Navigating the Complexities of Employee Recommendations

A retired manager recently faced a dilemma when completing a recommendation survey for a former employee. The survey, designed to compare the candidate's work traits with others in similar positions, presented challenges in providing an accurate and helpful assessment.

The survey offered rating options including "not applicable," "average," "top 25 percent," and "top 10 percent." Given the manager's experience overseeing a team of more than a dozen people over many years, ranking the candidate in the top 10 percent for most questions seemed unfair. However, this approach led to unexpected consequences.

Following the survey submission, the hiring agency contacted the manager, questioning the lower ratings. Despite explaining that the employee was a recent hire who had been laid off due to company restructuring, and emphasizing their excellent performance, the manager sensed skepticism from the agency representative.

This situation highlights the complexities of modern hiring practices. Unemployment bias is a significant factor, where candidates face decreasing chances of employment the longer they remain jobless. Additionally, the use of standardized rating scales in employee evaluations, which became popular in the 1950s, can sometimes oversimplify complex performance factors.

To address these challenges, experts suggest a more nuanced approach to recommendations:

• Consider the context: When evaluating a former employee, compare them to peers with similar experience levels rather than the entire workforce.
• Be generous with praise: For good employees seeking new opportunities, it's appropriate to highlight their strengths enthusiastically.
• Understand the implications: In a job market where employers often provide only basic information about former employees (known as a "neutral reference" policy), less-than-glowing assessments can be interpreted negatively.

It's crucial to recognize that recommendation surveys are not scientific instruments. They are subjective tools influenced by various factors, including recency bias and the halo effect. As such, providing a positive, truthful assessment that accurately reflects the candidate's abilities is both ethical and beneficial.

"There's a time for grading on a curve and a time for boosting. If you want to help this guy land a job, you should be hyping him to the moon."

This advice underscores the importance of understanding the purpose of the recommendation. In a competitive job market, where unemployment stigma can significantly impact a candidate's prospects, a strong endorsement can make a crucial difference.

It's worth noting that the practice of using professional endorsements has gained importance with the rise of networking platforms like LinkedIn. In this context, providing a positive recommendation is not about unfair advantage but about accurately representing a candidate's skills and potential.

As hiring practices evolve, with some companies moving away from traditional performance reviews in favor of more frequent, informal feedback sessions, the way we approach recommendations may also need to adapt. The goal should be to provide a fair, contextual, and supportive assessment that helps qualified candidates overcome potential biases in the hiring process.