招聘须知：怎样躲开不定时炸弹

    多年前，几位财富500强公司的高管开办了一家网络公司。他们雇用的大型高管猎头公司经过数月努力，终于找到了董事会心仪的CEO人选。但董事会没有找推荐人核实，也没有联系此人的前任同事。如果做过这样的努力，他们就会发现他在上一家公司工作时就常常在办公室里公然浏览色情网站。

    内部调查发现他的电脑中有限制级内容后，公司将其解雇；此人不甘心，对公司提起非法解雇的诉讼，（虽然最终被驳回，）官司还是耗费了公司时间和金钱。我们寻求置评时，解雇此人时在公司任职的人力资源经理由于害怕公司报复，要求匿名。这恰好也说明了寻求推荐人的核实会是多么艰难。

    有效的推荐人核实绝非易事。由于害怕诉讼，所有人都过于沉默。杰拉德•马特曼是商业法律师行Seyfarth Shaw的合伙人，他指出前雇员可以因为见不得人的隐私被曝光，控告公司诽谤或报复。最好不要留下书面记录，也不要发送任何材料。他建议求职者填写授权书，放弃建立在推荐人核实基础之上的任何诉讼权利。

    公司也能找到其它方法来规避严苛的推荐政策，比如联系曾经与潜在雇员共事的人（不必是现任同事）：以前的下属、同事和上司。苏珊娜•亨特拥有超过20年的人力资源从业经验，现任人力资源研究公司McLean & Co.的首席研究员。她自称经常听说仓促雇用经理人的故事，都未曾联系推荐人，因为主管招聘的人相信他们的直觉而不是冷冰冰的数据和调查。商务社交网站LinkedIn的女发言人克丽斯塔•坎菲尔德却看到了事情的另一面。她发现即使求职者仅提供了数位推荐人，多数公司还是要求联系至少10位前同事来调查潜在雇员。

    令人啼笑皆非的是，社交媒体在寻找合适雇员方面却带来了完全不同的难题：那就是信息泛滥。查看求职者的简介和现状更新时，人力资源经理可能会在无意之间为公司招惹麻烦，因为求职者可以控告公司根据宗教信仰或性取向而歧视他/她。尽管最近潜在东家向求职者索取Facebook个人密码的风波闹得沸沸扬扬，但大多数公司都不会这样极端。作为LinkedIn的高级用户，他们只是通过搜索若干年内的前任同事来拓宽推荐人的选择。与此类似，有一家名为SkillSurvey的公司使用电子邮件和收集匿名网上评论的方式来更广泛地了解潜在的候选人。

    当然，最好的办法其实也最简单：问到要点。埃琳娜•巴季奇是会员制职业网站和猎头公司Ivy Exec的CEO，她总是会问推荐人，（如果有机会的话，）是否会再次雇用那位求职者。如果回应略有停顿，那就意味着她需要去找更多的推荐人，拿到更多的评价。

    A few years ago several senior execs at Fortune 500 companies set up an online business. They hired a major executive-search firm to find a CEO for their startup, and after months of looking, the board chose its man. But the board didn't check his references or talk to his former co-workers. If they had, they would have discovered that at his last job he had had a habit of looking at pornography in the office.

    After an internal investigation by his current employer turned up X-rated material on his computer, he was fired; he sued for wrongful termination, and the litigation cost the company time and money (though the suit was ultimately dismissed). An HR manager who was at the company at the time the exec was fired didn't want to be identified when contacted for comment out of fear of reprisal by the company -- a perfect example of why checking references often proves so daunting.

    A good reference check is difficult to conduct. Fear of litigation too often keeps everyone overly quiet. Gerald Maatman Jr., partner at the business law practice Seyfarth Shaw, says that an ex-employee may charge his former employer with defamation or retaliation for exposing unseemly habits about him. It's safer to leave no paper trail and send nothing. He recommends that candidates fill out an authorization form that waives any claims based on reference checks.

    Companies find other ways around tough reference policies by talking to people the potential hire used to work with but may not currently: former direct reports, peers, and supervisors. Susanna Hunter, who has more than 20 years of HR experience and is lead research analyst with McLean & Co., says that she routinely hears about managers hired in a hurry. References aren't called because those in charge trust their gut rather than hard data and research. Krista Canfield, a LinkedIn (LNKD) spokeswoman, has noticed an alternative. She says that she sees more companies that have a policy of contacting at least 10 former colleagues to vet a prospect, even if the potential hire has provided only a few references.

    Social media, paradoxically, poses an entirely different sort of dilemma in the search for good hires: It reveals too much. While combing over a candidate's profiles or status updates, an HR manager may inadvertently open the company up to charges of discrimination based on the religion or sexual orientation of a candidate. Despite recent flaps over potential employers' requests for a candidate's Facebook password, most companies would never take that route. Instead, premium users of LinkedIn might search for his or her former colleagues within a narrow band of years to broaden the reference pool. Likewise, the company SkillSurvey uses e-mail and an aggregation of anonymous online comments to collect a broader picture of potential candidates.

    Then there is perhaps the best approach, which is also the simplest: Ask great questions. Elena Bajic, chief executive of Ivy Exec, a member-based career site and recruiting firm, always asks references if they would hire a candidate again. She listens for a pause in their responses, which might mean she'll want more references, for still more evaluation.