A tale of two references...

This week brought two interesting stories about referencing. Two companies, one in the US, the other in Australia, reacted quite differently to adverse referencing. What would you do?

First, Microsemi as reported in the FT by Richard Waters

In spite of the new spirit of puritanism sweeping through US boardrooms, some chief executives are still being forgiven an occasional lapse into dishonesty.
That was the stance taken this week by directors of Microsemi, a small Californian technology company, after it was revealed that the company's chief executive had been less than forthright about his educational qualifications.
Rather than showing Jim Peterson the door - the fate that has often befallen other chief executives who have lied about their credentials - Microsemi's directors have decided that he should stay on, although with financial penalties that could cost him $1m.
News of the board's leniency drew a mixed reaction. "It's one data point about a person, about their willingness to falsify a record in a tight spot," said Wayne Norman, professor of ethics and philosophy at Duke University.
He added, though, that the company's directors were right to take a broader view of Mr Peterson's conduct over a number of years, and to consider the impact on shareholders of making a leadership change.
Justifying the decision not to jettison the chief executive after his nine years at the helm, Dennis Leibel, chairman, said: "The board's mission is to protect shareholder interests by balancing the results of the independent inquiry against the great value and strategic vision that Jim Peterson has created at Microsemi." He credited the chief executive with building a "highly successful and profitable enterprise".
Complicating the case was the fact that the disclosure about Mr Peterson's false credentials was made by Barry Minkow, a short-seller who has a track record of profiting by uncovering such irregularities.
The work of short-sellers in ferreting out discrepancies like this probably helped in the longer term to keep chief executives honest, said Mr Norman.
In a regulatory filing, Microsemi said that an investigation by law firm Munger Tolles & Olson had concluded that Mr Peterson did not have a bachelor's degree and MBA from Brigham Young University, as he had claimed.
Instead, he had been awarded an associate's degree by a college that later became part of Brigham Young, and had also earned "substantial credits" towards a bachelor's degree at the university.
Microsemi said it would impose financial penalties on Mr Peterson, while also introducing a heightened level of scrutiny that would involve deeper background checks into its senior executives.
While adding that the company "takes this matter very seriously", Mr Leibel stopped short of criticising the chief executive's dishonesty directly and said the company's directors "are not commenting on his beliefs, understandings or state of mind".

Meanwhile, in Australia...

A COMPANY has won more than $160,000 compensation from a recruitment firm that recommended a manager who was a former bankrupt and fraud.
The firm failed to conduct adequate background checks on the sales manager, who subsequently defrauded the company of $120,000.
Sydney water treatment equipment supplier Wedeco hired Driver Recruitment, trading as Authorised Solutions, to find sales manager for Southeast Asia, reports The Australian.
According to a NSW Court of Appeal judgment, the successful candidate, Stephen Riddell, worked for Wedeco for 18 months before it was discovered that his qualifications were false.
Wedeco found Riddell was an undischarged bankrupt and that "in his business activities he had engaged in fraudulent practices''.
Wedeco sought damages for breach of contract and for negligence and recovery of loss suffered.
The court heard that when the recruiter put forward Mr Riddell for the job, his CV said he had been employed as an area manager with another company, Tyco, for the past two years
In reality, Mr Riddell had stopped working for Tyco 5 months earlier.
Two Tyco employees nominated by Mr Riddell as referees said that when asked for a reference, they told the recruiter he no longer worked for the company and they could not speak about his work performance.
His former supervisor said that had the recruiter contacted him, he would have said Mr Riddell had had two warnings and that he was in the process of recommending his sacking when Riddell resigned.
The court found the recruitment firm breached its contract with Wedeco and its duty of care because the company failed to speak to the two referees.
It was ordered to pay $164,224 to Wedeco.