Should I Give My Manager’s Contact Details as a Referee?
When looking to move on from our current job, the last thing we want is for our manager or supervisor to know, particularly if we don’t “get on” with them.
To decide whether to give manager’s contact details, it helps to understand the hiring process. Usually, one sends in a CV (either in response to a job advertisement, or on a “speculative” basis) or fills in an online application. Based on the CV/application, the hiring manager decides whether to interview the applicant or not. At this stage, they only know that the applicant “may” be the person they’re looking for.
Following the interview (or interviews), the hiring manager then decides whom they will hire. Once this decision has been made, they move into “risk management” mode.
Hiring a new member of staff is a “risk” – one that we get right most of the time for various reasons. Part of the risk management process is obtaining character and professional references for the applicant, and who better to ask than their current supervisor or manager? However, if the latter is the reason that the applicant is looking for another job, the last thing we as hiring managers should be doing is making matters worse by contacting that manager and letting them know what’s going on. There’s a very real risk that this could result in the termination of said applicant. Equally, if they’re great friends, the result could be an almost too-good reference…
Applicants should always have two to three “referees” available to testify to their professional skills and character. These need not be their current manager; in fact, it may be better (and result in a more objective opinion) if recruiters do not approach the applicant’s current manager. If the applicant has a LinkedIn profile, this is also a potential source of references.
Whatever happens, we need to bear in mind that most references are likely to be fairly “neutral” as the referee won’t want to say anything that “may be used in evidence” against them later on.
There are no reasons employees shouldn’t give their manager’s name if they want to and have the latter’s support in their search.
Some employers may request in job advertisements that applicants list referees on their CV or application form. Personally, I think this should be avoided for the very reason mentioned above, namely that they should decide based on the CV/application alone whether to interview.
Whomever applicants choose as referees, I suggest they always:
- Get their agreement first and agree what they are to say - not so that they lie, but so that they highlight the aspects of the applicant of which they have genuine experience (they may also have useful insights for applicants at this stage);
- Provide a copy of each CV and Cover Letter sent out so referees are ready for the call, if it comes.
- Ask referees to let you know if the employer did contact them;
- Thank them afterwards (whether you get the job or not).
Referees are a vital part of the job hunt and it’s important to choose carefully and brief them. LinkedIn profiles should be as up to date as possible and we all need to make a practice of obtaining references as a matter of course. In this way, applications for new jobs stand a higher chance of success.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With more than 20 years in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Career
COVID-19: How We Got Here
COVID-19 has been the first truly global pandemic for 100 years. Those who experienced the “Spanish ‘flu” of 1918 – 1920 will mostly have passed away. Closely related was the 2009 “Swine Flu” pandemic, which was easy to spot as those who had it displayed symptoms immediately. The current virus appears to spread from close physical proximity and, unlike the previous SARS virus of 2003, spreads easily, faster and those infected show no symptoms whilst at their most contagious.
The virus is still with us and shows no signs of abating soon. Governments have tried “lockdowns”, “circuit-breakers”, “self-isolation” and testing at all levels.
This month, I’ve looked at why change may not be as easy as we think and how we might need to change our ways. This post is a review of how we got to where we are not, based on an excellent article that appeared in the Economist Magazine on 10 October 2020.
The first point is that the spread of COVID happened very quickly. Thanks to cheap flights and the outbreak of the virus at Lunar New Year when thousands of Chinese traditionally return home to spend the holiday with their families, as well as the end of other seasonal holidays in the West, it was easy for it to move very quickly from its epicentre to the outside world.
The next point is that different countries are recovering at different rates. China, the so-called epicentre of the virus, has experienced a “V-shaped” recovery thanks to locking down its cities (particularly Wuhan) and imposing Draconian movement control measures. As at the date of this post, it is running at some 86,000 cases of infection (officially) and a mortality rate of just over 5%, compared to the USA with nearly 8.4 million infections and mortality rates of under 3%, or the UK with 722,000 infections and a 6% mortality rate.
Secondly, thanks to the different rates of recovery, we can expect to see significant differences between countries battling the virus – differences which could change the economic face of the world. China is being described as the world’s leading trading nation. Where does that leave the US and others with service-driven economies? Factories operate more easily under social distancing conditions than do service businesses where face-to-face contact is common (restaurants and hotels, for example). China is “the world’s factory”, meaning its economy is manufacturing-focused vs (say) the UK with its heavy reliance on services. Some countries with well-developed social “safety nets” have been able to react in different ways to (say) China or India, where people need to work (thereby increasing the risk of transmission), or else….
In my previous post, I commented on the importance of how governments respond in the face of the virus. Financial stimuli have been one of the main weapons, with millions being spent on providing salary “lifelines”. The bigger question is, what do they do about the economic changes caused by the destruction wrought by lockdowns?
So, the third point is that our economies have been geared to a different (“social”) way of doing things. We can expect more of the work currently “offshored” to other countries to be “on shored” to preserve the ability to manufacture essential PPE or other commodities without relying on others. Our previous reliance on “manual” processes may be replaced by more digital systems. Online banking, payments and buying have seen huge increases.
Countries with well-developed social “safety nets” have been able to react in different ways to those without. This has resulted in people losing livelihoods and left with no means of support. It also means that the free movement of people and ideas that sustained innovation and raised living standards may change.
Some countries rely on industries that may disappear thanks to the virus and its impact on social distancing. Although some may be able to support the existing workforce with various “furlough” schemes, they may simply be propping up sectors that are no longer relevant but are seen as “national champions”.
