Reference Checking Techniques

Questions I ask when checking references When hiring for key positions, our last step is speaking with references. A phase for the final-finalists. When I talk to a supplied reference, I'm curious about nuance, feel, and paradox, not the obvious stuff. Below is a question library I might pull from. • What's something that would surprise us about them? • Specifically, any areas where you were surprised they weren't as good as you expected with A, B, or C? Or much better than expected with D, E, and F? • What's the difference between how they interview and how they deliver on the job? • Is there a difference between how a boss, a peer, or a direct report would describe them? If so, what's the difference? • If you were at another company, would you absolutely hire this person again for a similar role? • Who do they naturally gravitate to inside an organization? Or naturally avoid? • What are they better at than they think, and, on the flip side, worse at than they think? • What sort of things do they do that often go unnoticed or are under-appreciated? • What don't they get enough credit for? • Can you tell me about the kind of people they've hired? • Do they leave disagreements on good terms? • Are they more curious or critical about what they don't understand? • What's the one thing nearly everyone would say about them? • What kind of company feels like a natural fit? And which kind would be a challenge? • Can you describe a time when they changed their mind? From what to what, and what caused the change? • What's the best thing about working with them? And the hardest? • If you could change something about them, what would it be? • Are they better working with what they have, or working with what they want? • When have you seen them get in over their head? And how did that turn out? • Have you seen them get better at something? Worse? • Do they make other people better? How? • Are they better at taking credit or giving credit? • Are they more likely to adjust to something, or try to adjust the thing? • Primary blindspot? And bright spot? • As well as you know this person, what do you think their secret career ambition is? • If they hadn't been at your company, how would your company have been different? • Can you remember a time you wished you had their advice on a decision, but you didn't? • Have they ever changed your mind? • What's the easiest thing for them to communicate? And the hardest? • How have they changed during the time you knew them? • Do you still keep in touch even though you don't work together anymore? • What do they need to be successful? • Why do you think we'd be a better company with them on board? • Who else should I talk to that would have something to say about them? There are many more, but those are among the things I'm most curious about. Feel free to take them, use them, tell me they're great questions, or terrible ones. Either way, I hope you found them useful.

Most people get Reference Checks wrong! Here's how to get them right 👉🏻 Throughout my journey, I've had to make 1000s of hires and often struggled with evaluation through the standard interviewing processes. I read somewhere that ~60% senior hires go wrong even after the most meticulous processes so I wondered how to improve the odds. 🤔 What I discovered is that there's no substitute for spending time with the candidates and conducting ‘unnamed’ ref checks through your own network. But what I also learnt is that not every ref check is the same and you can end up with very different outcomes depending on how it’s done. So, through reading and experience, I came with the best practices that I christened with the acronym "PEARL", and here it is for the FIRST time🔥 P - Promise Reciprocity Busy professionals don't dole out intel freely. So, you must offer to return the favor – something as simple as “If ever you need my help for a ref check or otherwise, I'd be happy to help". A senior leader will immediately see its value & perhaps become more ‘available’ on the call. E - Ensure Confidentiality This is critical, especially in India. Candor is not part of our culture, so assure the referrer that you understand the sensitivity of this call and will keep it 100% confidential. Also that you'd expect the same if they ever choose to call you for a reference. If you still sense some hesitancy, maybe throw an ‘offer’ of a good-faith NDA. Don’t worry, nobody ever takes it up but it makes them less guarded. A - Ask questions that force specificity (close-ended & open-ended) Broad questions like – "How was their work ethic?" “Does she work hard?” - are a complete waste of time. You need to ask 2nd order questions that make it comfortable for the referrer to answer without feeling like they're maligning the candidate. For eg - “How do you think we can help the candidate grow?" is better than "Can you tell me about their weaknesses?” R - Retrieve critical insights Actively listen and probe for specifics. Did the candidate consistently meet deadlines? Why or why not? How did they handle pressure? Did they run towards solving problems or look for directions to carry out? These details paint a picture beyond the resume. L - Learn rehire potential And finally, the golden question – "Are you willing to re-hire or work with the candidate again? Why or why not?" Regardless of what the referrer may have said up to this point, most senior folks will have a hard-time giving you a false or misleading response to this one. This is the true gauge of the candidate’s potential and one I put a lot of weight in. To conclude, thank the referrer for their time, assure confidentiality again and commit to a quid pro quo. This leaves the door open for other ref checks you might wish to do in the future 😏 So, there you have it - A PEARL from my collection🙌🏻 Do comment with something that’s worked for you that I may have missed :) #hiring #startups #leadership

