REFEREE

The line blurs: where does the authenticity of a relationship end and the availability of a reference begin? 

In today's world, it seems like there's no longer room to just be. It is insufficient just to be a good scientist, a talented writer, a gifted painter. It is easy to go unnoticed, starve, and even get rejected in this noisy world if you do not have a LinkedIn or Instagram account to back up your existence, if you do not actively delegate someone in your life to gush about your goodness. 

Not so long ago, I read an online interview of a famous author (I forgot which) who unapologetically stated that one doesn't always need to write a good book. It takes excellent marketing. I remember reading Robert Kiyosaki say something similar in his timeless masterpiece Rich Dad, Poor Dad—on the power of selling, rather than producing a good work itself. 

When you do not explicitly state a social media account on your applications, you find "You appeared in xx searches this week." on LinkedIn—on an unlisted profile at that. It must be highlighted that not everyone on this planet has a unanimous desire to SELL oneself, whether personally bragging or getting someone else to do the job in the form of a REFERENCE/RECOMMENDATION.

It is not enough that you've aced an interview, that you've passed several challenging tests. The horror of the red asterisks beside the "REFEREE" section denoting a mandatory field on the application form—when you do finally get there. 

Why was I nice to a colleagure or a friend? Had I been planning all of these? Why have I chosen to keep them in my life although social interactions, maintaining a relationship take effort?

I am overthinking, I know. 99% of humankind will mercilessly agree. Also, this 99% would likely not refuse if only I would thicken my skin and ASK. 

However, for people who are socially-anxious, it requires working up TONS of courage just asking someone regardless of the outcome. My palms get clammy and I feel my gut clench just thinking about it. I've gone through this once for academic references recently. It sucked. Drafting the emails took hours which could've been better spent on more constructive activities. 

I googled templates, read Quora about how to approach this matter (despite having requested references in the past—the distaste never gets old), finding out if others feel equally ashamed or if there is something wrong with me etc. etc. pre-send anxieties. Post-send: being extremely apologetic for putting my dear professors through this excruciating process, despite all those trying to convince me that they'd likely be used to it.

Of course, the professors were really sweet to write me glowing, personalised LORs. Out of curiosity, I glanced through the letters and cringed so badly. Never looked at them again. 

Is it not sufficient that employees have to be subject to 3 to 6 months of probation? I understand the time and costs tied to re-hiring. Yet, what are the worst case scenarios that REFERENCES would have significantly avoided?—that I turn out to be a murderer whom my ex-colleagues somehow knew to have put the spouse's body in the basement? 

That's an extreme, yes. Employers can defend reasons like gauging an applicant's work ethics/style, deciding how best to manage/interact with said person etc. These are valid reasons.

Yet, humans as we are, is there anything that is completely objective, anyway? Is a reference truthful? Can a referee potentially sabotage a worthy applicant? What is the actual relationship under that declared in the form?

The fact that applicants, at least the more sociable ones, can strategically (and to a certain extent, shamelessly) pick and choose whom they'd want to use, simply makes it easier for this group. On the other hand, for those who have a smaller pool of reference candidates to choose from, no matter their competence or values, it is likely that they'd be at a greater disadvantage. 

I'm not even going to mention all the other layers of variables that distance this "REFEREE" process from meritocracy. Drawing example from many good people with examplary work ethics, I can safely say that they might not all be people whom others would vouch for or sing praises of. Or rather, they are not likely to be people who have a ready crowd that would put them on the pedestal.   

Despite all the justifications, I find that the system of compulsory references lacks depth. It is at most a superficial administrative process that creates an additional field in forms in a world obssessed with bureaucratic procedures. At worst, it deprives certain groups (competence aside) of the desire to pursue certain positions; it excludes certain groups from being properly considered. In turn, it is a potential loss for both the employer and the individual. 

Not that I am so conceited to think that I'm talented, competent, and absolutely deserving of a position with only the "REFEREE" section holding me back. I'm only saying that this section is an additional unbalanced barrier to an otherwise objective process. 

Even if I'm in the fortunate position to have people to validate my existence—which I probably am if I weren't so tight-lipped, I would be devastated to know that a more worthy person was eliminated because s/he did not have such a privilege (because in reality, the world is indeed getting lonelier).

Now, I've filled up the rest of the form for a prestigious job for which I am so happy to be shortlisted and having passed the interview. Only the "REFEREE" section remains empty with the "SUBMIT" button greyed out. *sweating at the sight of it*