Goodwill and truthful the balancing act in the work reference
How to combine the two duties — formulating with goodwill and assessing truthfully — without falling back on codes. With concrete 'bad vs. good' examples.
- Goodwill + truth + clarity at the same time
- Four solution paths without codes
- Practical bad vs. good examples
The four duties at a glance
Four duties that apply at the same time — and that can simultaneously conflict with each other.
Duty of goodwill
The reference must not unnecessarily impede the employee's professional advancement. Negatively weighted statements are formulated in favour of the person where in doubt.
Duty of truth
The reference must be substantively correct and complete. Embellished assessments can make the issuing party liable — and harm the next employer.
Duty of clarity
The reference must be understandable for third parties. Encryptions, codes and ambiguities violate the duty of clarity — even if they may be technically true.
Completeness
In the qualified full reference, essential aspects must not be silently omitted. What belonged to the role also belongs in the assessment.
Four ways to combine both duties
These four ways are recognised in scholarship and case law — and they work without secret codes. They are the backbone of the Kompass Standard.
Describe observable behaviour
Instead of evaluating ("difficult in the team"), state concretely what was observable ("conflicts with two team members on project X in Q2/2025"). Concrete observations can be substantiated on both sides — and they spare the person, because they are not morally labelled.
Weighting instead of omission
If an aspect was weak, do not leave it out — that is interpreted in classical code reading as a hint. Instead: describe it more briefly and factually. Example: "In the area of customer communication, development steps were agreed in regular employee meetings."
Silence where there was nothing
What was not observed does not belong in the reference. If the role had no customer contact, the conduct assessment toward customers falls away — without that being negative. Important: the absence must be explainable through the role, not through a policy of silence about weaknesses.
Interim letters as a buffer
A well-formulated <a href="/wissen/zwischenzeugnis">interim letter</a> relieves the final letter. Whoever documents during the employment relationship what went well has a coherent corridor at the end — and avoids the final letter becoming a conflict arena.
Three examples from practice
What an ambiguous formulation looks like — and how the same message works as plain text.
"Ms Meier was always endeavouring to complete the tasks assigned to her."
Classic code for "insufficient performance". True yet encrypted — violates the duty of clarity.
"In the first twelve months, Ms Meier met the requirements of her role. In the past six months, development needs in area X were discussed in regular employee meetings on 12 May 2025, 14 July 2025 and 8 October 2025."
Observable, with evidence, factual. Spares the person (no labelling) but remains true and traceable.
"Mr Suter always showed understanding for his work."
Stock phrase with the coded meaning "did not understand his work". Two-faced — violates the duty of clarity.
"Mr Suter carried out the technical tasks assigned to him with routine. In more complex projects he was closely supported by his team."
States factually what was: standard tasks fine, more complex ones needed support. Truth without encryption.
"Ms Äbi's conduct toward superiors and colleagues was impeccable."
Classic code reading: omitting customers is taken as a hint of problems in customer contact. Violates the duty of clarity through encrypted omission.
"Ms Äbi's role did not involve direct customer contact. Within the team she acted collegially and in a solution-oriented way."
Clarifies the omission of customers (role-specific), describes the observable positively. No code risk.
What happens if I get it wrong?
Embellished reference
A deliberately overly positive reference can make the issuing employer liable — toward the next employer, if the person turns out to be unsuitable and it can be proven that relevant weaknesses were concealed. Keyword: deliberate misinformation.
Coded reference
Codes violate the duty of clarity. In a correction dispute the employer must explain the meaning of the code plausibly and with evidence — which rarely succeeds. Correction claims are won in practice predominantly by employees when the reference contains codes.
Blanket negative reference
A blanket negative reference without concrete evidence violates both the duty of goodwill and the duty of truth (because it is formulated without proof). Employees can demand correction — and the employer must then substantiate what was originally claimed without evidence.
How the Kompass Standard helps
Kompass is built precisely for this tension. Five performance fields, six principles, a built-in compliance check — every element is designed to fulfil goodwill and truth at the same time.
- Observable behaviour as default — no moral labels.
- Concrete evidence as standard — no blanket judgements.
- Weighting as a tool — no omission as code.
- Pre-publish compliance check — no publication with open findings.
Frequently asked questions
What does "goodwill and truthful" mean in the Swiss work reference?
How can both duties be fulfilled at the same time?
Are secret codes a way to combine both duties?
What if the person really wasn't good?
What about the "legitimate interest" of the next employer?
How does ZeugnisPilot handle this tension?
Is there an intermediate stage between "nice" and "honest"?
Truth and goodwill — without codes
ZeugnisPilot's compliance check examines your draft against all four duties at the same time: CO 330a, clarity (codes), form, discrimination — per finding with reasoning and a plain-text alternative.