Well...
.. that's DevOps for you.
Thank Cthulhu it's Friday, because that means the weekend is at hand and we can offer you another instalment of On-Call to show what happens when support calls ruin your personal time. This week, meet “Adam,” who once did tech support at an Australian university. One of Adam's users, who'd been in her job for a week, “came to …
Dunning-Kruger effect or just misunderstanding the question? A large outsourcing company I worked for asked us to rate our skills in our "skills profile" so they had a searchable database of skills to match up to clients and projects. I rated myself as 4/5 for HP-UX Unix, as I was comparing myself as a sysadmin with HP's Mission Critical support superstars with whom I had regular contact. Another chap rated himself as 5/5 for HP-UX Unix - because he was a power user (and even then frequently had to phone me for help just as an end-user, he had no admin or support skills and not even logical thinking, resourcefulness or troubleshooting abilities).
Those who know a little - think they know everything. Those who know a lot - know there's much more they don't know.
The latter sentiment can apparently be attributed as far back as Aristotle. That doesn't stop HR requiring self-assessments which are then used for skill assessments of the individual. They also tend to ask about "hard skills" as "soft skills" are too difficult to phrase in their questions.
> I rated myself as 4/5 for HP-UX Unix
Years ago I was asked to fill out a skills matrix by the manager of an HP-UX consulting group. So I filled out the 2 pages of questions. He read it handed it back to me and said "your problem is that you'll only describe yourself as an expert when you'd happily teach the lab engineers an internals class, while most of my staff tick expert when they know which cupboard the manuals are stored in"
Self assessed skills matixes are worth the bits they're written on.
Ditto self-written recommendations and self-written assessments.
I was once asked to write my own reference after I had requested one in an exit interview. I said that if my boss couldn't be arsed to write a paragraph saying I was or was not worth what he'd paid for me then I didn't want it anyway.
I was also once asked to write my own yearly assessment by a boss eager to try "new methods" of staff management. I wrote that I was a genius, always knew the right answer to any problem and was overdue for promotion and/or a significant pay raise. No-one was ever asked to write their own assessment again.
Since there was no chance of promotion (or that mythical thing, a raise) anyway there was no need for me to pull punches. My lazy-assed boss needed to be told to stop sitting around all day reading the paper and eating crisps, and do what he was paid to do. One task on his list was write yearly assessments for his staff and since they regularly made him look good despite himself he should have been happy to do that.
Does "X" know about...
How do I answer that when I have one friend who knows about it in the sense of having written THE book and being on the international standards body for that technology and another who knows about it in the sense of hearing a man talk about it down the pub and parroting what he heard?
I worked for IBM who suggested a similar self rating scheme. Just before announcing redundancies.
Fortunately, when I pointed out they need some kind of control candidate or manager agreement to stop people exaggerating, they listened.
Unfortunately they had me mediate, and I had a couple of dozen one on one meetings where I would more or less give people a polite correction of their skills.
A year later, I too was redundant. I had to submit my own skills matrix.
Clueless.
When PCs had proper on-off switches I had a user call in a panic late one afternoon.
User: "How do I turn the computer off?"
Me: "Did you turn it on this morning?"
User: "Yes."
Me: "Well press the same switch!"
User: " I know that, but which one is it?"
The PC was an HP Tower with a white on-off switch in the top corner so fairly visible*.
*Unlike an Apricot PC I installed where the on-off switch was a grey rectangular push button in the middle of the back that looked just like a cover over a port.
Glen
When punched cards were the mainframe input medium the jobs were submitted in metal trays. At the start of the evening shift there would be so many trays that they were stacked high on the cabinets' work surfaces.
One evening a systems programmer was waiting to take over the mainframe for a dedicated slot. To keep out of the operator's way he stood against the cabinets. He then made himself more comfortable by leaning back into the protruding card trays. A descending eerie silence signalled that there was an emergency off button directly behind them.
To avoid the problem happening again the cabinet under the emergency off button was removed.
The next week the same programmer returned. He warily avoided repeating the mistake - and found a convenient tray-free space - where he leaned back against the same emergency off button.
The button was finally secured by fixing a papertape core ring as a protective surround.
That sort of protection didn't help at another customer. The whole computer centre suddenly went very quiet. An operator then had to try and explain what had possessed him to press the emergency off button by the room's exit door.
And the (possibly made up) corollary:
During the post incident management review to make sure it never, ever happened again, the operator was asked to retrace his steps. He explained "I was balancing a stack of tapes and couldn't see around them very well, so when I reached out, like this..."
And the computer centre went quiet again.
Yes - if you're asking from the previous employer. No - if you're asking from a colleague or a "mentor". Since the chap wasn't working for the Uni anymore he's free to tell the truth.
If the reference states that the person worked but doesn't give any praise - the prospective employer can draw his own conclusions from that.
IANAL.
