They don't get calls every time you're in talks with a recruiter. The amount of information that's passed along is standardized (even if it's a weird standard, but see below) and better controlled.

It's possible to request interim reports, and when doing it semi-regularly (every two years, say), it doesn't provide signal to current employers about you intending to leave or not.

As for the peculiar language, that was quite the talk in the 90s when this scheme was "uncovered" by the media. By now, people generally know what to expect, while HR is typically aware if a letter is written "in code" or not (and have no problem if it's not).

More than the "code", these letters can also refer to more concrete traits, so the best course of action with the reference letter is often to write it yourself, have your manager sign off on it and get the HR stamp of approval. That way it states what _you_ think is important, not what the manager sees, or the even more remote HR department.

(source: have German HR folks in the family who explained the reference letter business to me, starting when the "code" fluff flared up in the media for the first time. also did some clerical work in HR in the distant past)

In general these letters can state things such as:

1. this person has no manners

2. the person is an alcoholic

3. the person is an arrogant diva, etc

Some more for those who can read German (http://karrierebibel.de/arbeitszeugnis-formulierungen-bewert...)

As someone who has worked in both the US and German systems though, I actually prefer the German one for the reasons pgeorgi mentions - its like having a certificate that proves what you did and how well you did it after you complete any job, then regardless of whatever happens to an employer (they could go bankrupt, your boss could leave, etc) you still have that certificate that proves you did what you say you did.

What I suspect happened was I'd written "scrum certified" on my cv, and the job had "scrum manager" in the title, so the poor people were bound by the law of stupid to interview only people with this string in their cv.

They never asked me anything relevant. I code a bunch of languages, I can manage people, yada yada, they didn't care. I don't know why on earth they wanted to hire me after chatting briefly about my experience and doing some silly think-out-of-the-box exercise. The HR lady then proceeded to tell me about the great benefits of working for them (they pay your mortgage, not bad eh?). One of the strangest things about the interview was that the HR person was there at all, and leading it. She presented the manager, who politely said hello, and then sat there as she asked me every inane and cliche question you've ever heard.

So then it got to the documentation stage. They asked for this reference letter, which I had, but I warned them my previous employer was... Me! So obviously they shouldn't be surprised if it was a bit flattering and signed by some partner of mine. Didn't matter. Just give us the letter!

And then they also wanted my graduation certificate. Now for years I've not needed this document, I actually did not know what certificate from my school looked like. At Oxford you have to sign up for a weird Latin ceremony, which I didn't do because I'd started work the week after finishing uni. So this lady insisted on getting a signed cert from the university office. I reminded her is was over a decade ago, but no help. Luckily I was passing through anyway.

I also hinted quite strongly that it might not be the right kind of work for me, and that I might want some sort of term limited contract. Didn't seem to matter.

I've placed several Germans in London development positions now, many of whom were surprised when I told them how little I wanted other than for them to answer some technical questions and to see if they got on with the team.

As the German market loses solid people to markets which aren't so incredibly uptight, the German market will change.

In addition at least in Finland, the employee has similar rights to a reference letter with assessment stating duties and performance - and the assessment may not be negative.

In Finland, the law states that "the reference letter must not imply other meanings than what is literally said". That is of course a bit of an impossible requirement. You can always read something implied if there is any assessment, and not having an assessment can also be interpreted as implying something (although it is generally a normal and neutral thing, there is a "long form" of reference with assessment, and "short form" without).

In Sweden, there is also a right to reference letter (arbetsgivarintyg), but it only needs to list duties, not give assessment.

Some years back in Finland, an employer actually went to jail because he refused to sign a reference letter which he considered not true regarding work duties.

Negative assessments are not allowed. The employment had lasted for a few months, but the employee had been on strike for almost all the time, only actually performing work duties for two weeks. The employer, en electrician, agreed to write the reference letter for this two week period but not sign that the employee would have been at work when he was actually on strike. But this was required by law because the employment contract had been valid.

A court case ensued. The employer was sentenced to a couple of months prison and was about to be sentenced again and again for as long as he would not sign the letter; eventually an undisclosed agreement was reached as the identity of the employee also made the news.

This feels rather strange in a country where you otherwise have to do some very graphic violence to go to jail.

Personal references in the US style have become more and more usual here, particularly in white-collar jobs.

I never worked for big corporations. Once one of the founders did the HR herself, but she was not a HR person and hated the codes herself. Another time I was asked to write my reference letter myself.

My opinion is that Germany has painted itself into a corner. The requirements are contradictory in itself. It's not possible to be truthful and generous at the same time. However the employers are obligated, and between a rock and a hard place. Either the employee sues them because the reference letter is not benevolent enough or another employer sues them because the reference letter was not truthful.

So HR invented the codes, but not all employees were easily duped. The saga goes on.