Let’s talk reference checks. I aim for 20 ‼️ reference calls per executive hire. When a candidate reaches late stages, I aim to speak with at least 10 (ideally 20) people who’ve worked with them. That includes former bosses, CEOs, peers, and direct reports. (A mix of references they provide and ones I find myself) I first ask: “When did you work together, and what was going on?” Then I let them talk for a bit. Then I start to butter them up a little bit because I want to help references talk about the bad stuff too. Next: “What was their biggest impact?” If the answer is cultural, I ask how it showed up in the numbers. If it’s numbers, I ask what cultural moves enabled them. From there: “When I talk to their biggest fans, what will I hear? What about their toughest critics?” Asking these questions together lets them celebrate the person while safely flagging possible weak spots. Then time for my favorite: “Think of the best leader you’ve ever worked with. That person is a 10 out of 10. Tell me the difference between this person and your 10/10.” What you hope to hear is, “They’re the 10 out of 10. This is the best person.” If you get that, you’re in a good spot. More often, you’ll hear something like, “They’re a 9. Really strong.” You start to get a little nervous when you hear “They’re a 7/10. Super solid.” That gives me more questions than answers. Great follow-ups to that are: - “What environments help them thrive? Where do they struggle?” - “Is there anything else I should know? Anything that would help us make this partnership a success?” Finally, and maybe most important: “Who else should I call?” You do this across 10 to 20 people, and you really have a good dossier on that person’s past experience. Then I go back to them and say, “Here’s what I heard, both where you’ll thrive at Zapier, and the areas where I still have questions.” Then you watch how they respond. Do they show a growth mindset and say, “Yep, that was me five years ago. Here’s how I’d approach it at Zapier”? Or do they brush it off? Hopefully you can pick up some tips and tricks from that approach to references. It’s a time-intensive process, for sure. But for executive roles, it’s worth it. What tips do you have for thorough references? – P.S. Is hiring top of mind for you? Our Global Head of Talent, Tracy St.Dic, is hosting a live AMA on AI for Talent Acquisition. We’ll have demos, stealable templates, and answers to your top AI hiring questions. August 20th. RSVP link in the comments below 👇

Most reference check calls are completely useless. Unless you're asking the right question to cut through the corporate politeness. You call someone pre-approved by the candidate. They say nice things. You learn nothing. You hire the person anyway. 6 months in, you're wondering how you missed what's now obvious to everyone. Only because you asked the wrong question to the reference. After a couple of bad hires and multiple iterations over the years, I've settled down with one: "If you were going to start a company, would you choose this person as your co-founder?" A co-founder relationship is the highest trust commitment. It's not "Are they good at their job?" It's "Would I bet my financial future and years of my life on this person?" That question forces the reference to move beyond "They're a nice person" and "They hit their metrics." It surfaces: - Do they have judgement you'd trust in uncertain situations? - Can they operate independently without guardrails? - Are they reliable when things get hard? - Would you trust them with incomplete information/high stakes? What the answers reveal: 1/ The immediate yes The reference lights up and talks about their work ethic, decision-making, and how they handled crises. No hedging. No "but..." These people are rare. When you get this answer, move fast. 2/ The thoughtful yes with caveats "Yes, but they'd need to work on X" or "Yes, if we were building in Y domain." This tells you they're strong but not universal. Match their strengths to your actual needs. 3/ The diplomatic no "They're great at... but I'm not sure we'd be aligned on..." or "They're solid, but I'd want different skills for a startup..." Not someone you want leading your company. This is where you're learning the real information. 4/ The pause and then no The reference hesitates before answering. Then gives you reasons that feel rehearsed. This is the red flag. They're being nice but honest about doubts. Why the co-founder framing works better than other questions: Bad reference Q: "Would you hire them again?" Answer: Almost always yes, because the reference is being polite. Better reference Q: "Are they a killer?" Answer: Depends on how direct the reference feels being. Best reference Q: "Would you choose them as your co-founder?" Answer: Forces the reference to imagine actual skin-in-the-game commitment. One more nuance is that some people won't be great co-founders but will be exceptional individual contributors or specialists. That's useful information too. "Would I pick them as a co-founder? No. But would I want them leading [specific function]? Absolutely." That tells you where they belong in your org. What does your reference check process look like right now?

