(Published March 9, 2009)
This is going to sound like an attempt at humor. It's not. I'm very serious, and I think you should all be aware of this, if you aren't already, because in the current economy it's likely to come up more and more.
During the month of February, I talked to four different employees in four different states who are 100% convinced that HR managers have access to a "blacklist database" consisting of names of employees whom they will not hire. They believe that during the hiring process, the HR manager consults this database, and if the applicant's name appears, no offer (whether for an interview or for employment) will be made. They firmly believe that all HR managers nationwide are a party to this database and that no HR manager will ever hire anyone who is on it, regardless of skills or fit for the position. I was unsuccessful in convincing any of the four employees otherwise. One of the four was willing to believe that the database was industry-specific, but he was the most firmly hardened to the belief of its existence and to his unwillingness to accept any answer except, "Yes, there is such a database and here's how to get your name off it."
It goes without saying that each of them believes that they, or a member of their family, are listed on this imaginary database. It also goes without saying that they refuse to accept that something other than this database is the reason they have not been able to get a job. No amount of explaining otherwise, since it's impossible to prove a negative, would convince them.
With more and more layoffs, and jobs more difficult to find, I'm afraid we're going to find this attitude more and more. I'm only an amateur psychologist, but it seems to me that it is much easier on the ego to believe that one is being blacklisted by an evil former employer than to accept that there are simply more people looking for work than there are jobs available and that other more suitable people have been picked for the jobs they applied for. Explanations that, for the sake of the company's unemployment rate, it is to the benefit of employers that their former employees find jobs, fell on deaf ears.
Keep in mind that these blacklist theorists are not talking about negative references. They are referring to an actual searchable database of hundreds of "unemployable" names, hidden behind firewalls that only HR managers can access. The one who thought it was industry-specific described to me in detail the location of the one that was preventing his daughter from being employed. I believe his initial intent was to have me confirm the existence of his daughter's name on the list, but when I denied the existence of the list, he decided he didn't want my help.
I think that this rather paranoid belief that one's inability to find new employment must be traceable to a hidden blacklist can be alleviated to some extent if the employee knows what their former employers are prepared to say in a reference check. I personally have long since been converted to the belief that, because the risk of actual legal action is far, far slimmer than many believe, we are doing ourselves more harm than good as a profession by refusing to confirm anything more than employment dates and job title in a reference check. I do recognize the concerns of those who take the other view, however, and agree that depending on the size of the company and the ability of the managers to keep their opinions within the sometimes narrow lines we can be afforded, sometimes limited information is preferable.
We're now back to Cathie's hot button — communication. Maybe we can dispel at least a part of this paranoia by making sure former employees know what kind of reference we're going to give — and sticking to it.
Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.
Home
