Reference Check Questions That Reveal Real Performance

By Don Georgevich

Phase Three of the Scientific Hiring Method: Discovery

The best reference-check questions do not ask whether someone liked the candidate. They verify the evidence that matters in the role.

A reference conversation becomes useful when it begins with a specific claim, strength, or risk uncovered earlier in the hiring process.

If a candidate said they rebuilt a broken operating process, ask someone who observed the work what the candidate personally owned, how the change gained support, and what result remained. If the Candidate Test Drive revealed strong analysis but weak prioritization, ask how the person handled competing demands in the real job.

Prepare the questions from the evidence

Before contacting a reference, review the Structured Interview, Candidate Test Drive, and completed Interview Scorecards.

Write down the candidate’s strongest claims, the patterns supported by more than one source, and the risks that remain unresolved. Then choose questions this reference is in a position to answer.

OPM recommends basing reference-check questions on job analysis, using the same core questions for candidates, and collecting information in a structured way. It also advises employers to avoid questions that are not directly related to the job. See OPM’s Reference Checking guidance.

Open the conversation clearly

A practical opening might sound like this:

“Jordan gave me permission to speak with you about their work. We are considering Jordan for an Operations Manager role that must improve cross-team handoffs, create clear ownership, and establish a reliable weekly operating rhythm. I would like to ask about work you directly observed. I will keep the conversation to about fifteen minutes.”

The reference knows why you called, which work matters, and how much time the conversation should take.

Question 1: In what capacity did you work with the candidate?

Confirm the reporting relationship, period of work, frequency of contact, and the situations the reference directly observed.

Probe: “Which parts of the candidate’s work were you close enough to evaluate personally?”

Question 2: What was the candidate actually responsible for?

Titles vary widely. Ask about scope, authority, team size, resources, decision rights, and the condition of the work.

Probe: “Which important decisions could the candidate make without approval?”

Question 3: Which result best represents the candidate’s ability?

Ask for one specific accomplishment connected to the role.

Probes: “What part did the candidate personally own?” “How was the result measured?” “What did other people contribute?”

Question 4: What did the candidate notice that other people initially missed?

This can reveal diagnosis, attention, judgment, and the ability to separate symptoms from causes.

Probe: “What evidence changed the team’s understanding of the problem?”

Question 5: How did the candidate respond when people resisted their approach?

Ask for a real example rather than a general statement about communication.

Probes: “What caused the resistance?” “How did the candidate adapt?” “Did formal authority eventually become necessary?”

Question 6: What kind of problem did you trust the candidate to handle independently?

This helps reveal the level of judgment and responsibility the person earned.

Probe: “What still required your involvement?”

Question 7: Where did the candidate need the most support?

Every employee needs support. The question is whether the conditions that weakened performance are compatible with the new role.

Probe: “What happened when that support was not available?”

Question 8: How did the candidate handle competing priorities?

Ask how the person decided what could wait, what required escalation, and how changes were communicated.

Probe: “Tell me about a time the candidate chose the wrong priority. What happened next?”

Question 9: What important decision did the candidate get wrong?

The answer can reveal judgment, ownership, learning, and whether the same mistake continued.

Probe: “What changed in the candidate’s later behavior?”

Question 10: How did the candidate respond to difficult feedback?

Ask for evidence of what the person did after receiving the feedback.

Probe: “What change could other people observe?”

Question 11: What pattern made the candidate especially effective?

Move beyond adjectives such as driven, strategic, or dependable.

Probe: “What did the candidate repeatedly do that earned that description?”

Question 12: What pattern sometimes limited the candidate’s performance?

This is often more useful than asking for a weakness because it connects the limitation to real conditions and behavior.

Probe: “How serious was the effect, and how did the candidate manage it?”

Question 13: What should the next manager understand about leading this person?

The answer may reveal needs related to clarity, autonomy, feedback, pace, resources, or decision authority.

Probe: “What happened when a manager misunderstood that?”

Question 14: Given the role I described, what should we examine more carefully?

This gives the reference permission to identify a real risk without forcing them to make the hiring decision.

Probe: “What evidence would help us determine whether that risk is manageable?”

Question 15: Is there anything important about the candidate’s performance that my questions failed to uncover?

A structured process should remain open to relevant evidence that the question set did not anticipate.

Probe: “Why would that matter in the role I described?”

Verify a specific interview claim

Suppose the candidate said:

“I gained support from three department managers and led the rollout of one shared scheduling process.”

A useful reference question is:

“Jordan described creating the shared scheduling process and gaining support from three department managers. What did you observe about Jordan’s role in the diagnosis, the decision, and the adoption?”

The reference may confirm that the candidate diagnosed the problem, created the pilot, and persuaded two managers, while the vice president required the third manager to participate.

That does not erase the accomplishment. It gives the company a more accurate description of the candidate’s influence.

Use the same core questions but different verification questions

Every reference should receive comparable questions about relationship, responsibility, accomplishments, support needs, judgment, and the role being considered.

The specific verification questions may differ because each reference observed different work and each candidate created different open questions. Structure means the purpose and standard remain consistent, not that every conversation uses identical words.

Do not treat enthusiasm as evidence

Some references are naturally warm. Others are cautious because of employer policy, personal style, or concern about saying too much.

A highly enthusiastic tone does not prove performance, and hesitation does not prove a problem. Record the specific job-related information the reference can support.

Handle conflicting information fairly

A reference may remember only part of an event or interpret it differently. One conflicting statement should not automatically control the decision.

Compare the reference with the résumé, interview, Candidate Test Drive, and other references. When the conflict matters, return to the candidate for clarification without sharing unnecessary confidential detail.

You might say:

“We heard a different description of how the scheduling change gained adoption. Help me understand who made the final decision and which part you personally handled.”

Ask only about the work

Do not ask references for medical information, family circumstances, age, religion, disability, genetic information, or other protected personal information unrelated to the role.

The EEOC states that employers may not give negative or false employment references, or refuse to provide references, for discriminatory reasons. Employers receiving reference information must also avoid using it in a discriminatory manner. See the EEOC’s Prohibited Employment Policies and Practices.

Reference calls are not the same as third-party background reports

A direct conversation with someone the candidate authorized is different from purchasing a report from a company that compiles background information.

The FTC states that employers using a background-reporting company for employment purposes must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including disclosure, permission, and adverse-action procedures. See the FTC’s Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know.

Federal, state, and local requirements may differ. This page is educational and is not legal advice.

Record what the reference changed

After the conversation, write:

Claim verified: Which candidate statement or pattern received support?

Context added: What became more accurate or complete?

Risk identified: Which concern appeared or became more important?

Conflict: Where did the reference disagree with earlier evidence?

Decision effect: Did the new information strengthen, weaken, or leave the candidate’s case unchanged?

What comes next

Use Reference Checking: How to Verify the Patterns You Found for the complete process. Then combine the complete body of evidence through Candidate Evaluation and the Hiring Decision process.

Return to Discover What a Candidate Can Really Do or the main Scientific Hiring Method.