The threads and posts to the existing forum below will become read only. Please visit HR Space to add new posts, upload and attach documents, create your own blog and upload photos. If you have any questions regarding HR Space, please email hrspace@rbi.co.uk
| References | Keith Lawson | 6 Apr 05 |
| Re: References | LEE WILLIAMS | 6 Apr 05 |
| References | Keith Lawson | 4/6/2005 11:30 AM | |
|
There is a lot of current discussion about "tombstone" references - i.e. basic facts and little else. Perhaps this is the role for references - confirmation of last employment as stated on the application. The recruitment and selection process should be rigorous enough to enable the recruiter to make the best-informed decision. Getting work references is a troublesome issue - would the line manager or HR person really know much about the employee and how much could they say without risk of litigation? Or, if they found the person exceptional, who is to say that would be the case in a new job with new responsibilities, colleagues and manager? I have a preference for examining the development records of a person - are they keeping their skills up to date and have they done NVQs as NVQs are independently assessed by an occupationally competent person with no emotional or employment contract with the possible recruit. My advice is to take what references you can but make certain that your R&S practices and people are as good as it is possible to be. |
|||
| + Re: References | LEE WILLIAMS | 4/6/2005 2:08 PM | |
|
My company has had considerable research conducted into this area - and disagree with some of the comments listed - the research by Huntsgate hr has shown that 2 references is no where near enough to validate competence for key personnel. I have this research and guides available if anyone wants it - they should request at; leerwilliams@hotmail.com |
|||