In all, the structure of the global world economy has been just as complicit (albeit unwittingly) in the spread of the coronavirus as those who didn’t take it seriously.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With more than 20 years in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Social, Strategy
How Can We Change (2)?
COVID-19 has been the first truly global pandemic for 100 years. Those who experienced the “Spanish ‘flu” of 1918 – 1920 have all passed away. Closely related was the 2009 “Swine Flu” pandemic, but this was easier to spot as those who had it displayed symptoms immediately. The current virus appears to spread from close physical proximity and, unlike the previous SARS virus of 2003, spreads easily, faster and those infected show no symptoms whilst at their most contagious.
The virus is still with us and shows no signs of abating soon. Governments have tried “lockdowns”, “circuit-breakers”, “self-isolation” and testing at all levels. Inbound travellers from overseas are being asked to self-quarantine for up to 14 days, yet still the virus spreads.
I previously looked at why change may not be as easy as we think. The focus in this post will be on where I feel changes will come.
So far, most of the ways that the pandemic has spread have all been to do with transmission through proximity and/or touch. The simple answer (stop all movement and contact) doesn’t work. What we can do is control and adapt how we behave.
Physical separation and testing become more important, particularly for more “vulnerable groups”. Many changes will revolve around this.
We’ve seen how services like Zoom enable business meetings, or online shopping facilitates “remote” purchase and delivery of groceries and other items. Where possible, these will need to increase, meaning that more “high street” stores could disappear, leading to reduced municipality income from quieter shopping centres, fewer outlets paying rents and increased unemployment in the retail sector. Online services and deliveries will grow; the nature of business and towns may change; businesses will have to adapt to working “from a distance”.
Public transport will change. We’ll still need it; how we use it will be different. “Social distancing” rules will be necessary, meaning fewer passengers and lower fare income. This has particularly impacted the airline, hotel and tourist industries. Any kind of travel will be restrictive.
In short, we’re going to have to be a lot less “social” (and live with it) until a permanent cure is found (if ever). If not, we’ll have to watch how we “socialise”, when and with whom.
Businesses will need to be able to work with fewer staff at short notice. There are suggestions that “work from home” may become a standard part of compensation (think of the savings on office space and costs!)
Governments need to review policies. Some failed to take COVID seriously. Many weren’t prepared for an outbreak as virulent as this. They will need to be more transparent much earlier, rather than trying to hide it until it’s too late. “Changing behaviour requires clear communication from trusted figures, national and local. But many people do not believe their politicians. In countries such as America, Iran, Britain, Russia and Brazil, which have the highest caseloads, presidents and prime ministers minimised the threat, vacillated, issued bad advice or seemed more interested in their own political fortunes than in their country—sometimes all at once”(The Economist Magazine, 04 July 2020). Small wonder they find it difficult to introduce and enforce new laws in democracies where gathering in large numbers is seen as a fundamental right.
Economies and industries that depend heavily on customers being physically present (e.g. travel, tourism, hospitality and entertainment/events) account for significant contributions to many economies (Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand in ASEAN spring to mind). How can governments re-structure these and re-train the millions who have lost/will lose their jobs (up to 46 million in the global travel industry in total forecast by the aviation industry, 5 million in aviation alone)?
As The Economist Magazine commented, ... “in retrospect, SARS was much easier for airlines to manage than COVID-19. SARS showed symptoms immediately and could be detected with temperature checks at airports. It was not initially contagious; those infected could be isolated before they spread it to others. COVID-19, in contrast, shows no symptoms for up to two weeks after infection, a period in which it is contagious. No wonder experts soon found that airline travel was the primary means by which the disease spread around the world.” (“Peak Plane”, 04 July 2020).
People will have to be more accountable for their own behaviour. Too many waited for “government” to tell them what to do, and then, when they didn’t like it, ignored the request, spreading the virus further. Being an adult means being responsible to oneself and to society at large. Inevitably, the buck stops with us.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With more than 20 years in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Risk, Social
How Can We Change (1)?
COVID-19 has been the first truly global pandemic for 100 years. Those who experienced the “Spanish ‘flu” of 1918 – 1920 have all passed away. Closely related was the 2009 “Swine Flu” pandemic, but this was easier to spot as those who had it displayed symptoms immediately. The current virus appears to spread from close physical proximity and, unlike the previous SARS virus of 2003, spreads easily, faster and those infected show no symptoms whilst at their most contagious.
The virus is still with us and shows no signs of abating soon. Governments have tried “lockdowns”, “circuit-breakers”, “self-isolation” and testing at all levels. Inbound travellers from overseas are being asked to self-quarantine for up to 14 days, yet still the virus spreads.
The catchphrase is “the new normal”: we need to get used to “the new normal” whatever that means…. For me, I’ve tried to look at it as to what may need to change about the way we go about our lives.
Firstly, humans are naturally social animals. We need the company of others (even if only in small doses). People have already started succumbing to depression due to being isolated from loved ones and friends. Some groups are being particularly hard-hit.
Next, a great part of our lives up to now has been (and may still need to be) spent moving around: to go to work, to go to business meetings in the office, in our country or overseas, to deliver goods or services, to do our grocery shopping, to pick up children from school, to visit relatives. Short of becoming hermits, there is no way we can permanently isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. These are what I call “necessary movement”.
Third, we like our leisure – the ability to go out to dinner, to a film, a club, a party at a friend’s home or a family reunion, to go on holidays overseas, to theme parks.
The next review will look more closely at changes that may or may not come into play to help the global economy move forward.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With more than 20 years in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services. For strategic questions that you should be asking yourself, follow me at @wkm610.
Labels: Crisis Management, Customer Care, Leadership, Social
