Reference checks that are worth the phone call
Written references have been reduced to date confirmation. A short conversation with the right question still yields something.
Written references have been hollowed out by liability caution. Most large employers now confirm job title and dates and nothing else, and a reference letter that says the candidate was hard-working and reliable is a document with no information content.
This has led many small employers to skip referencing entirely. That is understandable and it discards a step that still works, provided it is done by telephone and asks better questions.
Verify first, then ask
Two distinct things are happening in a reference check and they should not be blurred.
Verification confirms facts: employment dates, job title, whether the person left in the circumstances they described. This is the part that catches the small number of material misrepresentations, and it is worth doing for every appointment. For broader independent guidance on this point, consult FTC background-check guidance.
The conversation is the part that yields judgement, and it only works with a referee who actually managed the person and who is willing to talk. Candidates should nominate referees, and it is reasonable to ask specifically for the person who supervised them in the role most relevant to yours.
Questions that get answers
Closed questions about competence get reassuring non-answers. The productive ones are comparative, situational or forward-looking.
- What did they need most support with when they started?
- In what kind of work were they at their strongest — and what would you not have given them?
- How did they handle it when priorities changed at short notice?
- If a role came up on your team, would you want them back?
The last question is the most informative one available and the answer is often carried in the pause before it rather than in the words.
A referee's picture of where someone thrives is more useful than their rating of overall performance. Someone excellent in a structured environment and someone excellent in an ambiguous one are different appointments.
Keep it lawful and proportionate
Referencing is regulated in ways that vary by jurisdiction, and a few rules are close to universal in practice.
Get the candidate's consent, and do not contact a current employer before an offer without explicit permission — doing so can cost someone their job. Stick to the role: questions about health, family circumstances, or anything unrelated to performing the work are inappropriate and in many places unlawful. Record what was said factually, and treat it with the same confidentiality and retention rules as the rest of the application file. For a related product-level perspective on self-reporting bias, see the website.
Know what it is for
A reference check is a confirmation step, not a decision step. If the appointment is genuinely balanced between two candidates, a referee's warmth is a poor tiebreaker — referees vary enormously in how positively they express themselves, and you are measuring that variation rather than the candidates.
Use it to catch the material problem and to learn how to manage the person well from day one. That second use is the one most employers waste: a referee who tells you the person needs context before being handed an ambiguous task has just given you the first week of their onboarding.