I was once asked to provide a reference for someone who had been sacked for gross misconduct and fraud - after pointing out that (a) he had not approached me for a reference and (b) I would have him removed from the building by security if he attempted to approach me, I summed up my feelings about the guy by saying "He should go far, that one. Pluto would be a good start, if we can't fling him into the sun".
"So, if you were asked if you would recommend him for this job, that would be a 'No' ?"
*boggle*
"No - if you're asking from a colleague or a "mentor". Since the chap wasn't working for the Uni anymore he's free to tell the truth."
Reminds me of the anecdote about a professor that hated to give bad references.
His reference for the totally useless?
"If you can get this person to work for you, you will be extremely fortunate."
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
They are not.
Stop spreading that absolute rubbish.
You are asked for a reference and should reply HONESTLY.
If someone is NOT rubbish and you give a FALSE reference, you can get into trouble.
If someone IS rubbish, you are perfectly entitled to give a bad reference.
Everything else is political-correctness rubbish that has no basis in law at all.
Stop spreading this utter tripe.
For anyone who doubts this, I challenge you to point to a law that says anything like that, or a court case where an HONEST reference was deemed illegal.
And almost every reference you can find will tell you the same:
http://www.totaljobs.com/careers-advice/money-and-legal/references-faq
The reason it's not generally done is a) professionalism, b) avoidance of the possibility of a lawsuit (by the time you're into references for people that haven't done a good job, you tend to tread carefully, HR-wise), c) it's easier to just REFUSE to provide a reference which tells people roughly the same without the potential liability.
But it is NOT illegal to provide an HONEST reference, good or bad.
AFAIK, it's nothing to do with the reference which is "illegal" (as pointed out above). The legal conundrum can come from possible libel/slander*.
If you have evidence to back up what you say, you are entitled to say it. However, as with anything, if you say something bad about a person they can take you to court for libel/slander and (AFAIK) you must prove that what you said was accurate. According to Wikipedia:
In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory. These things are generally relatively easy to prove. The claimant is not required to prove that the statement was false. Instead, proving the truth of the statement is an affirmative defence available to the defendant.
So, if you can prove that what you say is true, by all means say it. If you cannot, or just don't want to risk a lawsuit, just refuse to give a reference. This will be taken as a bad reference anyway, so does pretty much the same job. This is why companies rarely give a bad reference: Purely because they can't be arsed with a lawsuit, and refusing to give a reference has the same effect with no risk.
* I can never remember which way round these are.
"Everything else is political-correctness rubbish that has no basis in law at all"
I think this is also true for the "We have to advertise the job externally" or " oh they have to offer it internally , before they can go outside" . I'm no lawyer , but both sound like bullshit to me , and are just company policies - probly made up on the spot to do what they want.
--------
re the references - the current policy of "never say anything bad" could get you into just as much trouble couldnt it? A company could take on a complete tool, spending a lot in the process - because referee gave glowing reference , and then feel they had to sue referee\previous company
Yep, the issue with references is simply libel. The chances of getting sued are about zero as long as it's true, since "truth" is an absolute defense. (although you have to be able to prove your statements, and most people would prefer to avoid the hassle)
You can provide poor references without derogatory comments though, I have seen such a reference which basically said:-
"I confirm that $person worked for us from $date to $date, and I am sure they would be suitable for your vacency, assuming that that it is a junior position with adequate supervision".
"I confirm that $person worked for us from $date to $date, and I am sure they would be suitable for your vacency, assuming that that it is a junior position with adequate supervision".
Oh... nasty.
I had a similar one given for me once - "I confirm that they worked for us from X to Y", basically. But that was standard practice from the new boss that came in and destroyed that particular workplace, they gave that for everyone, even people who'd been there 20+ years in senior positions and just decided to move on rather than work for them.
Fortunately, I had contact with their predecessor who issued me with a proper reference, and a superior to them who'd retired from an even-higher possession who vouched me for entirely, and in fact my next employer hired on the basis of their word before their references came through (and haven't regretted it!).
References are a minefield open to interpretation, and employers tend to treat them as such. Just because your immediate boss, or HR hate you doesn't mean that you're bad at your job. But if they say "He blew up my workplace, mis-filed financial statements and caused me to go bankrupt", you KNOW to steer well clear.
There is no risk at all with a bad referene if you state it correctly.
If you say: X is incompetent and knows nothing about computers. There is a potential risk of libel if very very small.
If you say: 'We would not employ X in a technical role based on an assesment of his skills while he worked for me, there is no risk and it is a more accurate statement.
This post has been deleted by its author
"But it is NOT illegal to provide an HONEST reference..."
It is, however, important to distinguish between honesty and accuracy. You may honestly believe that the candidate is a lazy, arrogant shit, but unless you can unequivocally demonstrate that fact you are well into the realms of libel if you say such things to prevent them getting a job. It ticks every box in the relevant legislation.
