Contradictory references from my two PhD supervisors

Question

I got interviewed for a research position in statistical epidemiology in a London uni last month. It went well and I got the conditional offer at the end of the interview. I got in touch with my PhD supervisor and secondary advisor. Both of them said they were more than happy to provide references and congratulated me on my new job.

I started my new job today. When chatting with my boss, he mentioned that my supervisor wrote a glowing letter for me. However, my secondary advisor was critical of me not meeting the deadlines and lack of diligence. This temporarily happened during my second year when I got Covid complications and had to take a 3-month leave in the end. But my medical circumstance wasn’t mentioned in his letter. My new boss sort of joked about it and asked if my secondary advisor and I had some personality clashes. However, I cannot remember any clash between us. I didn’t see him as frequently as I met my main supervisor. He were polite to me all the time. My new boss then went on saying it was a bit funny that these two references contradicted each other in this way. One saying I took initiatives and met the deadlines and the other saying I didn’t. Fortunately, my main supervisor was a much more prestigious professor and has known me much longer. So they believed her words.

I was reflecting on my previous behaviour and research and wondering what I have done (except having Covid complications and more or less unable to work for 3 months) to make my secondary supervisor critical of me. I was a member of UCU and went on strike a couple of times during my PhD years over pay and working conditions for teaching and research assistants. My secondary advisor did ask me about this and told me he wasn’t in the union. Could it be a possible reason? In the meantime I wonder if it is normal that your current boss leaks your reference details to you.

Answer 1

Who knows why your secondary supervisor was so critical. Presumably, from their perspective, what they wrote was true. It isn't uncommon for people in those positions to be nonconfrontational about references/letters of recommendation, even if they don't think they can write a good one. Maybe you overestimated their enthusiasm and they felt obligated to write something. Also, in my experience, many people are not great letter writers. Often what is perceived as a "balanced" or "unbiased" assessment is read as very critical. There can definitely be a "secret language" to recommendations and if someone isn't careful a "good" (but not "great") recommendation can come off as lukewarm or even negative.

In any case, I would bet that your new boss was trying to tactfully say "don't use this person as a reference in the future". They may also have been giving you the opportunity to explain, but since you were already hired, I think it was more a courtesy heads-up. I wouldn't think about it too much since it seems like that letter was not reflective of your work and personality (based on the glowing review from your direct supervisor).

Answer 2

You cannot know why your secondary supervisor was critical, and quite frankly, it is not useful to speculate.

However, the fact that your new boss shared this with you is very beneficial as it means you can avoid using the secondary supervisor as a reference ever again. It's clear regardless of what they wrote or why, it hasn't been received positively.

Focus instead on maintaining a collegial relationship with your primary supervisor so that they will feel comfortable providing another glowing reference in future (should you ever need one again).

Answer 3

Without asking your second supervisor, you will never know why they wrote you a less than glowing review. Without asking your new boss, you will never know why they chose to share this information with you.

But if I were in your position, I would infer that your new boss has done you the kindness of quietly letting you know which former supervisor you can count on for good reviews and which you can't. Even if that wasn't the intent, that is definitely they effect.

I would also infer that your suddenly asking your second supervisor what you did to cause this would alert them to the fact that your new boss has had this conversation with you. And to be absolutely clear on this: This is one reason not to ask your old supervisor. It's your decision, of course, but I would nod solemnly to your new boss, thank them for the information, keep it always in mind, and move on.

Answer 4

In the meantime I wonder if it is normal that your current boss leaks your reference details to you.

I don't know if this is "normal", but this does not look ethical. I would think a person providing a reference expects their reference to be treated as confidential.

Answer 5

I was a member of UCU and went on strike a couple of times during my PhD years over pay and working conditions for teaching and research assistants. My secondary advisor did ask me about this and told me he wasn’t in the union.

Which is an information you did not ask him. As you wrote in the answer, he was a polite person. So instead of telling you are an unreliable idiot for taking part in political activities, he simply told you that second part ("I am not an unreliable idiot and therefore I am not in any union").

He then went on expressing his deep displeasure in a "polite" way in the reference letter.

Please note that I do not share the view of the reference letter, quite on the contrary, I have been judged being an unreliable idiot for my political involvement during my career (sometimes in a subtle way like OP has been, sometimes with much less hypocrisy).

The human mind is a big mistery, always capable of surprising you in the worst possible sense.