Reference checking is one of the most underused tools in the recruitment process. In theory, it is an opportunity to get an independent picture of the candidate. In practice, it is often three conversations with handpicked contacts who say roughly the same thing.
It does not have to be this way.
Why many reference calls rarely yield anything useful
The questions are too general. "What are their strengths?" gets a prepared answer. "Describe a situation where they had to make a decision without sufficient information" gets a more genuine one.
The referee is chosen by the candidate. That is a structural challenge you cannot entirely overcome — but you can work with it. Ask the referee if they can suggest someone else who worked closely with the candidate. That person often gives a more nuanced picture.
Questions that tend to give more useful information
What would this person need in order to succeed in a new environment? That question often provides clues about both strengths and the conditions the person needs around them.
How did the person respond when something went wrong? That often says more about the ability to handle setbacks than most other questions.
If you had the opportunity — would you hire this person again? And follow-up: in what kind of role?
What is worth listening for
The tone when the referee deviates from their own script. When there is a silence a beat too long. When the answer is technically correct but something seems to be missing.
Silences can be informative. Enthusiasm that fades in the middle of an answer can be too.
A reference who says "they delivered really well within clear structures" is saying something — but may also be hinting at what she finds most difficult without them.
If you have thoughts, questions, or simply want to talk something through — feel free to get in touch. I am happy to have an initial conversation with no agenda.
Right person. Right place. Everything changes.