- Ashford Kimani argues that job seekers should scrutinise prospective employers just as employers investigate candidates.
- Candidates need to understand workplace culture, management practices and employment conditions before accepting an offer.
- Two-way due diligence could promote greater transparency, accountability and healthier employment relationships.
The modern job market has normalised the reference check. When someone applies for a job, employers often want to know where the candidate has worked before, how long they stayed, what responsibilities they handled and, sometimes, why they left. The logic appears reasonable: before entrusting someone with a position, an organisation wants evidence that the person is reliable, competent and suitable.
But there is an important question that deserves equal attention: if employers are allowed to investigate an employee’s past workplaces, why shouldn’t employees be allowed to investigate an employer’s past employees?
The hiring process is often presented as though the company is doing the candidate a favour by offering employment. In reality, employment is a mutual transaction. An employee offers time, skills, experience and labour; the employer offers remuneration, professional opportunities, working conditions and organisational culture. Both parties are making a decision about whether the relationship will work.
That means due diligence should not be a one-way street.
Candidates also need answers
When a company asks for references, it is essentially asking: What kind of employee are you? Can you be trusted? Did you perform your duties? Were you professional? Why did you leave your previous organisation?
Those are legitimate questions. However, the candidate should be entitled to ask equally important questions: What kind of employer are you? Why did your previous employees leave? How are employees treated? Are salaries paid on time? Is management professional? Are workers respected? What happens when an employee disagrees with management? Does the organisation honour its promises?
These questions can reveal realities that a glossy job advertisement cannot.
A company may advertise itself as a “dynamic workplace,” a “family” or an organisation that “values its people.” Yet the experience of former employees may tell a completely different story. An applicant who discovers that several former employees independently describe the workplace as toxic, exploitative or poorly managed may reasonably reconsider the opportunity.
This does not mean every former employee should automatically be believed. People leave jobs for different reasons. Some leave because they have found better opportunities. Others may have had genuine disagreements with management. A few may carry bitterness after dismissal or disciplinary action. Therefore, former employees should not be treated as unquestionable authorities.
The point is not to create a system in which disgruntled former workers can destroy an organisation’s reputation. The point is to create symmetry and informed decision-making.
Companies already understand the importance of verification. They check academic qualifications, employment histories, professional references and sometimes criminal or financial records, depending on the position and applicable law. They do this because a résumé represents only the candidate’s version of events.
But a job advertisement represents only the employer’s version of events.
Why should candidates be expected to accept that version without verification?
Imagine a prospective employee being allowed to contact three or four people who previously occupied the same position. The applicant could ask simple questions: How was the workload? Were expectations clear? Was management supportive? Were promised benefits actually provided? How long did you stay? Why did you leave? Would you work there again?
Such conversations could save both parties considerable trouble.
The employer might discover that candidates are unwilling to accept the position because of a problem that management has failed to recognise. Conversely, the candidate might discover that the organisation is genuinely excellent and that former employees speak positively about their experience. In both cases, transparency benefits everyone.
Power should come with accountability
There is also a broader principle at stake: power should come with accountability.
Employers frequently possess greater bargaining power during recruitment. They may interview dozens of candidates for one position. They can request references, certificates, identification documents and extensive personal information. Candidates, meanwhile, may have very little opportunity to investigate the people who will supervise them.
This imbalance is particularly significant for young graduates and desperate job seekers. Someone who has been unemployed for months may accept almost any offer without asking difficult questions. By the time the reality of the workplace becomes apparent, leaving may mean returning to unemployment.
A healthier employment culture would encourage candidates to conduct their own due diligence before accepting an offer.
Of course, there must be boundaries. Privacy laws, confidentiality obligations and data-protection principles should be respected. Employers should not be required to disclose confidential personnel information, and former employees should not be encouraged to reveal trade secrets or private information. The objective should be to obtain legitimate information about workplace conditions, not to invade anyone’s privacy.
Reference checks as a two-way conversation
Ultimately, the reference check should be viewed as a two-way conversation rather than an interrogation.
Companies have every right to determine whether a candidate is a good fit. Candidates have the same right to determine whether a company is a good fit for them.
Employment is not simply about whether an employee is good enough for the organisation. It is also about whether the organisation is good enough for the employee.
So, the next time an employer asks, “Can we contact your former employer?”, perhaps the candidate should politely ask: “Certainly. And may I contact some of your former employees?”
Fair is fair.
READ ALSO: NBA, Chuka University sign deal to strengthen biosafety education and research
By Ashford Kimani
Ashford is a teacher of English and Literature and writes on education and social affairs.
Get more stories from our website: Education News
To write to us or offer feedback, you can reach us at: editor@educationnews.co.ke
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
