Reference Letters Are Revealing, Despite Fluff

Newswise — Letters of recommendation are standard for job applications, but are they really useful? They are if you know how to read them, says a Radford University expert on LOR's.

Nearly 80 percent of employers use reference letters as part of their hiring decisions, according to a study by the Society for Human Research Management.Yet, research conducted by Dr. Mike Aamodt, a Radford University industrial-organizational psychologist, suggests they don't predict performance nor do they agree with one another.

In fact, HR people who evaluate reference letters sometimes become a bit jaded, because seldom do they see a negative report. "You have to assume they will be positive. Applicants are not going to ask someone to recommend them unless it is going to be positive," he says.

Of nearly 6,800 different reference ratings in his study, 96 percent rated the candidates above average. "It's like Lake Wobegon, where Garrison Keillor says that all children are above average," says Aamodt.

"Nevertheless," he adds, "reference letters can provide valuable insight about a candidate if read correctly. The benefit is they reveal different perspectives about the person that can be quite helpful and aren't seen on the application."

Aamodt will be presenting his findings at a symposium dealing with various issues related to reference letters at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology April 15-17 in Los Angeles.

The key to deciphering what is being said about a candidate is to break down the content of the letter and study the words used to describe the person. If a person applying for an accounting position is called "accurate," "detailed" and "careful," then those are positive indications about the person's suitability for certain jobs. On the other hand, referring to the person as "creative," or "works fast," may send a completely different message.

People reading reference letters should look for patterns in the descriptors. "Our research shows that two people writing letters for the same person are not going to use the same descriptors unless there is an obviously strong trait about the subject."

"One letter," notes Aamodt, "may say a person is conscientious and reliable, but no other letters mention those characteristics. Does that raise a red flag? It should."

He cautions, though, about reading too much into letters of recommendation unless there is a consistency to them. "If, for example, a letter does not mention anything about the person's personality or intelligence, traits that may be important to the job, don't be too concerned. Perhaps the letter writer typically does not include personality or intelligence assessments in his or her recommendations, instead preferring to concentrate on other traits."

However, if none of the reference letters mention the subject's personality or intelligence, then you should dig a bit deeper. "That," advises Aamodt, "is when you should pick up the phone and call the writer. You would be doing a disservice to the applicant if you didn't."

In his research, Aamodt used a "trait" method, which looks at basic personality or characteristic categories. By highlighting each trait mentioned in a reference letter and assigning it to a category, such as "conscientiousness," "openness" and "vigor," the person or persons reviewing the letter can begin to make some perceptions about the candidate's reliability and suitability for the position.

For example, consistently used descriptors like "outgoing," "talkative" and "friendly" indicate the applicant has the personality traits of an extrovert, which might be more suitable for some jobs but not for others.

"If you are trying to build a team, look for words like "agreeable" and "gets along with others," or "can express ideas in an understandable manner," he points out.

If, after carefully going through several of a candidate's reference letters, a particular pattern emerges, then the reader can, with confidence, accurately describe the person, Aamodt maintains.

Sometimes, though, reference letters can reveal more about the applicant by what is not said rather than what is said. For example, a letter describing the attributes of the person in general rather than specific terms, could signal that the writer was being cautious and hesitant to inflate the applicant's skills.

Also, Aamodt says long reference letters do not necessarily mean the candidate is exceptional. "Some previous research indicates that people reading long letters perceived the letter writer had a lot of good things to say and really like the applicant, but our findings suggest that length is actually more a function of the writer's style than it is an indication of an attitude toward the applicant," he says.

Reference letters sometimes present a dilemma for the writer. In trying to provide an honest assessment of the candidate, the writer may have some negative comments. "A reference concerned about his or her credibility does not want to be seen as always writing glowing recommendations that are perceived as exaggerating the candidate's qualifications," Aamodt says.

So the writer may include some critical comments. "While evaluators more often see letters that are totally positive, they should not discard an application because it has some references that are less than positive. Again, that may be the letter writer's style and it should be checked against other letters."

Aamodt says that if he writes a letter containing criticism he shows it to the person requesting the recommendation. "This is my honest evaluation. I won't send it without your approval," he tells the person.

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) is an international group of 6,000 industrial-organizational psychologists whose members study and apply scientific principles concerning people in the workplace. For more information about SIOP, including Media Resources, which lists nearly 2,000 experts in more than 100 topic areas, visit http://www.siop.org

From April 15-17, SIOP will be holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles, CA. More than 3,000 top workplace scientists and practitioners will attend and make some 800 presentations on emerging trends, developments and the way people function in the workplace.