The Reference Check That Saved Two People From a Bad Match Called a reference. Standard stuff—asked about the candidate's performance, work ethic, teamwork. Then I threw in my usual curve ball: "What's one thing this person needs to watch out for in their next role?" Long pause. "She's amazing with clients but struggles with internal politics. Put her in front of customers and she's brilliant. Internal stakeholder management? Not her strength." That one sentence changed everything. My client's role? Senior account manager with heavy internal coordination. Weekly cross-functional meetings. Constant negotiation between sales, ops, and product teams. I called the candidate. Laid it out straight. "The reference mentioned you're strongest in client-facing work but find internal politics challenging. This role is 60% internal coordination. Worth thinking about whether that's the right fit." She thought about it. Withdrew her application. Last I heard, she landed a pure client-facing role somewhere else and is doing well. Here's what I've learned from doing reference checks for many years: the question nobody asks reveals everything. And it protects both sides. Most people think reference checks are just about vetting candidates. They're about fit. You don't want to hire someone who'll struggle. Candidates don't want to accept offers for roles where they'll be miserable. I also ask: "What kind of environment helps them shine?" or "What would surprise me about working with them?" One reference told me a candidate was "great in small teams but gets lost in large organizations." The role was at a 2,000-person company. He withdrew after we talked. Found a 50-person startup instead. Reference checks aren't about catching lies. They're about understanding where you shine and where you don't. What environment lets you do your best work. As a candidate, you should want this information too. Better to know now than three months in when you're already looking for the exit. Good reference checks save everyone time and trouble. #Recruitment #HiringTips #CareerAdvice

Here are my four favourite reference check questions. None of them have an obvious right or wrong answer. That's the point. When a referee can be honest without feeling like they're hurting the candidate, they open up. And the answers rarely change whether you hire someone. They change how well you manage them. Here are some of my go-to Qs: 1️⃣ "What kind of environment helps them do their best work?" Some people thrive with structure. Some need autonomy. Neither is better. But hearing it helps you figure out if your company is the right fit and how to set them up to succeed from day one. 2️⃣ "What advice would you give their future manager?" This one makes referees pause. And that pause is where the real stuff comes out. Not the rehearsed highlights, but thoughtful, honest guidance from someone who genuinely wants this person to do well. 3️⃣ "Every professional has areas for growth. What are theirs?" Frame it as a given, not a gotcha. When you normalise it, referees relax. And what they share isn't a red flag. It's a roadmap. Knowing someone is still developing their exec communication or tends to over-index on detail doesn't make them a bad hire. It makes you a better manager. 4️⃣ "Is there anything else I should know?" Simple. Open-ended. And more often than you'd expect, this is where the most important thing gets said. Any reference a candidate gives you is going to want to make them look great. So stop asking questions where they have to choose between honesty and loyalty. Ask questions where being honest is the best thing they can do for the candidate. What's your go-to reference check question? I'd love to add to my list. __________ I'm Tova, the founder of Series Build, helping Australian startups and scale-ups hire exceptional talent. #hiring #startups #interviewtips

Most candidates treat reference checks like a formality. Sonam used them to gather intel and control the narrative. Result: +$15K on base and a clearer view of the job. Two weeks into final rounds at a Fortune 500, HR said, "We're ready to check your references." She didn't just say "great." She asked: "Before you call them, what red flags are you checking for? What would make you hesitate on my candidacy?" Silence. Then: "Our last hire struggled with cross-functional influence. We need someone who can navigate ambiguity without formal authority." Gold. She prepped her references that night: Manager: "Open with the roadmap story where I aligned engineering and sales." Peer: "Mention how I handled pushback on the new workflow. Use 'navigate' once." They echoed the signal HR was listening for. After the checks, she made one more move: "I'd like to speak with 2–3 future peers to ensure I can add value from day one." Those chats revealed the real job: VP micromanages for 90 days Budget approvals need 3 sign-offs Last hire left after promised resources never arrived Final call, she priced the friction: "Given the 90-day ramp and multi-layer approvals, I'm targeting 115K to offset delayed impact." They closed at 110K. Takeaway: most people hand over references and hope. Winners use them as an advance team and as reconnaissance. Steal this (10 minutes) Before checks: ask HR, "Which risks are you validating?" Write down the exact words. Prep your references: 1 story each that proves you beat that risk. Include scope, stakes, and outcome. Request peer calls: "To hit the ground running, I'd like to speak with 2–3 peers." Use what you learn to calibrate your offer. Ethics note: brief, don't script. Ask peers for a candid read, then decide. Have you ever asked, "Which risks are you validating?" before a reference check? ♻️ Share this with someone in final rounds ➕ Follow me (Yogi Gnanavel) for strategies that actually get you hired faster

