Larry Smith-Reference Check
Don’t skip this crucial step in the hiring process.
The reference check. It might seem perfunctory, but it’s an important piece of due diligence that can save you from making a hiring decision that could negatively impact your business for years to come.
That’s why we invest so much time and effort in this crucial step in the hiring process. The purpose of an employment reference check is to confirm what you have been told by the candidate, read on their resume or their LinkedIn profile, OR conversely, negate what you’ve already found or thought. While it’s rare to catch someone in an outright lie or embellishment, even the process of requesting a candidate’s references can be telling.
There aren’t ideal answers, but we want to rule out any obvious problems. So, if a referee says, “They’re a nightmare, they fought with everyone, or they were abrasive,” it’s better to find out before the hire is made.
The last step before signing:
Do the reference check once your candidate has signed the conditional offer letter of employment
As I have written elsewhere, we have a well-defined process.
We recommend that the employment reference check not be done until after a candidate has received and accepted your conditional formal offer. So, once you have found a candidate whom you want to hire, you should put forward a complete offer—just like a legal agreement that you would put forward when buying a house—with a deadline to accept no later than 48-72 business hours, after which the offer is null and void.
And, at the top of the offer, it should state that it is conditional on the receipt of references “that are satisfactory in our sole opinion,” so that you have the ultimate power to accept or reject the references and negate the offer.
This approach limits a candidate’s ability to take your offer and shop it around, trying to get a slightly better one elsewhere. It also gives the company an out; even if the references are glowing, to rescind the offer.
(This has never happened in my experience, but it’s one last chance to back out of the agreement if something else arises.)
An ideal set of references:
Four people – two people the candidate reported to, one direct report, and one peer
While it will vary depending on the role and the candidate, if you’re hiring for an executive or leadership role, you’ll ideally speak to a selection of people the candidate reported to, a peer, and a direct report. In addition to assessing a person’s skills and accomplishments, this will give you a good sense of how the candidate managed relationships in their organization.
Open-ended questions that invite reflection
Your goal is to get a referee talking and make them think a little more. You want to avoid questions that can be answered yes or no, except for whether they would be willing to rehire this person.
You’ll want to confirm the details shared by the candidate and what they’ve told you. But you also want to get a broader sense of the candidate’s character, who they are as a person, in addition to obtaining a read on the referee’s general enthusiasm for the candidate. You’re trying to understand a candidate’s shortcomings, and opportunities for growth.
Differentiating professional and personal characteristics on the job is key. What makes this person different? If a referee says that a candidate’s overall presence is inspiring, for example, you might follow up by asking for examples or specifics for which a good answer might be, “They jumped in with little preparation time, into a remote area, and took over in an exemplary manner.”
The answers may not always be illuminating, but the idea is that we always push for more depth, trying to get the referee to talk and expand.
Some organizations have a policy of not providing references. If you call them, they’ll tell you that their policy is that they can only confirm that a person worked there, that they were hired on a specific date and left on a specific date.
Most referees are quite willing to talk. They may fear being sued, but a person can’t be found guilty of telling the truth. And I find that most people in companies are quite willing to chatter on. What we’re looking for is a clear positive or negative indication, or a lukewarm response that I would categorize as a candidate being “damned with faint praise.”
Our template for success:
A table that shows each referee’s answer to the same question
Having done this for years, now, we have a pretty good template. We do the reference checks by phone, scribbling down the answers verbatim (we don’t usually record the conversation electronically).
Once we hang up, we immediately re-write everything, plugging answers into a table that allows us to easily scan each referee’s answer to the same question. This approach provides a real flavour of what each referee was saying.
Obvious red flags are rare:
Make sure to keep things in context and don’t hesitate to follow up with other referees
Every now and again, you’ll get a bad reference that is out of character from other references for the same candidate.
We had one case in which the candidate got two good references and a terrible one. It didn’t make sense. We dug into it and went back to the two good references who shared a long story about how the third person was unfairly holding a grudge. So even with the one person giving a bad reference, the candidate was hired and has been with our client for 10 years now. It was a case of one guy trying to poison the well, and we were able to figure it out.
In another case, we had someone who seemed to be the perfect candidate, but they couldn’t provide even a single reference of someone they’d reported to, and they refused to permit a criminal background check. It broke my heart, but we had to recommend against proceeding with them; there were just too many warning bells.
Sometimes, there might be a logical reason why a candidate can’t produce the references we need. They could still be working at the company that they have been with for twenty years and are keeping their search confidential. In that case, we’ll get references from trusted peers, associates, or suppliers to form a picture of the candidate which will either support the hiring decision or tip the balance against it.
Larry Smith is the founder and president of Kathbern Management, an executive search firm based in Toronto. Kathbern helps companies find the executives and senior managers who not only have the experience and credentials to fulfill their responsibilities, but also have the emotional and “fit” requirements that will enable them to be successful in a particular environment. Kathbern simplifies the process and, through deep research, brings more and better candidates forward than would ever be possible through a do-it-yourself passive advertising campaign.
Back to Newsletters