Is Back Channeling Ethical?

[00:00:00]

Krissy Manzano: All right. Happy Friday everybody. Or Friday for us when this is produced. may not be Friday, but maybe it will be. You never know. But welcome to the Blueprint Roundtable. You not myself, Krissy Manzano, Chuck Brotman, and Emily Bell. We are gonna talk about a question, potentially debate around is unethical to back channel candidates that you’re looking to hire, right?

Krissy Manzano: So, for the, you conversation. I’ll let one of you all kick it off on your thoughts and let’s go around, around the table to share what we think about this.

Chuck Brotman: I can go first, Emily. That all right?

Emily Bell: Yeah. Go for it.

Chuck Brotman: It’s an interesting question. I know I’ve shared with you all in the past. I think in general, if we’re talking about individual contributor roles, I do think it’s unethical and also unnecessary in most cases. Unethical because at a fundamental level, and I think particularly in a market like what we’re seeing today, that is becoming, in some ways more of a company market.

Chuck Brotman: It’s making an assumption that one can take on that, that a candidate is willing to take on some of the risk in a job search because at a fundamental level, if you are contacting potential references without getting upfront permission from a candidate, or you’re making assumptions that the activities you undertaking don’t put their current job or work at risk, and I think anytime you do that, without communication, it’s unethical. Now, there’s certainly ways that could be done that mitigate the risk to a candidate. You know, perhaps by telling applicants upfront that back channeling is a part of your process. So they know going into it that anybody in their network potentially could be contacted, but assuming that’s not done. That’s the problem I have with it. I also think, and maybe we can discuss later if interested, but I think most often it, it’s also not required in so far as if you feel like there’s specific people you need to contact in a candidate’s network, ask them up front for permission to have that conversation.

Chuck Brotman: And if they’re not willing to grant that, you can dig deeper there. But have that conversation. So that’s my general point of view on this. Emily, what are your thoughts?

Emily Bell: Yeah, I would agree. Transparency is everything on that, right? Like I think that I mean personal example, I was engaged by someone kind of going in that approach and was asking me about an individual that I hadn’t worked with in probably eight, nine years. And while it was a positive experience, I have no idea what the current landscape for that individual’s, know, work looks like. So I probably wouldn’t be the best reference or most accurate because there could be things going on there that I’m not aware of. Cause it’s been so much time. So I think that, yeah, I think a lot of cases it’s not needed. And I think as long as there’s transparency and you’re looking into, you know, folks at that would be relevant to their current state of work is really important if you are going to do it. But I think having transparency with the candidate, letting them know cause it’s in this scenario, I actually reached out to that individual and let them know that I’d been asked about it cause it, it just felt odd to, you know, be a point of yes or no in a potential job opportunity when it had been so long since we had even spoken.

Emily Bell: So, you know, out of professional courtesy, had kind of let them know that was, you know, as I was engaged. And so, Ended up being okay with it and thanked me for, you know, positive feedback. But it was just, it felt a little weird and, you know, I think just making sure that it’s relevant to their current work and skills and behaviors that you’re assessing for is key if you’re gonna do it.

Chuck Brotman: Yep.

Krissy Manzano: Yeah. I mean, no I agree with overall’s points. I think for me it’s less about it being unethical and more about, it’s just not a good practice. When I think about things from an outcome perspective, and I’m very big, like what is the outcome that you’re trying to get to? Right? And if you have an interview process and how you interview and you do all these things, why do you need to back channel in order to validate all of the work that you just did? If you’re having to do that one, it’s like what’s the point of you having a process if you don’t believe in it? Two, there’s just so much ambiguity and so much messiness that comes. It’s not as straightforward, like, Oh, someone knows them now. They’re gonna give me the real insight cuz they’re my friend.

Krissy Manzano: Well, that’s just incorrect and it’s an incorrect assumption. You don’t know what, how that person worked with them, in what capacity, If they have biases against them unconsciously or consciously, you don’t know, like they could actually be giving you advice. Oh yeah, they were great. They were wonderful.

Krissy Manzano: Like they always hit their number and what you don’t realize is like they hardly ever worked with them. They were the side, they were a cancer to your team and they had a territory that was just easy as all get out and was worked right, and everyone else did. And like there’s a lot of complexity there.