I often get text messages along the lines of "I'm considering hiring _______. What do you think of this person?" Here are 10 ways to improve reference checks: 1) It's a small world, people screen shot and share stuff all the time and lawsuits are commonplace. Discovery can reach back years across all written communication and you don't want a flippant "He was awful, DON'T HIRE HIM!" text message to show up somewhere it's not supposed to. Conduct these interviews over non-recorded video/audio. That's where you'll get real, honest feedback about a candidate. A quick "Yeah she was great" over a text message means absolutely nothing 2) If you don't think highly of the candidate, stick to the positives and keep your answers short. Don't hash out every bad thing the person did. The interviewer will understand. Again, it's a small world 3) If the person left on bad terms, just stick to start and end dates of employment and leave it at that. You don't want to step in any legal issues by speaking disparagingly of an ex-employee 4) Look for direct former managers and direct reports. Managers can provide a wider view, and direct reports can provide a deeper view. Both perspectives are necessary 5) Ask better questions beyond "What do you think of this person?" Better questions include: - "What type of people will need to work under or alongside this candidate in order for the candidate to be successful?" - "If you had to stack rank this person vs. his/her peers at the same company, where was this person in the ranking?" 6) Understand that the questions you ask may get back to the candidate. "Hey, this recruiter called and asked about you. She was really digging into this one area really hard." That candidate will now know what area of concerns you have and may tell you what you want to hear 7) Be careful who you reach out to for feedback. Often, candidates are interviewing while still employed. On a few occasions I've heard of word getting back to someone's employer 8) Make sure the references you're getting are from people who worked with the candidate at companies at a similar size/scale as yours. A small venture-backed SaaS ISV can be a dramatically different environment from a large incumbent tech vendor. Skills are just as important as the size/stage of the company and culture fit 9) Remember that titles mean basically nothing. A VP at Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc can have hundreds or even thousands of employees in their org whereas a VP at a 20 person company may be an IC. A role like CTO can be totally different depending on the company, even holding size constant 10) Look for references at multiple points in a person's career, rather than just the last role they were in. Looking at multiple points allows you to see the past growth of a candidate (and hopefully estimate potential) I've learned so much from the HR Heretics podcast on this and many other subjects, well worth a listen!

Reference checks were useless until I started asking this question: We all know reference checks usually suck. You get people who don't want to bad mouth their former teammates. Or they say the same boring stuff... "Yes, Jimmy is great!" Usually, you waste a crazy amount of time. Until I started asking this question: "Let's say Jimmy joins today. 12 months from now I call you and say it didn't work out... Jimmy quit or got fired. What do you think would be the reasons why?" The answers I get are astonishing... and give me more signal than anything else I've tried.

We do 10-20 references before we hire anyone for a manager or leadership role at Unify. At 68 people, a very good or bad manager has a profound positive or negative impact on the company.   References are some of the strongest signals we have. Here's the exact system we follow:   I start reference checking in the early stages of conversations with the candidate. I'll tactfully text people they've worked with to get a quick pulse check on if there are any red flags that I'm not seeing.   Great candidates get "They're one of the top 2-3 people I've ever worked with; I'd kill to work with them again," while good ones get "Here are their strengths and weaknesses."   If there's no rave reviews at this stage, I often move on.   When we get later stage, I like to ask them to name 2-3 people they've worked closely with and predict what each would say about working with them. Then I get in touch with those people and see how self-aware the candidate is.   Leaders aren't one-dimensional, so I actively seek out 1-2 critical reviews to understand their specific weaknesses and how they handle tough situations. These also help me to understand how they've grown. It's a red flag if they haven't made any strides in what was a glaring weakness 5 years ago.   This system has helped us filter down to the best talent - curious what signals others rely on for making leadership hires?