Ask HN: Have you ever reference checked a potential employer? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Have you ever reference checked a potential employer?

4 pointspan697 comments

And if so, what did you check?

To add to the discussion; There seems to be a consensus that it's OK and normal for an employer to reference check potential employees but not the other way around. I guess this is a supply and demand thing? I understand, employers want to make sure they make a good hire but as an employee you also want to make sure you don't end up working with a bunch of a-holes (I'm sure there are plenty of stories here). So why, as a potential employee, isn't it normal to reference check an employer?

Further more, how valuable are references anyway? These days checking references seems very informal (at least where I live, Australia). A potential employer hops on the phone with someone you've nominated as a reference, usually a good friend or work colleague. It's in this context that a reference is unlikely to be negative. So what's the value?

View on HN

Yes, I do it all the time.

- Check glassdoor.com for reviews, interviews and salaries.

- Read a local version of glassdoor where employees talk about their former companies.

- Look at the company facebook account to see photos of the workplace and current employees.

- Search for forums and online communities where the company name is mentioned. Check the context and opinions.

- Research the CEO/CTO and potential supervisors on LinkedIn to determine competency and chemistry.

- Read articles and interviews about the company to gauge vision and the current state.

- Use the government public data to check company finances. In a software company wages are the biggest expense. So if you divide the yearly expenses by the number of employees, you can estimate an average salary.

This worked great so far. Dodged a lot of bullets and managed to get massive increases in pay. The tech industry would be a lot healthier if everybody shared information. Salary, reviews, what you like about the company, what you don't like. Post them everywhere you can. I do. Knowledge is power.

The value of references can vary greatly depending on the industry. In finance, this is one thing I think we get right.

When hiring, just from an employee's history I am probably 3 degrees or less away from being able to contact every one of their old bosses. Given this I can get a very clear picture of what an employee really did, as opposed to what they claim they did on their resume.

The second reason to use them is as a filter. Can't provide any references, that's a big huge giant red flag. If you can't find one person to vouch for you that's not a positive signal.

For other industries like lawyers, doctors, and engineers, as you become more senior, your value switches from being 100% dependent on your work ability to the value of your professional network.

ie an experienced doctor/engineer/lawyer brings with them a network of clients, and other professional contacts that may be worth 10x what they can do in their given profession.

As a non practicing engineer, that was one of the biggest eye openers to me. The fact that your professional network can have more value than your professional abilities.

Think of the example of say Mark Zuckerberg, imagine you were going to hire him.

What's more valuable, his ability to get pretty much any person to help move your company forward or his ability to code?

I'd say its the former, and its the former by a long shot.

Where reference checks are pretty useless is when hiring a new grad or someone who is switching fields. In those cases you aren't likely to get any positive benefit from reference checking.

Yes, more politics. We don't have enough of it in our lives.

In your broken view a good politician is a more valuable employee. And only because there is a slight chance that he will bring you some short term profit with his contacts and friends. What if he doesn't. What if he leaves to the next company. Where is the value then?

This is how companies fail and die. Hiring politicians and letting them talk instead of hiring skilled people and letting them work.

I haven't but this line of thought recently had me thinking good questions to ask an employer are:

- How long have you been trying to hire someone for this role?

- What's the turnover rate on your team?

- Why did the last employee leave?

- Why did the last candidate reject your offer (if applicable)?

- What's the average pay rate for people on the team?

You could probably ask some of these questions without raising eyebrows, at least with rewording them to be more tactful. Reference checking past employees is brilliant and we do it anyway with review sites. Asking them for a reference at least gives the employer a chance to select someone they prefer.

I do try to ask questions of each interviewer about how they like the company, as a sort of reference check, and I think that's basically understood as being appropriate.

I freelance, and I figure a lot more employer checking happens there: making sure they aren't going to outright scam you, run, try to ask you to do illegal things, etc.

I agree, "qualifying" a lead or potential client is a crucial part of closing a deal. At the very least, you always want to know why they're on the market for a new developer. Did their last one quit? If so, look him/her up and talk to them.

In the USA at least, there is a much higher transaction cost for an employer than for the employee. If an employer makes a bad hire it will be costly for them to fire them, and the work they got hired to do will not get done.

For an employee there is the opportunity cost of working in a bad situation vs a good one, but getting out of the situation is far less costly. In fact, you may be marginally more valuable because you have a few new experiences on your CV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com