It's for this reason that HR departments are so finnicky about references. Given that, alongside the rest of the documentation in the recruitment process, they're subject to disclosure under the DPA, it isn't worth the bother. Especially given how bad we all are at actual performance management.
Besides, it's pointless. We all know what "I'm not comfortable providing a reference for that person - you'll have to speak to HR" means.
The problem with bad references that makes current employers loathe to provide them is that a bad reference will prevent the candidate from moving on of their own accord.
It isn't illegal to provide a true bad reference, just unwise given the tangled way some laws have of preventing a clean firing for cause.
Providing a bad reference can open one to charges of providing a false statement though, which can blossom into libel and damages lawsuits. Who needs that amount of bother when one can write "Lovely chap. Knows his stuff. Be sorry to lose him"?
On one of my contracts terminating I was given a bad reference when my agent asked for one. The reason given was so outrageously untrue I just laughed, even though it did cause me material harm in that I was out of work for a bit and the reference didn't help.
The real reason this paragon of truth had written me down? The whole department suspected I had slept with The Office Angel after a party, and I refused to gratify their prurient interest. She ended up going consultant herself within a month of my leaving so they lost their eye-candy, likely because she resented their attitude as much as I did.
If someone IS rubbish, you are perfectly entitled to give a bad reference.
Everything else is political-correctness rubbish that has no basis in law at all.
Stop spreading this utter tripe.
Hopefully this is true. If so, it gladdens my heart given what commentards have said on another thread.
No. Over-cautious legal departments prevent companies giving references beyond "She worked here from date x to date y." because they think it protects them from getting sued should one of their ex-employees f**k up at another company or fail to get a job cos of a bad reference. Of course, it means that they now have no way of knowing that they are about to employ a potential f**k up - so there's potential karma out there.
At least in the US, where fear of lawsuits is well-placed, some of the standard ways of weaseling one's way in such matters are :
I cannot recommend this person too highly.
You will be lucky if you can get this person to work for you.
Words fail me in describing this person.
Yeap. In the good old USA you can't discriminate.
So you can't say a person is some lazy dumbfuck who can't count to 10 without taking his/her shoes off. You must describe such person as someone with mobility and cognitive disabilites. Which is something good as the prospective employer MUST hire him/her or risk being sued.
I work IT in schools.
At least a dozen times now, I've had young, keen new members of teaching staff come in and are desperate to show off. If their subject is IT-rated, they inevitably feel the need to show-off how well-versed they are in IT and the IT department are apparently perceived as easy pickings. Because, well, we can't possibly be as qualified as an IT teacher, right?
The guy who was going to "teach Scratch" to our Year 7. Who said it as if it was instant-hire-by-Microsoft kind of skill. After I interjected to tell him he'd better check with the head of department first, he questioned why I should be telling him what to teach.
"Well, it's up to you," I said, "But we move on from Scratch in Year 3."
After he then accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about, a well-timed Year 7 child came in to quiz me on some C99 he was coding up to go onto an Arduino to control the self-built, 3D-printed, made-from-components, soldered-circuit-board dronecopter with GPS module that he was in the middle of building in the extracurricular class I was helping to host. I'm sure that kid would have loved to sit through a lesson in Scratch as if it was the pinnacle of programming knowledge.
It was almost as good as when a maths teacher was made to use the playground markings as part of his lesson and was stumped at how to do so. So I suggested a practical demonstration of the Sieve of Erastophenes, using the children as individual numbers and removing multiples-of-factors until you were left with only primes. They looked at me as if I was Rain Man as they'd never heard of the Sieve.
Yes, people. An IT guy can actually get their degree in mathematics and thus understand twice as many subjects areas as you teach.
"Year 7? Is that upper-sixth, or some reference to the 'new money' classifications?"
The "old" system in England of "First Form" etc apparently only applied to secondary schools. It could be ambiguous when some places used 13 as a transition age to secondary schools rather than 11.
In England the "new" numbering system works fairly well - assuming age 5 is a mandatory start point. The term "Sixth Form" still seems to have been retained - particularly for "A" Level studies.
However with various reductions in the age of starting formal education the nomenclature of the younger age groups is less obvious. Interestingly they have avoided ordinals of "0" or negative numbers - which would have been a useful concept for children to absorb.
"Year 7? Is that upper-sixth, or some reference to the 'new money' classifications?"
It's been the standard system in Australia since before I was in school back in the 70s, and still is. Here it's R(Reception) and Years 1 - 7 are primary school, 8 - 13 (used to be 12 or "matriculation" in my day) are high school. In my day the primary school years were called "Grades" as in "Grade 1", "Grade 2" etc, whereas high school it was "Year 8" or "1st Year", "Year 9" or "2nd Year", and so on. I think this last distinction has been discontinued these days, however, so it's just "Year X" now.
Larger R-13 schools often subdivide into Junior, Middle and Senior schools, where R-5 is Junior, 6-9 is Middle, and 10-13 is Senior.