How Do You Manage? Case Study: Check Your References

By Michael Rogers -- Library Journal, 9/1/2008

“Yes, I understand. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Mrs. Lombardi,” said Norma Goerz, head of reference at the Caulfield Public Library, into the phone. She replaced the receiver, blew out a long breath, and said, “This isn't going to be good.” Goerz flipped through her files, pulling a folder on her newest hire, Audrey Chartrand, who had joined the staff eight months earlier.

Minutes later, Goerz was sitting uneasily and dry-mouthed in the office of Director Teri Ormand. “I got a call this morning from a woman named Libby Lombardi, a librarian at Fenwick Public. She was one of Audrey Chartrand's references when we hired her. Someone Lombardi works with told her that Audrey had used her as a reference. She told me that she never gave Audrey permission to use her and that she never would have. She said that Audrey did work there, but she barely knew her.”

“Wow, that's ominous,” Ormand said, wide-eyed. “Audrey had her six-month review, and it was wonderful, if I remember correctly.”

“It was wonderful, and she's wonderful,” said Goerz. “I love her; she's absolutely great at her job. Nonetheless, if she lied on her application, then we have a bad situation here.”

“To say the least,” Ormand said grimly. “Have you talked to her about it?”

“No,” Goerz said. “I figured I'd talk to you first.”

“Good. The first thing is to ask Audrey about it before we take any disciplinary action, so I'll call her in.”

“She's out today but will be in tomorrow morning,” Goerz said.

“Okay, bring her in here first thing; we'll get this straightened out,” the director said.

Goerz looked like she hadn't slept well when bringing Chartrand to the director's office the next day. “Good morning, ladies,” Ormand sighed. “Please have a seat. Audrey, yesterday Norma received a very disturbing phone call from a woman named Libby Lombardi at Fenwick who claims that she never gave you permission to use her as a reference.”

Chartrand went pale. “I did work there, but I didn't really work with Mrs. Lombardi. My supervisor's name was Julie Gardner, but she quit and moved away. No one knows how to get in touch with her. When I was putting my résumé together to apply for this job, I called Fenwick and was told just to use Gardner's boss, so I picked Lombardi since she was head of the department. Believe it or not, most employers really don't check references beyond confirming employment dates and salary, things like that. I had letters of recommendation from my grad school professors, but I knew I needed professional references to apply for this job, and Julie was the only one I worked closely with, and without her I was sunk. I've got student loan payments crushing me and really needed this job,” Chartrand sobbed.

“You have no idea how hard it is to get work now, so I added Lombardi as my reference from Fenwick. I've killed myself to do good work here, and you know I got a great six-month review. Is it really that important that one of my references wasn't completely legitimate? Doesn't the quality of the work I've done count more?”

Analysis I: Believe What You See

By Robert Barr, Assistant Branch Manager, Blue Valley Library, Overland Park, KS

As anyone who has participated in the interview process knows, it is extremely hard to judge whether or not a candidate will be a good fit for your workplace in 30 minutes to an hour. Eight months, on the other hand, gives one another perspective. Goerz and Ormand apparently did a pretty good job with Chartrand—despite that it seems Audrey's references were not checked in the process. It's possible that Lombardi was on vacation, or that the person checking the references was automatically directed to human resources, but Goerz and Ormand should seek to find out why this is becoming an issue now instead of eight months ago.

However, even if they did check her references and simply failed to contact Lombardi, Chartrand doesn't deserve much in the way of disciplinary action here.

The quality of Audrey's work does count for more than one arguably illegitimate reference. In today's litigious environment, references rarely provide any useful information. Employers are fearful of any legal issues that may result from providing information that impacts a hiring decision. Many organizations' policies restrict reference givers from providing more facts than dates worked, salary information, and sometimes if the individual in question is eligible for rehire. For some job seekers—especially those who rely on strong references to make up for a weaker area in a résumé—this can be unfortunate.

Furthermore, Chartrand is apparently a new graduate. Given that she was told by people at the Fenwick library to use Gardner's boss in lieu of Gardner, it's not a huge leap to see how she might think that that is all the permission she needed to list Lombardi. Goerz and Ormand should verify Chartrand's story by returning Lombardi's call and, if true, accept this and let Audrey off with some simple instruction: ask your references personally before you list them. They could conclude by noting that they're happy they didn't talk to Lombardi during the hiring process, as, if they had, they probably wouldn't have hired such an exemplary employee. This would reinforce both the lesson as well as assure Chartrand that her bosses are pleased with her efforts.

There is no need for the rest of the staff to be informed of this situation. If they do find out, it isn't terribly likely that they would disagree with this decision. Some communication between managers and staff would be in order to explain the circumstances, but the staff would probably care much more if they had lost Chartrand and had to take on her workload for an interim period.

The hiring process can be intimidating for anyone but particularly for fresh graduates looking for that first full-time position. Graduate school aside, success in that first “real” job is what gives someone the sense that they really can do this, and that all of that money sunk into school wasn't wasted. It would be a shame to demoralize Chartrand after eight months of superb work over such an understandable and inconsequential mistake.

Analysis II: Give Her a Chance

By Brent Wagner, Senior Librarian, Ross-Cherry Creek Library, Denver Public Library

Without a doubt, the easiest solution is to fire Audrey Chartrand. But does she deserve it? I don't think so in this case. At most, Chartrand should receive a written reprimand for her file—something to which library administration can refer if things spiral downward in the future. The gossip train will, no doubt, catch wind of her disciplinary measure, and, one hopes, Chartrand's colleagues will cut her some slack. But really, this sensitive matter does not concern the rest of the staff.

Unless Chartrand truly has something to conceal (and I'm taking the verbiage in this scenario at face value even though, as it's written, a skeptic might wonder why her ex-boss cannot be reached), I fail to understand why Chartrand claimed, “one of [her] references wasn't completely legitimate.” Chartrand did nothing overtly wrong.

Especially since a representative from Fenwick Public Library entreated Chartrand to use Lombardi's name. (Again, the tale does not indicate to whom, precisely, Chartrand spoke at Fenwick giving her the green light to use Lombardi as a reference.) Why does Lombardi care enough to pursue the situation, anyway, eight months ex post facto? Seems as if Lombardi is the one with dubious ethics and motives. As such, perhaps Goerz and Ormand should not place too much stock in Lombardi and her seemingly random phone call. After all, it's entirely possible that Gardner, Chartrand's supervisor, quit her job and moved away because Lombardi was such an awful boss.

Even if you're on the side of the fence that labels Chartrand a conniver, one cannot overlook that during the hiring process neither Goerz nor Ormand bothered to contact Chartrand's references. No matter how great a candidate comes off in an interview, a hiring manager should always go beyond a visceral reaction and endeavor to get in touch with more than one reference in order to pose probing queries. Before extending a job offer, it isn't inappropriate, either, to put viable applicants to the test by assessing their writing abilities and conducting a background investigation that includes a criminal history record check and, when relevant, a financial and/or motor vehicle history.

Indeed, Goerz made an oversight, but as a responsible manager she can and should fix it. Since Chartrand has passed probation and her performance has been nothing but stellar, this is not an issue...at present, anyway. For sure, this unfortunate glitch might serve as a harbinger of things to come, but it's clear from the passionate emotion displayed by Chartrand that she wants to continue performing well. Moreover, she has an incentive to do so given bleak market conditions and the intimidating meeting with Director Ormand. In sum, everyone erred here; everyone, also, deserves a second chance.