Reference Checking: How to Verify the Patterns You Found

By Don Georgevich

Phase Three of the Scientific Hiring Method: Discovery

Reference checking should verify the patterns you found in the interview and Candidate Test Drive—not merely confirm dates or collect praise.

Most reference checks are treated as a final formality. The employer confirms dates, asks whether the person is eligible for rehire, hears a few careful compliments, and checks the box.

A stronger reference process begins with the evidence already gathered. The interviewer identifies the candidate’s strongest claims, the patterns that appeared across interviews, and the risks that remained after the Candidate Test Drive. The reference conversation is then used to verify, challenge, or add context to those findings.

That approach adds little to the decision. A useful reference conversation returns to the evidence already gathered and asks someone who observed the candidate’s work to confirm, challenge, or add context to it.

Reference checking verifies the evidence already gathered

OPM describes reference checking as a method that can provide job-related information about past performance and notes that adding structure can improve its effectiveness. Recommended practices include basing questions on job analysis, asking the same core questions, and using standardized ways to record information. See OPM’s Reference Checking guidance.

The reference check should connect to the Job Scorecard, the Structured Interview, and the Candidate Test Drive. It should verify evidence already found rather than introduce a new personality contest at the end of the process.

Ask the candidate for people who saw the work

A senior executive with little direct contact may be less useful than a manager, peer, customer, project partner, or direct report who observed the candidate in situations connected to the role.

Ask how each reference knows the candidate, which work they observed, and during what period. For leadership roles, several perspectives may be useful because managers, peers, and direct reports see different behavior.

Do not treat the candidate’s current employer as an automatic requirement. Contacting a current employer without permission may expose the candidate’s search and damage the employment relationship.

Prepare a short evidence brief

Before making the call, write down:

The role outcomes: What the new employee must accomplish.

The candidate’s strongest claims: Results or patterns worth verifying.

The unresolved risks: Questions the interview or work sample did not settle.

The reference’s point of view: What this person was in a position to observe.

This preparation keeps the conversation focused and prevents a general positive impression from replacing the information the company actually needs.

Open the call clearly

A practical opening might sound like this:

“Jordan has given me permission to speak with you about their work. We are considering Jordan for an Operations Manager role. The person will need to improve cross-team handoffs, create clearer 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 the purpose, the work being evaluated, and the expected length of the call.

Eight questions that verify real performance

1. In what capacity did you work with the candidate?

Confirm the relationship, dates, reporting structure, and the work the reference directly observed.

2. What was the candidate actually responsible for?

Titles differ across companies. Ask about scope, authority, team size, resources, and the condition of the work.

3. What result did the candidate personally contribute to that best reflects their ability?

Ask for one specific example. Follow with: “What part did the candidate own?” and “How was the result measured?”

4. What kind of problem did you trust the candidate to handle without close supervision?

This can reveal where the person’s judgment was strongest and how much independence they earned.

5. Where did the candidate need the most support?

Every employee needs support. A useful answer identifies the conditions under which performance weakened or management involvement increased.

6. How did the candidate respond when someone challenged their approach?

For many roles, disagreement reveals more than cooperation. Ask for an example rather than a label such as “good communicator.”

7. What should the next manager understand to help this person succeed?

This often produces practical information about pace, clarity, authority, feedback, resources, or team conditions.

8. Given the role I described, what would you want us to examine more carefully?

This gives the reference permission to identify a real concern without demanding a negative judgment.

Probe beyond adjectives

If the reference says the candidate was “excellent,” ask what the person did that earned that description.

If the candidate was “difficult,” ask what happened, how often it happened, what conditions were present, and how the behavior affected the work.

If the reference offers only general praise, return to a specific claim:

“Jordan told us they redesigned the scheduling handoff across three locations and reduced delayed starts. What did you observe about Jordan’s role in that work?”

Specific questions make it easier for the reference to discuss work rather than offer a cautious character statement.

Compare the reference with earlier evidence

Suppose the candidate said they personally persuaded three managers to adopt a new process. The work sample also showed strong practical influence.

The reference may say the candidate built support through a small pilot and regular manager meetings. That strengthens the pattern.

The reference may instead say the vice president required adoption and the candidate handled implementation after the decision. That does not automatically disqualify the candidate, but it changes the meaning of the earlier claim.

Record where evidence agrees, where it adds context, and where it conflicts.

Give the candidate a chance to explain important conflicts

References may remember events differently, observe only part of the work, or have their own bias.

When a meaningful conflict could affect the decision, return to the candidate without revealing 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 what part you personally handled.”

The goal is not to make the candidate defend every comment. It is to resolve evidence that matters to the role.

Do not score enthusiasm

Some employers have strict reference policies. Some managers are naturally cautious. Others praise almost everyone.

A hesitant tone is not proof of a problem, and strong enthusiasm is not proof of performance. Score the specific job-related information the reference can support.

Employment dates, title, and eligibility for rehire may be useful facts, but they should not become the entire reference assessment.

Use the same central questions

References will have different relationships and examples, so every conversation cannot be identical. The central outcomes and questions should remain stable enough for the information to be compared.

OPM’s reference-checking guidance recommends structure, standardized questions, and consistent data collection. This reduces the chance that one candidate receives a deep performance review while another receives only a friendly conversation.

Keep references separate from third-party background reports

A direct conversation with a reference is not the same as purchasing a background report from a company that compiles information.

The FTC states that employers using a background-reporting company for employment purposes must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including required disclosures, permission, and procedures when report information may lead to an adverse decision. See the FTC’s Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know.

State and local requirements may add further obligations. Review the process with qualified counsel rather than assuming a normal reference call and a commercial background report are governed in the same way.

Keep the conversation job-related and nondiscriminatory

Do not ask references for medical information, family circumstances, protected personal information, or rumors unrelated to the work.

The EEOC states that employers may not give negative or false 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.

This page is educational and is not legal advice.

A useful reference-check record

Reference relationship: Direct manager for two years during regional expansion.

Claim tested: Candidate said they created the scheduling process and gained adoption from three resistant managers.

Reference evidence: Confirmed that the candidate mapped the process, designed the shared status, and ran a pilot. The vice president approved the final rollout, but the candidate earned two managers’ support before the approval.

Strength confirmed: Practical process diagnosis and willingness to test a change before expanding it.

Risk identified: Candidate became frustrated when managers missed follow-through and sometimes escalated too quickly.

Question for candidate: What would the candidate now do differently before escalating?

Decision effect: Evidence supports the central accomplishment. Influence remains strong but should not be overstated. Management style needs a final clarification.

The final question

After all references are complete, ask:

What do we know now that we did not know before, and does it change the evidence behind the decision?

If the answer is nothing, the reference process may have been too general.

Use Reference Check Questions That Reveal Real Performance for the complete question bank. Return to the Candidate Test Drive or Structured Interview when a capability still needs direct evidence.

Then combine the complete record through Candidate Evaluation. Return to Discover What a Candidate Can Really Do or the main Scientific Hiring Method.

Carry verified patterns and unresolved risks into the final Hiring Decision.