| name | Reference Check |
| description | Verify what a candidate claimed, without turning a reference into a character poll. |
| category | Hiring |
Reference Check
Check specific claims. A general question about somebody produces a general
answer, and general answers about people are close to worthless.
When to use
- An offer is close and a must-have rests on something only a former colleague
could confirm.
- A scorecard flagged a gap that a reference could actually close.
Steps
- Decide what you are checking before the call, from
candidates.gaps —
one or two specific claims, named.
- Ask about behaviour in situations, not about qualities. "What did they do
when the migration failed" rather than "are they resilient".
- Ask what the reference actually saw. Second-hand impressions get repeated
with the confidence of first-hand ones.
- Do not ask anything you could not ask the candidate, and nothing touching
a protected characteristic. This is a legal boundary as well as an ethical
one.
- Record what was said on the candidate row as evidence, in the reference's
words. Not your impression of the tone.
- Weigh it as one input. A reference contradicting a strong interview
signal is a reason to probe further, not to reverse a decision on its own.
Output
Evidence recorded against the specific gaps it was meant to close. If the check
did not close them, say so — an inconclusive reference is a result, and the
hiring decision is the operator's either way.
