run-reference-check

name	run-reference-check
description	Use when evaluating a finalist candidate for a role — to conduct structured phone reference calls that surface specific performance evidence, development needs, and potential red flags that interviews cannot reveal.
source	Smart & Street "Who: The A Method for Hiring" (Ballantine Books, 2008) — Chapter 7 "References"; Chamorro-Premuzic "The Talent Delusion" (Piatkus, 2017); SHRM "Reference Checking" best practice guide
tags	["reference-check","hiring","candidate-evaluation","talent-acquisition","interview","background","due-diligence","performance-verification"]

Run Reference Check

Conduct structured phone reference calls on hiring finalists — asking former managers for specific performance evidence, development areas, and rehire intent — to surface information that candidates cannot provide about themselves.

Why This Is Best Practice

Adopted by: Smart & Street's "A Method" reference check methodology is used extensively in private equity hiring processes (Blackstone, KKR, general Atlantic portfolio companies) and by ghSMART in executive hiring engagements; the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) identifies reference checks as a required element of legally defensible hiring; major technology companies including LinkedIn, Microsoft, and McKinsey use structured reference protocols rather than informal calls Impact: Smart & Street's research (313 hiring decisions analyzed) found that candidates evaluated through the full A Method — which includes 4–7 structured reference calls — produced A-player hires 90% of the time vs. 26% without the method; their analysis found that candidate-provided references alone (friends who will say positive things) were nearly worthless, and that the specific technique of asking for references not on the candidate's list ("who else would know your work?") produced the most predictive information; SHRM's analysis found that 85% of employers have caught candidates lying on resumes or applications — but resume fraud is rarely caught in the interview; reference checks catch it Why best: Candidates are highly motivated to present themselves favorably in interviews and have had time to prepare; former managers who worked with them daily have direct observational evidence that cannot be fabricated; the reference check bypasses the candidate's self-presentation and accesses the evidence of their actual work behavior — which is the strongest predictor of future performance (see also run-behavioral-interview for interview-side evidence)

Sources: Smart & Street "Who: The A Method for Hiring" (Ballantine Books, 2008); Chamorro-Premuzic "The Talent Delusion" (Piatkus, 2017); SHRM "Reference Checking" knowledge center (shrm.org)

Steps

1. Call references — do not email

Email references produce one-sentence, liability-minimizing responses: "I can confirm that [Name] worked here from [date] to [date] and is eligible for rehire." This is legally safe for the reference and useless for you.

Phone calls produce nuance. A reference who says "she was absolutely fantastic" in exactly the same tone as every other response is telling you something different from one who says "he was great — genuinely one of the best I've managed" with warmth and spontaneity. Tone, pace, hesitation, and enthusiasm are data. None of that survives email.

If a reference declines a phone call and insists on email, accept the email — but note that their choice of medium is itself a signal. Former managers who genuinely admire a candidate almost always want to talk.

2. Get references from former managers — not the candidate's list alone

Candidate-provided references are almost always advocates. They have been pre-selected and pre-briefed. Ask for them (you need the corroboration of at least 2–3 strong advocates), but don't rely on them exclusively.

The Ask for Additional References (from "Who"):

At the end of the interview process, ask the finalist: "We'd like to speak with your former managers directly. Who were your last 3 managers? Can I have their names and contact information?"

Then contact those managers directly, regardless of whether the candidate listed them. Most candidates list only the managers they are confident will be positive; managers they omit are often the most informative.

If a candidate is uncomfortable with you contacting a specific former manager, this is information worth probing.

3. Open the reference call with context-setting

The reference needs to trust that the call is genuinely intended to help you make a good decision — not to trap them into saying something negative:

"Thank you for taking my call. I'm considering [Name] for [role] at [company]. 
I'm trying to get a complete and honest picture of how they work — including 
their strengths and the areas where they'd need support. I'll keep what you 
share in confidence. I'm not looking for a formal HR statement — I'm looking 
for your honest experience working with them."

