Most reference checks confirm what the person making the call has already decided. You ring two referees the candidate has supplied, ask questions that are hard to answer negatively, hear that the person was capable and pleasant, and tick the box saying references have been taken.
That is a shame, because the reference conversation is the last real opportunity to test whether the picture you have formed holds up. Here we walk through who you should talk to, which questions actually yield information, what you are allowed to ask about, and how to interpret what you hear.
Why most reference checks yield nothing
Three things go wrong, and they are connected.
The referee is hand-picked. The candidate supplies people who will say something nice. That is not dishonest, it is rational. But it means the selection is skewed before the conversation has begun.
The questions invite praise. «What was it like working with them?» gives you a general impression, not information. The referee answers what politeness requires, and you note it down as confirmation.
The conversation comes too late. If the decision has in reality been made, the references are used to justify it. They then function as insurance, not as a basis for decision. It is one of the most common causes of bad leadership hires.
Who you should talk to
Two supplied referees are rarely enough to give you a picture. Ask for three or four people who have seen the candidate from different angles:
- The immediate manager in the most relevant position. Not just the most recent one, if that was brief.
- A peer colleague who has had to collaborate with them, ideally across departments. This is where collaboration patterns surface.
- Someone who reported to the candidate. For leadership positions this is the most important reference, and the one most often missing.
- An external party where that makes sense: a client, supplier, board member or union representative.
If you want a referee the candidate has not supplied, you must clear it with the candidate first. That always applies to the current employer, where a conversation can have real consequences for the candidate if the process comes to nothing.
The questions that yield information
A good reference interview is structured in the same way as a job interview: the same questions to every referee, so that the answers can be compared. These twelve work.
- Over what period and in what context did you work together? Calibrates how much weight to give the rest.
- What were they specifically responsible for? Compare with what the candidate has said. Discrepancies here are worth pursuing.
- What are they best at? Opens the conversation, and the answer often says more about what they are not best at.
- What would they themselves say they need to develop? Easier to answer than «what are their weaknesses», and usually gives a more honest response.
- Tell me about a time they faced a difficult situation. What did they do? Specific situations reveal more than adjectives.
- How did they react to resistance or criticism? Particularly relevant for leadership positions.
- What were they like as a leader for their own staff? Put this to someone who actually reported to them.
- What kind of tasks or environment would you not place them in? The most underrated question in the whole conversation.
- How did they handle prioritisation when there was too much on? Distinguishes between people who impose structure and people who burn out or become invisible.
- What happened when they left, and why? Check against the candidate’s own account.
- Would you hire them again, and in what role? The classic question, and still the most revealing. The hesitation is the answer.
- Is there anything I should have asked about that I have not? Gives the referee an opening to say what they have been holding back.
The questions should be tied to the requirements of the position, not to a general impression. The principle is the same as in competency-based recruitment: you assess documented behaviour in specific situations, not personality in the abstract.
What you are not allowed to ask about
The reference conversation is the collection of personal data, and the same rules apply as elsewhere in recruitment.
Section 13-4 of the Norwegian Working Environment Act prohibits an employer from obtaining information about political views, trade union membership, religion and belief, and sexual orientation. Under section 9-3 you may not ask for health information beyond what is necessary to perform the duties of the role. Questions about pregnancy, family plans and caring responsibilities are likewise not permitted.
Data protection rules also apply to what you write down. Notes from the reference conversation are personal data. That means the candidate as a rule has the right of access to information about themselves, that the notes should contain no more than what is relevant to the assessment, and that they should be deleted once the purpose has been fulfilled.
The practical consequence: write notes you can stand behind if the candidate asks to see them. That is a good test in any case, because it forces observations rather than characterisations.
The Norwegian Data Protection Authority has collected the rules on privacy in the workplace. This is a practical walkthrough, not legal advice. In case of doubt, particularly in the public sector, the regulations should be checked in the specific case.
How to interpret the answers
Referees rarely say anything directly negative. The information lies in the form.
Hesitation on a specific question is the clearest signal. Particularly on «would you hire them again». A referee who has to think about that is telling you something.
A shift from the specific to the general. As long as the referee is describing situations, you are getting information. When the answers turn into adjectives, «pleasant», «professionally strong», «easy to deal with», you have usually hit an area they do not want to talk about.
Excessive enthusiasm without examples. Someone who has genuinely worked closely with a person remembers specific episodes. Praise without substance often means the collaboration was peripheral.
Explanations on someone else’s behalf. «They were going through a difficult time personally» or «it was a peculiar management team» is the referee’s attempt to explain something away. Follow up gently, but follow up.
One negative signal is rarely enough to reject a candidate. The pattern is what counts: if three referees say the same thing independently of one another, you have found something real.
Reference checks at leadership level are different
In executive recruitment, several conditions change.
The candidate is usually in work, and the process may be confidential. References can therefore often not be obtained until the very end, and never from the current employer without express agreement.
The circles are small. The referee often knows both the candidate and you, and has their own interests in what is said. That makes it more important to speak to several people, and to weigh what each of them actually has a basis for commenting on.
And the consequences are greater. A bad hire at leadership level does not only cost you the recruitment again, it costs you a year of direction. That justifies spending an hour per reference rather than a quarter of an hour.
When the reference check should change the decision
Rarely, but it happens, and when it does it must be allowed to. Two situations are worth taking seriously.
The first is a discrepancy between the candidate’s own account and what the referees describe: responsibility that was smaller, results that were someone else’s, or a departure that unfolded differently from the version told. That is about credibility, not competence.
The second is a pattern that touches precisely what the position requires. A candidate consistently described as not very available to their staff may be right for a specialist role and wrong as a people manager.
If you are in doubt, it is better to do another round than to conclude. One extra reference conversation costs an hour. A bad hire costs one to two person-years.
How Habberstad works
We conduct structured reference interviews as part of final interviews and final assessment, both in our own recruitment assignments and as support for organisations that have run the process themselves and want an independent assessment before the decision is made.
References are always seen in the context of the rest of the evidence: the requirements of the position, the in-depth interviews and any psychometric testing. How it all fits together in a full process is set out in the article on executive recruitment.
Get in touch if you are facing a decision and would like an outside view of the final stage.
Frequently asked questions
How many references should you obtain?
Three or four give a far better picture than two. The point is not the number in itself, but that the referees have seen the candidate from different angles: the immediate manager, a peer colleague and someone who reported to them. For leadership positions the last of these is particularly important.
Can you contact referees the candidate has not supplied?
Not without clearing it with the candidate first. That applies especially to the current employer, where a conversation can have consequences for the candidate if the process comes to nothing. Instead, ask the candidate to supply a referee from the angle you are missing.
Does the candidate have to consent to a reference check?
Yes, in practice. The candidate supplies the referees and should know when they are contacted. Notes from the conversations are personal data, and the candidate as a rule has the right of access to information about themselves.
What are you not allowed to ask about in a reference check?
Section 13-4 of the Working Environment Act prohibits obtaining information about political views, trade union membership, religion and belief, and sexual orientation. Under section 9-3 you may not ask for health information beyond what is necessary for the position. Questions about pregnancy and family circumstances are likewise not permitted.
What do you do if a referee says something negative?
Do not conclude on a single statement. Check whether the pattern recurs with the other referees, and consider whether it touches something the position actually requires. Also give the candidate an opportunity to comment on what has emerged before the decision is made.
