?
If we take the argument to the extreme, consider the impact Fred’s employment has on the company versus hiring Alice. Fred is subpar. He doesn’t move the company forward and might even hold it back or deliver subpar results, resulting in future contraction and potentially layoffs. By letting the best candidate, Alice, get the job, she moves the company forward. She might even help grow revenue allowing the company to hire Bob, Cindy, and others in the future. Maybe the labor market will get so tight they’d even take Fred one day when, hearing his mediocre but honest reference, they realize he’s good enough and better than the other candidates remaining. This is taking things ne plus ultra, taking it to the extreme limit. But when looking at a gray area, it can sometimes help to go to that extreme to really distinguish if it’s more dark gray or light gray.
For this, and related examples, the key is to widen your aperture. When looking just at Fred, it’s easy to focus on Fred and his needs. It’s natural to want to help him; after all, he’s not a bad guy. When we widen the aperture, we see the consequences of helping (or not helping) him on other parties such as the company, the manager, the employees at the company, and the larger applicant pool. In this case, helping Fred, has additional, negative consequences, even if unintentional ones.
[Sidebar for those who want to make use of that one philosophy class in college. You should not help Fred if you subscribe to consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is one of the more well-known models). Likewise, most frameworks under virtue ethics would oppose stretching the truth, opting for the virtue of being honest or treating others — in this case the company — fairly. Deonotologicaly speaking, you may have some leeway, since the intent of the action may be considered moral if you look solely at Fred; however, when you look at the industry as a whole you can reach the opposite conclusion.]
This is to say nothing of the consequences to you. If you start giving out bad references, people start to question your judgment. It’s simple to brush it off as the hiring manager being a complete stranger you’ll never interact with again. Who cares if s/he doesn’t trust your judgment? More generally, as this behavior becomes widespread, we wind up with the tragedy of the commons as references lose all meaning. This will negatively impact you and everyone else.
When being asked to stretch the truth, for a job reference, or in many other cases, it’s easy to succumb to the social “pressure.” The help you’d provide by doing so is obvious. But before going down that path, step back and take in the bigger picture. Often, you’ll find there are larger consequences and once you see them, the pressure won’t loom so large, allowing you to do the right thing.
It’s critical to learn about corporate culture before you accept a job offer but it can be awkward to raise such questions. Learn what to ask and how to ask it to avoid landing yourself in a bad situation.
Investing just a few hours per year will help you focus and advance in your career.
Groups with a high barrier to entry and high trust are often the most valuable groups to join.
