<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clever Reference Checks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.serviceuntitled.com/clever-reference-checks/2009/06/30/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.serviceuntitled.com/clever-reference-checks/2009/06/30/</link>
	<description>The blog about customer service and the customer service experience.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:35:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Soft Skills -Clever Reference Checks &#124; Adam Palfrey</title>
		<link>http://www.serviceuntitled.com/clever-reference-checks/2009/06/30/comment-page-1/#comment-1079421</link>
		<dc:creator>Soft Skills -Clever Reference Checks &#124; Adam Palfrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 00:37:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.serviceuntitled.com/?p=1118#comment-1079421</guid>
		<description>[...]   [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]   [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BP</title>
		<link>http://www.serviceuntitled.com/clever-reference-checks/2009/06/30/comment-page-1/#comment-1022815</link>
		<dc:creator>BP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.serviceuntitled.com/?p=1118#comment-1022815</guid>
		<description>Did you read the comments left on that Ben Casnocha post? Some good concerns are raised.

Most notably, this method is incompatible with many large companies&#039; policy of merely confirming a past employee&#039;s service, and not speaking at all to their quality. This is done to avoid claims that past a employer has sabotaged a worker&#039;s attempts at landing a new job. So rather than say anything potentially harmful (or failing to say something sufficiently favorable), they say nothing. 

Inasmuch as a return call or lack of one is either way presumed to offer insights a previous company might be unwilling to provide, this referral-check technique can&#039;t be deemed reliable -- to say nothing of other factors (laziness, business, forgetfulness, etc.) that could prevent a person from calling back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you read the comments left on that Ben Casnocha post? Some good concerns are raised.</p>
<p>Most notably, this method is incompatible with many large companies&#8217; policy of merely confirming a past employee&#8217;s service, and not speaking at all to their quality. This is done to avoid claims that past a employer has sabotaged a worker&#8217;s attempts at landing a new job. So rather than say anything potentially harmful (or failing to say something sufficiently favorable), they say nothing. </p>
<p>Inasmuch as a return call or lack of one is either way presumed to offer insights a previous company might be unwilling to provide, this referral-check technique can&#8217;t be deemed reliable &#8212; to say nothing of other factors (laziness, business, forgetfulness, etc.) that could prevent a person from calling back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

