Rejected after references checked, background checked and psych evaluation.

[cdnavater]

- I'm guessing that's the case at most companies these days.

Sure hope so!

[digits_]

- I'm guessing that's the case at most companies these days.

Sure hope so!

Careful what you wish for. A future where employers hire based on applicants ideologies determined by 15 year old Facebook posts will get dystopian really quickly....

[flying4dollars]

I see one thing that hasn't been mentioned is Social Media.

Don't think for one moment a company doesn't put a candidates name into a search engine as part of their screening procedures.

Don't put anything on your Social Media that can get you into trouble - just ask Mostafa Ezzo!

I've been called by my employer and asked to remove what I thought were innocuous photos.

My employer had people actively monitoring Social Media - I'm guessing that's the case at most companies these days.

Actually this is a very good point. I wonder how many people have been PFO'd and wondered why while having a very concerning online footprint that they are oblivious to. Now I'm not saying that's the case with the OP and again it could have come down to an inconsistent reference check or simply outclassed by every other applicant in their group. But the online footprint does bring up a very valid and great point.

[Moosethedog]

Actually this is a very good point. I wonder how many people have been PFO'd and wondered why...
[/quote]

what is the HR reasoning of not telling you why? You came up short here...blah blah? the psych eval says you are a sociopath...blah blah what is the science behind this...?

[digits_]

what is the HR reasoning of not telling you why? You came up short here...blah blah? the psych eval says you are a sociopath...blah blah what is the science behind this...?

To prevent discussions and/or lawsuits.

[jpilot77]

I don’t think it was social media or one of his references bad mouthing him due to the fact that he was invited to reapply in 6 months. If it was the social media or a bad reference they would have just rejected him outright. It’s just a case of not being as competitive experience wise as compared to the other applicants at the time.

[Canoehead]

I'm not sure people realize this, but reference checks at this level aren't just a simple "is Billy-Bob a good guy"? question.

There are questions that come with a reference check that put the reference on the spot answering questions like "what is their weakness in a particular situation?" or "how could they improve in a particular situation?"
"Have they ever had a conflict with someone in the XXXX department?"
There are a lot of scenarios that most don't imagine.

Getting to the Ref Check is not always a "home run". I've answered dozens of reference checks over the years and even with the greatest employees, I've had to address their weaknesses. I'm just honest, but if a particular company is asking about something that is high on their particular radar at the time, and I answer honestly, it's possible that the company isn't interested based on what I say, even if they are a good employee (in my opinion).

People also use reference names that they shouldn't. For example, they will put an name down to "impress", but they have no idea of the standing of that name with the company. I have seen names used as references that have been terminated by the company, or that are not high end performers. Sick time through the roof, failures every second training event, etc. WTF?

If you are going to use names as internal references, be damned sure of their standing with the company. My god.

A reference check is not a guarantee that the job is yours. I've said this a few times. There is a lot that goes in to offering a position to an applicant. And things are slowing down...

Figure it out.