Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
If that conversation took place, it most likely went something like this:
BT: "Hello, Rod Brind'Amour. You worked under Bill in his time in Carolina. Are the rumours I have heard about him true?"
RB: "Hi, Brad. Yeah, Bill's a hard-nosed coach who sometimes pushes boundaries, but when players and management made him aware of the problem he backed right off."
BT: "What sort of issues?"
RB: "I'd rather not get into it. We dealt with it internally, and everything has been fine since."
I suspect that this is a likely approximation for how vetting is conducted in the NHL. Hopefully, this changes.
|
This would not surprise me in the least. There have been rather a few cases of references being given that were honest...but the person who was being reviewed took umbrage at how they were described (I'd assume that in each case they didn't get the job they were seeking) and tried some form of legal action against the person/company providing the reference.
The safest action is to "damn with faint praise" much like you've described:
"He/she was an adequate employee. We decided ultimately that the fit was a bit off, and we wanted to move in a somewhat different direction."
Unless there are Court decisions that essentially absolve reviewers of their negative comments (I guess one will never be able to say..."Well the guy was terrible at his job and insulted everyone...") it's unlikely to change. This is not confined to sports. It exists in ALL business referrals.