Why most reference checks are useless
Two reasons, and both are fixable.
The questions can only be answered positively. "Were they a good employee?" and "would you hire them again?" invite a yes from anyone the candidate chose to nominate. A question with only one socially acceptable answer gathers no information.
They are done by email. A written reference request gets a written response, drafted carefully, often by someone in HR, confirming dates. Nuance does not survive the format, and nuance is the entire point.
The reframe
You are not verifying that the candidate is acceptable. You are learning how to work with them successfully: what they are strong at, where they need support, and what environment brings out their best. That framing produces far more honest answers, and it is genuinely what you want.
Who to speak to
At least one former direct manager. Peers give you a different and useful angle, but someone who managed the person has seen their work assessed over time.
Someone from a recent role. A reference from six years ago describes a different person.
Ideally, someone the candidate did not nominate, with their agreement. Ask if there is anyone else from that period you could speak to. Most candidates say yes, and the fact that they are comfortable with it is itself informative.
Never a current employer without explicit permission. Contacting a current manager can cost someone their job, and doing it without consent is indefensible.
The questions
Fifteen minutes, on a call. Open by saying the person is a strong candidate, that you are trying to understand how to work with them well, and that honest detail helps everyone including them.
| Question | Why it works |
|---|---|
| "What did they work on, and what was their part in it?" | Establishes actual scope versus claimed scope |
| "What did they do better than anyone else on the team?" | Gets a specific strength rather than a general one |
| "What did they need support with?" | Framed as support, not weakness. Almost always answered |
| "How did they handle disagreement with you?" | Reveals a great deal, and it is hard to answer evasively |
| "What kind of manager gets the best out of them?" | The most useful answer in the whole call |
| "What would you tell me if I were about to manage them?" | Invites the practical caveat people otherwise omit |
| "Why did they leave?" | Compare against the candidate's own account |
The fifth question is the one to keep if you only keep one. It is impossible to answer without describing the person honestly, it does not require the referee to say anything negative, and the answer is directly actionable in the first month.
Then listen for what is not said. If someone describes a candidate's technical work in detail and says nothing about how they were to work with, ask about that specifically.
Reading a guarded answer
Vagueness has several causes and it is worth distinguishing them before drawing conclusions.
Some companies have policies restricting references to dates and job titles. That is a policy, not a verdict, and it is worth asking directly whether they are able to speak freely.
Some referees are simply not thoughtful about it, and a specific question rescues the call.
But consistent vagueness across two independent references, particularly when both avoid the same topic, is a pattern worth taking seriously. So is a long pause before answering a straightforward question about working relationships.
What is not a warning sign: a referee describing a real weakness. Someone honest enough to say "they need clear priorities and struggle when three people are directing them" is giving you a genuinely useful operating manual. Perfectly glowing references with no texture are less useful, not more.
What you can and cannot ask
Reference checking is subject to employment and data protection law, and the rules vary considerably by country. Two things are worth knowing in general terms, but check the specifics for where you are hiring rather than relying on a summary.
Questions about protected characteristics such as health, disability, age, religion, pregnancy, or family circumstances are restricted or prohibited in most jurisdictions, and asking them creates real legal exposure. Keep every question tied to how the person did the work.
Candidates typically have rights over information held about them, which can include what a referee said. Write notes you would be comfortable being read.
Get the candidate's consent before contacting anyone, tell them who you plan to speak to, and do it after the final interview but before the offer. Checking earlier wastes people's time; checking after the offer means you will find reasons not to act on what you hear.
References work best as the final input to a process that already produced evidence, not as the first real assessment. If a reference call is where you learn what someone can actually do, the interviews did not do their job. Our guide to a structured interview process covers the stages that should have surfaced it, and once the offer is accepted, onboarding a new hire in their first five days is where the answer to "what kind of manager gets the best out of them" becomes immediately useful.
Frequently asked questions
- Are reference checks worth doing?
- Yes, if you call rather than email and ask about specifics. A fifteen-minute conversation with a former manager is one of the highest signal-per-minute steps in hiring. Emailed reference forms are close to worthless.
- How many references should you check?
- Two is enough for most roles, and at least one should be a direct former manager. A single reference is easy to arrange favourably; two independent ones are much harder.
- Should you speak to references not on the candidate's list?
- Only with the candidate's knowledge and agreement. Back-channel calls to a current employer can cost someone their job, and doing it without consent is a serious breach of trust before you have even hired them.
- What if a reference is vague or guarded?
- Note it and probe gently with specifics. Some organisations have policies limiting what can be said, so vagueness is not automatically a warning. Consistent vagueness across two references is more meaningful than one guarded call.
- When in the process should references be checked?
- After the final interview, before the offer. Checking earlier wastes the referee's time. Checking after the offer means you are unlikely to act on what you hear.