One day at a small company I worked for the phone rang and a fellow developer answered. He said "the CEO's in a meeting right now, can I help?... Oh Andrew? He was terrible, couldn't code his way out of a cardboard box and he was really hard to get on with. I couldn't stand him personally... Ok, you're welcome, bye". My mouth was on the floor, I'm pretty sure Andrew didn't get that job.

There's only one thing I might add. If you're working in tech and/or in smaller companies, there's a good chance nobody will ever ask for this, even less than for university degree papers, etc - but in many other fields or if you're planning to join a big corporation, I'd still suggest to get one when you leave.

Besides, most of them are written by the employee himself upon the request of the employer (too busy, can you write it yourself and I sign it?). My advice would be: If in doubt, fake it. The chance the the company will call your previous employer are not zero but close to zero. Even if they call they would just asked if you worked there and not if the letter of recommendation is genuine.

Side Story: I remember when I applied to a (non IT) job closely related to field of expertise at BASF. I upload a shitload of documents into their nightmarish SAP application interface. A few days later I get an email: Thank you for your application but please also upload the letters or reference. I wrote back, that since I was living in the US the last years, I don't have such letters since such letters are not common there but I would be happy to provide references (from MAJOR names by the way).

They wrote back: If you don't have reference letters then we don't need you. We deleted your application from the system (an application that too a tremendous time to create thanks to the SAP application interface bullshit).

So, the bottom line:

1. Letters of reference are bullshit in most cases. If you really need them, FAKE them. No kidding! 2. Don't take this German nonsense in any way as a good example. A phone call is a better thing. In IT I assume you rarely need it. A friend told me: "If I hire somebody I don't need his resume. I just want to have a look at hit git account." 3. If you ever hear on of the Bozos from BASF or Evionik speaking in public of "not enough supply of skilled people" then you know in which category to put them.

Everybody knew this. "He worked here" as a response to all questions means DO NOT HIRE. People who were caught stealing would be told "quit or we call the police", but you never, ever told anyone calling for a referral about this, even if charges were eventually pressed (which rarely happened). Yes, people who were caught stealing were stupid enough to list their victims as references.

This all made doubly pointless by the fact that somewhere around 99% of people working in retail are stealing things.

For more senior hires we get backdoor references through our own network (with the candidates permission) to ensure the candidate isn't just giving us their friends, etc.

That is the part I like about them, especially if you answer a job ad that requests prior experience with FOO.

And while it is true that you can sometimes get your grade bumped up as part of some deal (and everybody knows it); I have never heard of a company that signs off on this list containing stuff you did in fact not do.

If you want an evaluation letter after finishing a job present your manager with one you prepared, that he only needs to sign and he will be happy with it, more often than not, because it means less work for him. He also doesn't know the terms and googles it just like you.

Oh! And with new European law on business secrecy, you can be sued if you put a comment on a website rating companies like they do on indeed.

I love European Community that makes it always better for the business and worse for the workers.

Strange logic. To me, this idiotic requirement seems very damaging: the only employees who would benefit from it are poor performers.

The sad part is that (except for the Siemens/Telekom/SAP class of companies), companies don't really care that much for all the paperwork - although there's typically some interest in academic credentials.

I often recommend people to fiercely cut down on their application and resume (unless the job ad has specific requirements):

HR doesn't want to read your 5 page treatise on why you're suited to a job they don't know exactly but of which they know that you don't either. They have 500 more cover letters to attend to, no time to read up on your childhood trauma that shaped you into the perfect worker bee.

They also don't care about more than the last 3 years of education (and only if they happened within the last 5 years, otherwise your job history should mostly speak for you).

Sadly, the keyword filter is as strong here as elsewhere (no 5 years of Swift experience? pass), so it's useful to stuff the resume with them (but tabular please, no prose - HR ain't got no time for that). Add academic credentials ("2013: B.A. in Bullshitting at the Agrarian Academy of Bauernhausen, specialization: the qualities of cow manure").

Write a cover letter that shows that you're in reasonable command of friendly, professional German (or English if the position allows for that), and that you read the job ad. Finally add some bait for the hiring manager that indicates why you might be a good fit, should your application get past the HR screen.

HR will be happy to see a no-nonsense candidate that matches the keywords. Everything else is just part of the lottery anyway.

(to add: as soon as you're playing by the HR rules, be it in your reference letter, or in resume design, you're judged by it. Once you obviously deviate from that but without creating extra work for HR, you're likely judged for content only. If they take offense at the deviation, that's probably a pretty huge red flag for the company as a whole simply because it reflects on the type of people they did or did not hire.)

My opinion on the topic is that those letters feel really odd and I stopped asking for one a few jobs ago. That being said, at my current job (SF Startup) I was asked for 'references' which was something new to me as well and it felt similarly weird and outdated. I don't think either are very useful to any party and IMO not worth the effort.

Or Doctor Doctor Professor