Most reference checks last eight minutes and produce the same result: a polite confirmation that the candidate showed up, got along with people, and left on good terms. You learn almost nothing, and you have spent a reference's goodwill to learn it.
The check itself is not the problem. The questions are. A reference call can be one of the most useful data points in your hiring process, but only if you treat it like a real interview with a purpose.
Why Most Reference Checks Fail
Candidates choose their own references. Of course those people say nice things. Add the fact that many companies restrict what managers can say, and you are often listening to a carefully trimmed script.
The usual questions make it worse. "Would you rehire them?" invites a yes or no. "What were their strengths?" invites a list of adjectives. Neither gives you a story you can evaluate.
Reference checking also tends to happen last, when the team has already fallen for the candidate. At that point everyone is looking for permission to proceed, not for new information.
Decide What You Still Need to Know
Before you pick up the phone, look at your interview notes and find the open questions. Maybe the candidate described leading a project but you could not tell how much was their own work. Maybe two interviewers disagreed on how they handle feedback.
Pick two or three of those gaps and design the call around them. A reference check aimed at specific doubts is far more useful than a general character review.
This also keeps the call short. Fifteen focused minutes beat forty minutes of pleasantries.
Questions That Produce Stories
Good reference questions ask for examples and comparisons instead of opinions. Here are some that work across most roles:
- "Tell me about a project where they had the most impact. What exactly did they own, and what did others own?"
- "Describe a time they disagreed with you or a teammate. How did it play out?"
- "What kind of support or management style helped them do their best work?"
- "If you were hiring for their old role again, what would you want to be different about the next person, if anything?"
- "On a scale of one to ten, how strong were they at [specific skill you need]? What would have made it a ten?"
That last pair of questions is quietly powerful. Nobody feels they are criticizing anyone when they explain what a nine would look like, yet the gap between nine and ten is exactly the development area you want to hear about.
Listen for What Is Missing
Tone and omission matter as much as content. If you ask about collaboration and the reference answers only about technical skill, take note. If the answer is enthusiastic about results but vague about how the person worked with others, that is a signal worth following up on.
Hesitation is data too. A pause before "Yes, I would work with them again" is not proof of a problem, but it is a reason to ask one more gentle question: "What would the ideal situation look like for them?"
Write down exact phrases where you can. Your summary should say "the manager said she needed clear priorities to do her best work," not "the reference was positive."
Go Beyond the Listed References
The names on the candidate's list are the start, not the end. Ask each reference whether they can suggest someone else who worked closely with the candidate, such as a peer, a direct report, or a cross-functional partner.
Back-channel calls without the candidate's knowledge carry real risk. They can damage a candidate's current job, and they raise fairness and legal concerns in some regions. A safer approach is to ask the candidate directly for a mix of reference types: a former manager, a peer, and someone who reported to them if they have led people.
Different vantage points show different things. A manager sees results and reliability, a peer sees collaboration, and a direct report sees how the person treats people with less power.
Keep It Consistent and Fair
If you ask one finalist five thoughtful questions and another only "Would you rehire them?", you have created an uneven process. Use the same core questions for every finalist, and add follow-ups based on the gaps you identified.
Record the notes in the same format each time, ideally against the same criteria you used in interviews. This makes it much easier to compare candidates honestly and to explain a decision later.
Stay on the topic of job-relevant behavior. Avoid questions about health, family plans, age, or anything protected by law where you hire. If a reference volunteers something like that, do not write it down and do not let it influence the decision.
Respect the Reference's Time
References are doing a favor for someone else. Send a short email in advance with the role, the time you need, and two or three topics you plan to cover. People give better answers when they have had a chance to think of examples.
Offer a few time slots, keep the call to the time you promised, and thank them afterward. That small courtesy leaves a good impression of your company with someone who may one day be a candidate or a customer.
Close the Loop on Your Decision
After the calls, compare what you heard against your original open questions. Did the reference confirm the candidate's account of their role? Did a pattern appear across two or more references? Did anything contradict the interviews?
One mildly critical comment is not a reason to reject someone. A consistent pattern across multiple sources deserves a real conversation, and often a follow-up question to the candidate. Give them a chance to respond before you decide.
Used this way, reference checks stop being a formality and become the final piece of evidence in a structured hiring process. Teams that build them into a scorecard, with the same questions and the same notes format, make better calls and feel more confident defending them.
If your hiring workflow already has structured interviews and scorecards, adding a consistent reference step is a small change with an outsized payoff. CareerGraph helps teams keep that evidence in one place so decisions rest on what you actually learned.
