What are 3 areas of improvement?

A reference check is one of the most typical components of the recruiting process. Other common components include job applications, resume reviews, and interviews. It is the only piece of information that is not provided by the applicant themselves, which eliminates some of the issues that can arise with information that is provided by the applicant, such as falsification, embellishment, or the omission of previous work or other experience that is relevant to the position.

In the meantime, businesses are increasingly moving away from the practice. The primary reason for this is typically either one or both of the following factors: the length of time it takes to conduct a reference check by phone or letter, and the lack of meaningful information that is provided by the references. It happens all too often that managers are forced to depend on a shift in tone, or even just a pause, when doing a phone check, which does not appear to be the most effective approach to obtain information about a possible employee.

In point of fact, we do not know a great deal about the factors that determine whether or not reference checks are successful. This is owing to the fact that very little study has been carried out on the process, which is in large part caused by the fact that the conversations often take place over the phone or in written form. The few studies that have been conducted, the majority of which have been conducted on background checks conducted through letters in higher education, have found that these letters may contain content that demonstrates bias against protected classes of job applicants, and that the length of the letter is sometimes used in a disproportional manner when making decisions. The length of a recommendation does not seem to be connected with later job success or any other desired work outcomes, according to the findings of a review of the relevant research literature.

So how exactly can we obtain an understanding of the processes that are really involved in reference checks? My employer, SkillSurvey, is in the industry of enabling checks online, and it is one of our primary lines of business. To this day, we have received reference comments on over 3.2 million job prospects. This feedback spans the majority of job categories as well as sectors. Both closed-ended questions and open-ended comments are included in the feedback on the work competencies. We began an investigation more than a year ago with the goal of describing the nature and content of the comments provided by references. The investigation resulted in the collection of data from a sample size of 12,800 references and is the most comprehensive analysis of feedback that we are aware of. We focused our attention specifically on open-ended text comments that inquired about an applicant's work-related strengths and areas for improvement; and even though it was optional for references to provide these comments, we discovered that the majority of references did, in fact, provide this information on the applicant's strengths and areas for improvement; this was despite the fact that references were not required to do so (89 percent and 83 percent , respectively).

In all, the feedback that we went through provided us with 44,941 words or phrases that were generated as a result of our study. Because there is currently no library or lexicon devoted to the subject matter and type of reference feedback, our team proceeded to conduct research using a technique that is known as grounded theory (the open-ended feedback also went beyond existing frameworks for personality traits and competency models). Through the use of text analytics software, we were able to recognize and extract specific brief words or phrases that were provided directly by the references themselves. As a result, we were able to initiate the process of constructing the very first library of reference feedback from the ground up. The actual words or short phrases supplied by the references were utilized to identify the themes that were discovered in the text data. For example, "accepting criticism" or "communication" or "problem resolution" were some of the themes that were named.

The following is what we discovered:

It was especially remarkable to uncover 106 distinct areas for development, considering that providing negative feedback is not a desired chore and is, in many cases, purposefully avoided. These results are in contrast to those of past study, which reveals that letters of recommendation include relatively little of this kind of information. We have a sneaking suspicion that the fact that the online procedure is completely secret may be at least partially to blame for reference givers being so forthright and honest in their comments.

Confidence, knowledge, and communication are the three main focuses of the areas in which there is room for progress.

In contrast to the themes that were presented for the strengths, the top topics for work improvement looked to be more job-specific. The following are some examples of top job-specific themes that were identified as areas for improvement: delegation for project managers; time management and prioritization for phone customer service representatives; attention to detail and accuracy for software developers; work-life balance for directors of human resources; and stress management for nursing managers.

After that, we investigated the themes that occurred in the work-related strengths the majority of the time. Commitment and Dedication was one of the top 10 themes that emerged from the study of all occupations. The majority of jobs ranked the following qualities as their top 10 most important strengths: Reliable and able to meet deadlines; focus on the team; and attention to detail and accuracy in work.

Other topics were more pertinent to a certain position in the company. For instance, "Building Relationships" was one of the top 10 most important qualities for field sales reps, "Honesty/Trustworthiness" was one of the most important qualities for skilled trades workers, "Compassionate/Caring" was one of the most important qualities for registered nurses, and "Punctuality/Attendance" was one of the most important qualities for retail cashiers. The relevance of soft skills (such personality qualities, for example) tends to differ from job to job, which is supported by these qualitative results, which are in line with the quantitative findings.

The results of our investigation thus far have brought to light a few key points. Referees will still take the time to offer extra feedback in the form of open-ended text remarks, so meeting a very basic human desire to both provide and receive narrative information. This is a fundamental and comforting aspect of the process.

It is also interesting to notice that referees are opting to emphasize soft skills for the most part, which lends credence to recent studies and pieces published in the popular press on the significance of soft skills for success in the workplace. These are the aspects of an employee's performance that most often stand in the way of their success, and it is very challenging to screen for and train for them. For this reason, receiving this kind of particular criticism from references might be beneficial for employers.

The results also provide specifics on what supervisors and coworkers appreciate in their employees and colleagues, as well as areas in which the vast majority of individuals have room to grow and develop. Because of this, we believe that employers would be well advised to concentrate their onboarding, training, and development efforts on key areas in which we are aware that a large number of candidates have room for improvement. These key areas include assisting candidates in gaining more confidence and honing their communication skills, for example.

On the other hand, there is still a great deal that we do not understand, and we have plans to add even more breadth to our feedback collection by expanding the size of our sample in an effort to find answers to problems that are yet unanswered. We already know, based on our previous research, that the percentage of referees who respond, in addition to the behavior ratings that look at an employee's competency, are predictive of work outcomes such as turnover and manager ratings of new hires. In addition, we also know that the behavior ratings that look at an employee's competency look at their behavior. Now that we have received the written input, we are interested in determining which themes (both strengths and places for development) in the comments may be incorporated to our existing models of forecasting job outcomes based on references. And of course, all of us are curious to see how the similarities and differences in the feedback offered by managers and that offered by colleagues compare to one another, as well as how these discoveries can be connected to the results of the job.

The basic line is that true strengths and flaws may be revealed via references, particularly when they are acquired in a way that is kept discreet. We anticipate that employers will be able to make even better recruiting judgments if they give the frank verbatim comments that referees share a close and analytical look, rather than relying on the sound of a candidate's voice or their own intuitive feelings about the candidate.