亲爱的安妮：招聘经理是我的第一份工作，但之前我没有任何招聘经验，所以，不知道我问的是不是个愚蠢的问题。一般求职推荐人只会告诉求职者的姓名、职位和工号之类的信息，我该如何从他们那里获取更多有关求职者的信息呢？现在，摆在我面前的有三位求职者，他们的履历和资质都非常优秀，我不知该如何抉择，所以希望推荐人能够帮我。但到目前为止，我打过电话的推荐人都严格遵照公司规定，不肯透露一丁点有用的信息。比如，在平时工作中，求职者的表现如何。我们公司人事部根本帮不上忙（我怀疑，这是因为公司也遵循类似的“无可奉告”原则），而要聘用专业的推荐人核实服务所需的费用根本就不在公司预算范围之内。我该怎么办？您能给我一些建议吗？——HBW

    亲爱的HBW：这可不是什么愚蠢的问题。格雷格•莫兰就认为,“大多数招聘经理犯的最大错误就是满足于向求职者要三个推荐人，然后给这些推荐人打电话，进行一通完全没有意义的谈话。”

    莫兰曾经做过招聘，目前担任Chequed.com公司的董事长兼CEO，他也曾“为核实推荐人而焦头烂额”。Chequed.com位于美国纽约萨拉拖加斯普林斯市，主营业务是向迪斯尼（Disney）等大公司推销软件，帮助他们提高招聘效率。

    他补充说：“核实推荐人是一个很好的机会，但可惜的是，许多招聘人员经常错失良机。所有研究均显示，同侪审查，或者说推荐人核实，如果处理得当，能最准确地预测出求职者在新工作岗位的表现。”但要想从推荐人那里获得最详细的信息，“需要招聘人员拿出侦查员的劲头，不过你的付出终会得到回报。”

    那么，该从哪里开始呢？首先，不要按照惯例，要求求职者提供三位推荐人，而是要求五位推荐人（许多人的第一反应是为什么）。而且，这五位推荐人必须是前任或现任同事、上司或下属，但不能是人力资源部的员工。莫兰称：“招聘经理希望与之交流的，应该是每天与求职者共事的人。”

    下一步，让求职者知道，推荐人核实过程将由他/她来负责。莫兰说道：“招聘方要想获得真实的信息，就必须让求职者参与核实过程。这会产生完全不同的效果。此外，不要冒昧地给不认识的人打电话，可以让求职者先与每位推荐人聊一下正在应聘的工作，然后由他/她安排招聘人员与推荐人的通话。”

    但有人会产生这样的疑问：这么做，不是给了求职者与推荐人“串供”的机会了吗？莫兰解释道：“不论是否有这样的机会，聪明的求职者都会事先与推荐人通气。不过，有求职者的请求做铺垫，招聘人员打电话时，遵守‘无可奉告’原则的推荐人可能会破一次例。”

    按照约定打电话沟通之前，要拿出几分钟时间做点准备。莫兰认为：“电话沟通容易跑题，因此，为了节省时间和避免跑题，要仔细分析求职者要在应聘的工作岗位获得成功需要具备哪些素质和能力，然后有针对性地列出具体的问题。”

    按照上述步骤，招聘人员仍可能遇到一些管理人员，他们除了求职者的职务和聘用日期外拒绝透露其他任何信息。对此，莫兰解释道：“这正是为什么要求求职者提供五位而不是三位推荐人的原因。”他发现，五位推荐人中，平均有两人会恪守成规，“所以，即便有两个人不肯破例回答你的问题，还会有三个人愿意这么做。”

    莫兰还给出了另外两条建议：“要牢记，不要仅仅局限于求职者提供的推荐人。如果招聘人员在商务社交网站LinkedIn或其他地方认识了解求职者的人，同样可以征求他们的意见。此外，在向求职者的前任同事和老板核实情况时，不妨问问他们：‘您能不能推荐其他人跟我交流一下？’多花些时间，深挖一下，会让你对求职者有更全面的了解。”