4. Ask the five core reference questions

After context-setting, ask these five questions in order:

1. "In what context did you work with [Name], and for how long?" Context matters: managing a team of 2 is different from managing 50; working in a startup is different from an enterprise. Establish what you're comparing against.

2. "What were [Name]'s biggest strengths in that role?" This is easy for the reference to answer and gets the conversation going. Listen for specificity — vague positives ("great communicator") signal less genuine enthusiasm than specific ones ("she had a gift for translating technical complexity into business terms that our CFO could act on").

3. "What were the areas where [Name] could have done better or needed the most development?" This is the most important question. Most references will give at least one genuine development area if asked directly. Probe: "Can you give me a specific example of a time when that came up?"

Do not accept "I can't think of anything." Follow up: "Nobody's perfect — what's the one thing you would coach them on if they were still on your team?"

4. "How would you rate their overall performance on a 1–10 scale, with 10 being exceptional?" Numbers cut through diplomatic language. An 8 is good. A 9 or 10 is exceptional. A 7 is a warning sign dressed as a positive. A reference who says "9" and then gives two strong development areas is giving consistent data. A reference who says "8" with four strengths and no development areas is telling you something incoherent — probe.

Follow up on any score below 9: "What would have made them a [one point higher]?"

5. "Would you hire [Name] again if you had the right role?" This is the most predictive single question. A genuine enthusiastic "absolutely yes" is a strong positive signal. Hesitation, hedging ("it would depend on the role"), or a qualified "yes" are all worth probing.

Listen for: "I would hire them in a heartbeat" vs. "I wish them well in their next chapter" — these are categorically different answers.

5. Use "the aha moment" question for critical roles

For executive or high-stakes hires, add one more question (Smart & Street):

"Is there anything else you think I should know about [Name] that would help me make a fair decision?"

This is an open invitation for anything the reference wants to volunteer but hasn't found a natural opening for. About 15% of the time, something significant emerges here that didn't come up in the structured questions — a context-specific failure mode, a strong cultural fit observation, or a specific risk.

6. Pattern-match across 4–7 references

Individual references are anecdotes. Four to seven references on the same candidate produce a pattern.

After completing all calls, assess:

• Do the strength themes repeat across 3+ references? (High signal)
• Do the development areas repeat? (Especially high signal — the same growth area named by 3 different former managers, independently, is almost certainly real)
• Is there significant disagreement between references? (Understand why — different context, different time period, or genuine inconsistency)
• What did the candidate say about their relationship with each reference? Does that match the reference's account?

The most important finding is when a candidate's self-description in interviews is systematically inconsistent with reference accounts.

Rules

• Call, don't email — tone, enthusiasm, and hesitation are signal; email produces liability-managed non-information
• Get references from former managers, not only the candidate's list — people not on the list are often the most informative; always contact the last 3 direct managers
• Ask "would you rehire them?" — this is the most predictive single question; probe any answer that isn't an enthusiastic yes
• Pattern across 4–7 references — one reference is an anecdote; four references with the same development theme is a finding
• Compare reference accounts against the candidate's self-description — systematic inconsistency between what the candidate said and what 3 references say is the most important signal

Common Mistakes

• Email reference checks: legally safe for the reference, nearly useless for you; insist on phone calls.
• Only calling the candidate's provided references: these are pre-selected advocates; contact the last 3 managers directly, whether or not they're on the list.
• Accepting "nothing comes to mind" as an answer to development questions: everyone has development areas; a reference who claims otherwise either doesn't know the person well or is protecting them; follow up directly.
• Not asking the rehire question: this is the single most predictive question and is commonly skipped out of politeness; it must be asked.
• One reference check instead of 4–7: a single reference is too noisy to act on; patterns across multiple references are reliable.

When NOT to Use

• When reference information would violate local employment law (some jurisdictions restrict reference disclosures) — work with HR and legal to understand what can be asked and shared in your jurisdiction before conducting checks.
• For contract or short-term roles where the hire timeline is hours, not days — compress to 1–2 calls on the most critical competencies; some reference data is better than none.