Krissy Manzano: And so if you’ve gone through that whole like process to discover those things, it actually will. I think people just don’t believe in hiring process. Right? That’s like. That’s what we’re really getting into is they’re like, I would have a process. It’s important, but at the end of the day, I really don’t think that’s a good way to like really know who you’re talking to.

Krissy Manzano: And again, like you just, you know, I think we’ve seen like a few times and we’ve all done probably back channeling. I mean, I know as a hire manager, like I think I’ve done it once or twice, and so I’m not sitting here, you know, like I’m preaching to the choir to some extent. Right. But like, I’ve definitely done it and it just wasn’t, know, I think I understand the intent behind wanting to do it, but I don’t think that is the best way to get your outcome.

Krissy Manzano: You know, maybe for leadership role, you can dig in, but you’ve gotta really, like, that’s really, it’s a reference check, right? Like, or if you’re gonna do that, Hey, I know someone, I’m gonna talk to them, right? I think that’s way to do it if you feel really confident about it versus, you know, doing it behind the scenes in a sneaky way.

Krissy Manzano: Like you’re gonna get insight that just, that’s not the best approach for multiple reasons and it’s not really gonna, actually, I actually have never seen that help people in the way that they think it does.

Krissy Manzano: So, 

Chuck Brotman: Yeah, I mean, I, since you mentioned I’ve done it many times as a hiring and I’m, yeah, I’ve back channeled others. It’s . I dunno if it’s to you 

Krissy Manzano: Uh, yeah. Actually, here’s where the truth comes in. Did you do that to me

Chuck Brotman: Yeah. 

Krissy Manzano: me when you were hiring 

Chuck Brotman: I, and 

Krissy Manzano: me

Chuck Brotman: I’ve I’ve shared, I mean I’ve shared this, I’ve shared this I think on LinkedIn previously.

Chuck Brotman: It’s something I’ve revisited and I mean, I certainly understand why hiring leaders do it, and particularly in a market like today. I mean, the thought process goes like something as false. I want this is a really critical hire. We do have a hiring process. We feel like it’s well designed, but it behooves me to leverage my network to get the unvarnished truth before I make a hire in a competitive market.

Chuck Brotman: So I, I understand that logic, but to your point I think people often overestimate the insights and values of their network. Right? But even regardless, the other thing too is, I mean, to me there really is a risk and fairness aspect to it. You know, you are making an assumption that your activities will not come back and adversely impact somebody else.

Chuck Brotman: And that’s just not, the more I reflect on that’s not my prerogative or anyone’s to make. I, again, with the exception, if you disclose that upfront or I suppose in leadership hiring, it’s kind of table stakes, right? When you’re interviewing for leadership roles, you need to go into that process with the expectation that you will be researched.

Chuck Brotman: Although I suppose one could argue even there it’s maybe a questionable practice. I think it’s gonna be hard to see that changing, but certainly for IC roles. And I also think too, and we can talk about diversity and inclusion, but you know, here again, if you’ve got a, if you’ve got an authentic commitment to building diverse teams and opening up opportunity to people from all walks of life, including those who you know, historically don’t benefit from prepackaged relationships.

Chuck Brotman: You have to call this into question. And this is where, you know, I feel like DEI people often fall short of their stated objectives of really promoting, you know, equitable hiring. If you really, if you’re really an advocate for that and for the spirit of DEI you have to take issue with this practice.

Chuck Brotman: And I’m sure many do. But ultimately it’s about acknowledging that the folks who generally speaking will do best under the scrutiny of the back channel or those who historically have more privilege and benefit than others. So that’s my point of view on it. The more I thought.

Krissy Manzano: That’s actually a great point I’m thinking of some people in general that we inherited at other companies that were back channeled by VC to VCs and the VCs were like, These are excellent.

Krissy Manzano: And they were nightmare employees. Nightmare employees. Like I couldn’t write on paper a worse employee than what was contributed. But these VCs said they’re great cuz they play golf with their employer or their dad. And that is the reality of like actually really when back channeling happens, it’s coming from that avenue.

Krissy Manzano: Right? And that goes to diversity, it goes to a lot of different things,

Chuck Brotman: If you want an example of the persona of somebody who benefits immensely from back channel, I’ll paint a picture of the mediocre, underachieving, mischievous offspring of a well-connected VC in Silicon Valley. Right. Didn’t do well in college, struggles to hold on a job, but has parents who are very well connected.