    除了标准的推荐人核实流程之外，另外一种途径是对求职者进行面试时，询问他认为前任老板会如何评价他。莫兰建议：“浏览求职者的简历，然后对他担任过的每一个岗位，都问：‘你在XYZ公司的上司是谁？’‘如果我向他或她核实，他或她会如何评价你？’招聘人员还可以问：‘你的几位上司中，谁对你的评价会最为冷淡？谁会给你最热情的评价？为什么？’”

    Dear Annie:I'm in my first job as a manager and have never hired anyone before, so I hope this isn't a dumb question. How can I get references to tell me more than the corporate equivalent of name, rank, and serial number? I'm looking at three candidates whose credentials and experience are all equally impressive, so I was hoping that references would serve as a tie-breaker. But everyone I've called so far has been very correct and conscientious about observing their companies' policies against commenting on anything useful -- such as, for example, what the candidate is like to work with on a daily basis.

    Our HR department is no help (I suspect because our company has the same kind of no-comment policy), and hiring a professional reference-checking service isn't in the budget. Any suggestions about how to deal with this? —Hitting a Brick Wall

    Dear HBW:It's not a dumb question at all. "The biggest mistake most hiring managers make is asking a candidate for three references, and then calling those three people and having totally meaningless conversations," says Greg Moran.

    A former recruiter who "got very frustrated trying to check references," he says, Moran is now president and CEO of Chequed.com, a company based in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., that markets software aimed at making the process more efficient for big clients like Disney (DIS).

    "Reference checking is often a missed opportunity, which is too bad," he adds, "because all the research shows that peer reviews -- which is what references are, when they're handled right -- are the single best predictor of how a candidate will perform in a new job." Getting the most out of checking them "requires you to become a bit of an investigator, but it is worth the effort."

    Where do you start? First, instead of asking for the usual three references, ask for five (more in a minute about why). At the same time, request that all five be former or current peers, bosses, or subordinates, not human resources staffers. "You want to speak with people who worked with this person on a day-to-day basis," Moran says.

    Then, let the candidate know that he or she is going to be in charge of the checking process. "If you want real information, the candidate has to get involved," says Moran. "It creates a whole different dynamic. Instead of your calling someone you don't know out of the blue, ask the candidate to call each reference, talk a little about the job she's trying to get, and set up an appointment for you to call."

    Doesn't this give the candidate a chance to coach references about what to tell you? "Any smart candidate is going to do that anyway," Moran notes. "But having the candidate pave the way, by essentially asking for a favor, increases the odds that the person you're calling will make an exception to the no-comment policy."

    Next, before each appointment, take a few minutes to prepare. "Phone conversations can get very unfocused and meandering. So, to save time and stay on track, analyze exactly what traits and skills will lead to success in this job," Moran advises. "Write a short list of specific questions that pinpoint those things."

    You may still run into some managers who balk at revealing more than titles and dates. "That's why you ask for five instead of three," Moran explains. On average, he has found, two out of five references are policy sticklers -- "so even if two won't make an exception and answer your questions, you'll still have three who do."

    Two other suggestions you might find helpful: "Bear in mind that you aren't necessarily limited to the references a candidate gives you," Moran points out. "If you know people on LinkedIn or elsewhere who also know this person, you can certainly ask them about him or her. Also, when you do reach former colleagues and bosses, ask them, 'Is there anyone else you'd recommend I speak with?' Taking a little extra time to dig around a bit can give you a really well-rounded picture."

    Another way around the standard pro forma reference check is to ask the candidate in an interview what he thinks former bosses would say about him. "Go through the person's resume and, for each position, ask, 'Whom did you report to at XYZ Corp.? What is he or she likely to tell me about you if I ask?'" says Moran. "You might also ask, 'Out of all these people you reported to, who would give you the least enthusiastic review? What about the most enthusiastic? Why?'"