Why Candidate References Suck
POV: You’re a Recruiter with the perfect candidate. That candidate has passed 4 interview rounds with flying colors. You’ve pre-closed them on the budgeted salary range and you’ve discussed their competing opportunities—highlighting why this job is the right fit for them.
Then the hiring manager asks for three professional references to be completed before they present an offer because they believe in further due diligence since this candidate was laid off two months ago.
We’ve all been here. The frustration is real. There is an intelligent conversation to be had with the People Team, Leadership and/or your Hiring Manager to move away from this archaic practice.
But first, buckle up for the snark because I’m about to speak the truth—professional references are outdated and unreliable.
3 Reasons Candidate References Suck
I could go on forever on this subject, but I’ve chosen the top 3 reasons that will hopefully convince you (and your hiring manager) why references should not be part of your hiring practice.
#1: References are a time killer
Can we just be real? Reference checks are the molasses of the hiring process—slow, sticky, and guaranteed to drag everything to a standstill.
Even in a market where there are more candidates than jobs, a hiring manager should be very careful about taking any extra time before making an offer. In the hiring game, time kills all deals. The longer a talented candidate sits in limbo waiting for reference checks, the higher the chance they get snatched up by a competitor.
Think about it: while you’re chasing down Bob from X Company’s voicemail for the third time, another company might be wrapping up a stellar interview and sending out an offer letter.
#2: Most references are not conducted properly
Most reference processes are not structured. Depending on who is conducting them, they may ask vague questions, leading to unhelpful and subjective responses.
That person may not be asking the same questions to each reference either. Additionally, some references might be hesitant to provide detailed information due to legal concerns or company policies. Now, you have not only wasted time connecting with these references, but the tidbits you’ve gleaned are wildly useless. Which takes me to my final reason.
#3: References are bias
You name it; Selection Bias. Confirmation Bias. Implicit Bias. It all exists in “reference check land.”
If you allow a candidate to make the decision of what references they provide you then selection bias has been introduced. You’ve just fallen victim to a one-sided narrative.
Their references are offering glowing reviews skewing the perspective towards positivity. Can you blame them?
As for confirmation bias, this happens far too often when you have a skeptical hiring managerLet’s say the reference mentions a "communication issue"? Bingo! That hiring manager’s suspicions are confirmed! But wait, what if the "issue" was a simple personality clash with a micromanaging boss?
Finally, Implicit Bias. We all know stereotypes exist. The person conducting the reference check can fall into their subconscious prejudices and all of a sudden implicit bias is at play.
For example, let’s say a reference describes the female candidate as "assertive." That could be perceived negatively by the person on the other end. While the same word used for a male candidate might be seen as a positive quality.
Some organizations work hard to mitigate bias in the interviewing process, but most don’t take it into consideration in the reference check process.
Maybe you’re about to tell me I’m wasting my breath on this issue because your organization doesn’t check references. Instead, you occasionally use your back channels to get a little extra insight on a candidate.
Well, I have some bad news—you’re the biggest offender of all. Just because Chad was in the same fraternity as Mark for a year in college doesn’t mean he knows anything about Mark 10 years later in his career as an Accountant.
Backchannel connections are worthless. Oh but wait, you spoke to Linda who worked at the same 500 person company as Mark just on a different team? Yeah, she doesn’t know him either.
While you may really value Linda’s opinion and her ability to connect with people, you’re receiving inaccurate information from unreliable sources—even if Chad and Linda are well respected in your network.
Now what?
If you’re going to spend extra time anywhere in hiring, spend it on improving your interview process; better defining your position scorecard, structuring your interviews, adding in/swapping out interviewers. Maybe you could add in a skills assessment to help you better gauge a candidate’s hard skills. Let’s not take the ‘easy’ way out folks.
At the end of the day, if you’ve checked yourself, hard-coded your interview process, and still feel the candidate is missing something, then make the difficult decision to move on. Don’t let a reference check make the hiring decision for you.
Please, please #nomorereferencechecks
