Recently, I’ve had the privilege of writing a recommendation of a colleague for a new position. This situation led me to think about what I actually know about my colleagues. I learned a new term from Dr. Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow” (2011) which is WYSIATI, or “what you see is all there is.” Given that reality, people have to work hard to exercise due diligence to learn everything that they do not know to understand what the state of the world is. So in asking, What do you actually know about the person?, I realize that there are clear limits in terms of how much I can assert about a person based on the knowledge base that I have of the individual.

A Request

In terms of requesting recommendations, I have had students who are just superb not ask for recommendation letters. Others will ask who may have achieved a middling grade. For students, I tend to be much more liberal and generous with writing letters of recommendation. I only see them in one context—of my class—and with the proper limitations of assertions, I can pretty much just say what I know.

Some of my work requires that I collaborate with people from our countries…and there seem to be different assumptions at play. I had one colleague request that I sign on to a recommendation letter for him that he had pre-written, so he could apply to attend college in a third-country. He and I had never met. We had shared a couple projects. He may have over-estimated the importance of his work or the financial rewards from the shared project (which were minimal). He may have thought that it was easy to spend political capital…given that this would affect a third country. However, the presumptuousness of the request and the prewritten letter were off-putting. It also made me question an invitation to do a webinar for a university—just a few months prior to the request—in a new light. Was there an assumption that I was going to gain in academic prestige but pay for that with a recommendation…for which the author would get study moneys? This sounds hard in terms of an interpretation, but my years living abroad have taught me that most relationships are deeply transactional. Needless-to-say, I declined. I just hope that nothing misrepresentational was sent using my name.

Similarly, an author who is going for tenure asked for a letter supporting her tenure. I had never seen her teach. I knew of her academic publishing work—to a small degree. I felt that a line on her resume explaining the work would be sufficient to fully represent her contribution. I could not put more than that information. And while having an out-of-country sort of reference might help or hinder or not have any effect, it just seemed like an over-reach to insert myself into an external process with too little information.

An Encrypted Email

Of late, I received an encrypted email requesting a letter of recommendation for my colleague. It pleased me that this particular college was doing due diligence—to get a full assessment of the individual. The email had a job description and a professional letter from the head of the college.

In some ways, it is easier to assess strangers in a formal hiring situation—where one has the facts and maybe some semi-artificial contexts. The information is artificial but also more flat. There are set times for conscious observations. In terms of evaluating a colleague, one explores ideas dispersed over time. While people are always a little “on” in a workplace, there are more opportunities to observe a person in the natural state. Optimally, a person is strong in his / her present position and is headed off strong into a new one. As many others have noted, it helps to have a strong skill set to acquire new knowledge and new skills.

Whenever creating a written record, it helps to know that all information may surface in unintended contexts, so it helps to create accurate documentation (with full evidentiary supports) and move forward from there. Then again, it’s also critical to handle others’ information with due care. Then again, I would not agree to write or offer a recommendation without giving a sterling one. It’s easier then just to decline.

Shared Work

It seems like the best a hiring committee can hope for is candor in a respondent’s sharing what is known and the limits of that information. One can dredge up the relevant positive past on shared projects. One can look at the features brought up in the job description. One considers the ability to maintain confidences in a workplace. One considers the follow-through on the work. And one considers factors of demonstrated ethics. One hopes for a fit to the different cultures of the various workplaces on campus. And once the letter is out, one just steps back and hopes for the best and that the proper processes and decision-making take over.