Why I don’t provide backchannel references
Even when you have good things to say about a person, it’s a shady practice — so let’s all refuse to perpetuate it
--
Recently, a former colleague asked me for a backchannel reference regarding someone who used to report directly to me.
I wanted to help him out, but I respectfully declined — not because I didn’t have anything positive to say about the person, but because I’m against the practice in principle.
Backchannel references (aka backdoor references or “blind” reference checks, where a hiring organization seeks information about a candidate from people they haven’t listed as references) are a common hiring practice, but they do more harm than good. They don’t inspire trust or transparency, they’re legally questionable, and worst of all, they disproportionately harm underrepresented folks who haven’t consented to the reference, and who already struggle against widely held unconscious biases that negatively impact their experience in the workplace.
Why backchannel references are unethical
To me, the crux of the issue is consent. This person hasn’t asked me to serve as a reference, so I don’t feel comfortable talking behind their back.
Recruiting consultant Joel Winter writes:
“The thing I’m most concerned about with backdoor references is that we might be exposing the candidate’s job search, without fully realizing or considering the impact of that.
A candidate might be employed and very much need their job — but by us meddling with their references before it’s time, we might be telling other people (or at least suggesting to other people) that this candidate is seeking to leave their current job.
Even if we know the backdoor reference well, we actually have no idea about their relationship with our candidate. Does the reference love or hate that person? Would they have a motivation to get the candidate out of their company for some reason? What politics are happening between the reference’s job or department and the job or department of the candidate?
And what if the backdoor reference mentions that they got a call from us, about them? ‘Hey, Bob — just got a reference call from Joel at GCG — you thinking about jumping ship?’ Ugh. Now the candidate needs to explain their situation — and they really shouldn’t have to. Or what if the backdoor reference mentions this in passing to a third party — unaware that the third party knows the candidate? Who knows what can happen, then. And you have zero control over what that reference does or says.
I view a job hunt as a very sensitive, confidential thing. We should keep a candidate’s search internal to our company until we’re ready to make a hiring decision — and then ask permission to call references.
If the backdoor reference resulting in a candidate’s job hunt being exposed, and resulted in their termination you might be responsible for that, and it might not be defensible.”
Aside from the confidentiality breach Winter mentions, backchannel references are inherently biased — most companies aren’t performing them on every candidate, and even if they are, they’re not getting the same quality of references across the board. A personal reference from a friendly coworker on one person’s team will differ significantly from a reference coming from some VP who didn’t insight into another candidate’s day-to-day responsibilities. It’s just not a level playing field. And as Francesca Gino, professor at Harvard Business School, points out in an article for HBR, “unconscious biases have a critical and ‘problematic’ effect on our judgment. ‘They cause us to make decisions in favor of one person or group to the detriment of others.’ In the workplace, this can stymie diversity, recruiting, promotion, and retention efforts.’”
Furthermore, as Sarah Grayson argues, seeking information about another person on the down-low “sets a tone of distrust”:
“It’s ironic that one of the reasons for conducting back-channel reference checks is to get honest feedback from the people you’re talking to. By engaging in this practice, you are not being honest with the candidate either. There are so many ways that back-channel reference checks can get back to a candidate, too. Even if the reference spoke positively about the candidate, it’s likely they will feel frustrated it was done without their knowledge. By not being forthcoming, you run the risk of candidates feeling skeptical of not only the hiring manager, but the organization at large.”
Still, companies aren’t going to stop conducting backchannel references any time soon. From their perspective, they’re simply getting “unfiltered” information about potential hires — they aren’t aware that they’re perpetuating a system that continues to favor those who already benefit from greater amounts of privilege.
How to stop participating in back-channeling
Most of us want to be helpful, and we enjoy being sought after for advice. So it’s tempting to answer these companies’ questions, especially when you feel like your reference will help someone you like to get a new job.
We have to set that aside, though, and eschew backdoor reference checks entirely, so everyone gets a fair shake. It’s on all of us to bring attention to the harm the practice can do, and refuse to participate in it — even when we have only glowing things to say about the person. Here’s a short script you can use:
“Hi ____! I’d love to help you out, but I make a point to only provide references when the candidate has listed me as a reference. If and when they do, I’d be happy to chat with you!”
You can also link to this or the following articles, if you feel like the additional context would be helpful:
Back-channel references: Why to avoid them, and what to do instead
Backdoor Reference Checking: Are You Being Naughty?
Stop Performing Back Channel References, Immediately
How we can change the way it’s done
Throughout the course of my career, I’ve encountered at least a couple people who I wouldn’t want speaking for me. (I’d wager that most people who have been in the workforce for a decade or two can say the same.) Perhaps they have a narrow view of my capabilities, or for whatever reason they didn’t like me. Or maybe they did like me, but they worked with me five years ago, so they have no context for the knowledge and experience I’ve gained in more recent years.
Regardless, it’s unfair to ask anyone about what it’s like to work with me when I have no knowledge the conversation is taking place, or opportunity to tell my side of the story.
You probably aren’t 100% comfortable with the idea of a potential employer reaching out to just anyone you happened to work with in the past, and asking them questions about your competence, so don’t serve as this kind of a “resource” to anyone looking for insider info about your former colleagues, either.
When enough of us decline to participate in back-channeling (and instead only provide references the people being discussed have consented to) the practice will, ideally, erode.
