Should you list your references on a resume?

In a previous lifetime I was a headhunter. I considered references the final step after a contingency offer has been negotiated. If you intend to hire my candidate on terms that he/she will enthusiastically accept, then we can let you into his/her network. If you don't intend to hire on favorable terms, the references are a waste of everyone's time.

Nobody gives bad references, so acting like it's part of defining the fit is silly. What references are very valuable for, though, is for the hiring executive to solicit an informed opinion about how best to use the new hire's talents so the company gets the most out of the new hire, and the new hire gets the most out of the opportunity. Such intelligence can allow a sharp manager to accelerate new-hire assimilation, productivity and "belonging."

A sales headhunter friend used candidate references a bit differently on the front end of the representation, while determining whether or not to represent vigorously. She'd call the client references and, without identifying the candidate, ask, "Who is the best salesperson to call on you?" If this is your reference, your name had better come up.

If I had seen this question yesterday, I would have answered "no"; however, today I received a resume with a reference letter, and chose to call the referring manager. It was an outstanding conversation, and I immediately sent the applicant's resume on to the hiring manager.

Typically, however, I would not contact referrals this early in the process, it's just that the referral letter was compelling.

There is an old saying that we are never better than our resume. I prefer to believe that this means people should put forth their best presentation made up of truthful information. That being said then yes, do offer references because the right information on a reference letter might be the difference between being asking in for an interview and never hearing from the company.

Include references! Disagree completely with those who argue otherwise, because: (a) a reference is a self-endorsing advertorial opportunity whose mere identity may bump your resume up in the que for final consideration; (b) it displays the level of endorser willing to testify to your excellence; (c) it can provide an opportunity to counterbalance any negative feedback likely to come from a former employer and could place a spotlight on some talents not otherwise clearly visible in your resume; and (d) it can provide trigger feedback to you to indicate which potential employer is most interested in you, which may be imperative if you face multiple offers.

If you had a nasty separation experience from a prior employer and can cite Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to tout your candidacy and to explain why you are better than your short resume indicates, while you juggle numerous simultaneous offers, why not do it? Choosing references wisely will deepen recruiter understanding of your abilities and potentials and can dramatically enhance your chances for selection. I fail to see any downside risk worth abandoning the many positives.

I would not provide reference information on the resume, however because I am a business owner and marketing comes innately, I would probably incorporate a branding statement on my resume and quote (with permission)from a client or former leader, something great they said about me that makes me a great fit for the job or position that I am applying. Also I would incorportate within my cover letter quotes, tid-bits, performance appraisal/evaluation stats what clients and former leaders have stated about my abilities.

Tonya's suggestions sounds suspiciously like "providing refererence information." Agree that if you got it, flaunt it.

Resume screening is inherently heuristic. Negative inferences dominate the selection process. Those who fail to show off proofs confirming their expertise are assumed to possess none. The nod will go to those who give the most evidence of qualification. Offering self-endorsing puff praise quotes and super-star award recognitions with promises to supply supporting detail upon request may be simpler than attaching glowing endorsements letters from Andy Rooney and Oprah; but merely dropping such names in your list of fans willing to provide references may be enough.

Why hide your light under a bushel basket?

As a job search coach and an executive recruiter, I agree with those who say that you should definitely not provide references with your resume. Current convention is to avoid putting “References available upon request,” however, because it is stating the obvious, and therefore a waste of valuable space. There are many reasons for not including references, including:
. Some people consider it rude for you not to give them advance warning.
. You want to prep your references before someone calls them, to give them time to think, and to focus what they say about you, depending on the specific position you are applying for.
. A practice that I consider to be unethical, but that I know some recruiters engage in, is to call someone’s references purporting to be getting a reference, when in actuality, they are merely using this as a ruse to have a conversation with the reference, who might otherwise refuse to take their call. In other words, they use the opportunity to solicit their business, with no interest in hiring you.

I teach clients how to create a testimonials page to attach to their resume and to put their LinkedIn address at the top of their resumes (if they have great Recommendations). This allows them to present immediate social proof of performance, character traits, and contacts and dramatically increases response rates. Job seekers have to realize, however, that there is a huge range in the quality of best practices among recruiters. Some care only about speed and others about quality. Your job search strategy must consider who you are and who you are trying to sell to. Are you one of thousands, or one-of-a-kind?

I’m surprised that Mike never bumped into a bad reference in his previous life as a head hunter. It may be counter intuitive, but people often give poor references to a job candidate. Sometimes, they actually say things such as, “He really rubbed people the wrong way.” Other times, they damn with faint praise. In some industries, sad to say, they don’t like to admit they lost an outstanding contributor to their team. Personal references, often assumed to be a waste of time, can be particularly revealing, because they are not professionals and are often unguarded in what they say. An experienced interviewer can trick them into revealing very valuable information.

No. For the reasons mentioned by Jim.

I also agree with Jim. However, another reason that I always used the statement "References will be provided upon request." is that I had a number of references. I had three different reference sheets to choose from when a potential employer asked for references. I gave them the sheet of references that I felt fit that position the best or maybe fit the personality of the employer.

Well based on my experience I would say that a reference is not really needed in a resume. It's not like the olden times where you can just call the reference of the applicant, people are busy now a days and don't have enough time in the day to do such effort.

I'm fully aligned with Jim & Tim - if you have an excellent reference letter, attach it with the resume. Nowadays, we apply online and via email. There are hundreds of candidates applying. As stated by Jessica, people don't have time. Save their time, make yourself stand out if you have a great reference letter- attach it from the start of the process. If you don't, let them know you will provide upon request.

The world has changed. It has gone digital.

The answer lies in a deeper look at the culture of the company.

What matters to the company hiring the individual is important. There is still a significant difference between many businesses as they may be "old school" or "tech/Internet savvy".

The goal is to get the interview, have a contact, raise and eyebrow. If the resume does not give opportunity to get it done but the references will? Include the references. If the references become a distraction, then don't include them.

If someone "Google's" the candidate, there is already a "public presence" which will give a positive spin ... or not. Since there so many online tools where people can make recommendations, give referrals or testimonials, then references on the resume may not be necessary.

If you put four references on your resume, I will assume you are not an idiot and put the names and contact information of people who might be critical. That means someone has a fan club and they have names.

Summed up: There are many methods now to look deeper vs. calling a name you volunteered on a resume which we know will give a positive shout out. If they offer value, include them. If they don't offer value, wait until they are asked for and then serve them up on a silver platter.

I agree with Michael that the world has moved on from simply providing reference letters or referee contacts. I also agree with Jim that the process is necessarily a negative one. As a recruiter if the information isn't provided we have to assume it doesn't exist as there are many candidates and we can't waste time phoning to see whether they have certain qualification or are willing to provide referees. It can also be sloppy during the interview process to ask for referees and then wait while the candidate sifts through their mobile phone contacts (most don't think to prepare a list up front).

Given differing levels of take-up of technology I think the best option at this stage is to add referee contacts to the resume and also add a LinkedIn or other network site link where people can see more information and other reference sources. It is also a good idea to ensure your Googled public presence conveys the right image.

Satrina: we usually use the term "reference" for a person who will give a (presumably) favorable report about an applicant, while reserving the term "referee" for a neutral offical who enforces the rules of a sports competition. You are technically correct, of course, that "referee" does literally identify a person to whom one is referred, but that alternate dictionary meaning is very rarely used in the employment arena and would confuse the normal HR person who would never use that term to express that meaning. Most vocabularies limit the term “referee” to be synonymous with "umpire.”