Chuck Brotman: That is precisely the individual who will benefit from back channel and from the relationships to help them get access to opportunity to set them straight and give them more opportunity. And if you don’t come from that social economic background and you have, you know, anything comparably similar, you’re never finding a job, right?

Chuck Brotman: It’s grossly unfair. So,

Emily Bell: It’s unfair too that the subjectivity of that would be introduced to it. You know, it could go either way so quickly that it, I don’t think it’s a stable way of truly assessing a candidate’s fit for your organization. We’ve all worked in environments that are drastically different from one another, that some you thrive in, that some of you don’t, some are toxic. And that’s why and they might not be toxic for all individuals there. So the perception of what was happening that wasn’t working would be different across various people, all within the same organization and it’s just ripe for unconscious bias. And I think if you’re gonna do it, transparency is key.

Emily Bell: So you could potentially get added context from your candidate on what they might encounter if you are deadset on doing it. I think that’s the only fair way to at least have a benchmark of what you might hear versus what your perception of the candidate might be.

Chuck Brotman: Right. I put it on your job description and open that when you have your initial conversations, share with candidates that back channeling is a part of our process. If you have any concerns up front before we go forward, I wanna give you an opportunity to share.

Krissy Manzano: Yeah. Right, 

Emily Bell: I think that’s the only way to about it. 

Krissy Manzano: It can, it can literally, like, you can be on the, Just going back to something that you were saying, Chuck, for like people benefiting, it can sway you into a hire, for someone that you were on the fence about that is you should be on the fence off them. And in fact, did a couple 

Krissy Manzano: more interviews, 

Chuck Brotman: fence or them. Right. Exactly.

Krissy Manzano: Holy shit. Good thing you didn’t hire that person. Right. But now you just talked to Mr. Investor who said, Oh, they’re great. They’re great. Wonderful kid, wonderful family, solid background. And it’s like, yeah, you’re forgetting. You’re forgetting the part of like absolute asshole who literally will come in and terrorize their team. But they haven’t experienced that.

Krissy Manzano: Right. So, but also on the other side, what I would say is we all have been, I think, great employees at the organizations that we’ve worked at and led at, and even today, right? Have we ever been in an environment where someone has not liked us, whether it was a leader or a peer? Yes. No one has been in an environment where that hasn’t happened, right?

Krissy Manzano: And so, whether it’s you were on the wrong side or the right side, everyone has an exposure. And that part that doesn’t like you, that could actually not be a great person, is not perceived a bad person to someone else. That might be their connection. And so if you go on backchanneling someone from one person that didn’t like them, would they have a [00:13:20] outstanding reputation?

Krissy Manzano: Cuz that’s very possible that could happen. Now you’re getting in for someone that like actually has a totally different view of who person is, may not have the best intentions, but you’ve never seen that person that you’re talking to. Like treat someone in a way that would get a different reaction, right?

Krissy Manzano: So there’s just, what sound good on paper a lot of times, You know, we have to just be more open to realizing that’s just not how life always works, right? And we have to be willing to evolve. I think. We do think when we’re really comfortable, cuz that’s how it always has been. Right. But evolving is a part of being a human being, right?

Krissy Manzano: I mean, what you cared about at five years old, very different probably than what you care about today. And that’s not a bad thing. Like you grow and you learn and it’s not to shame people who have done it and we’ve all done it for. It’s to say, Is this really the most effective way to get my outcome? And there are a lot of actual nuances and challenges here that really aren’t setting me up to be successful.

Krissy Manzano: That could actually cause more harm than good. Right? I think the answer to that is this does cause more harm and good, especially if you’re not being transparent about it. Right. If you’re being transparent. Okay. Like at least, cuz again, you wanna make sure that you have context for both sides. Right. I think benefiting of people who you can be swayed by them saying yes when they have, they’ve never worked with that person in that capacity and they have no idea.

Krissy Manzano: And you need to make sure your process is what really irons that out, not what, you know, someone else in Silicon Valley says. But

Chuck Brotman: Agree.

Emily Bell: Yeah.

Krissy Manzano: Great points, you all. Great points. Great conversation. That’s all the time we have for now, but until next time. You know, we’ll keep we’ll keep at it with helping people not back channel as much or thinking differently about how you back channel so

Chuck Brotman: Well said. Bye everyone.​