Keeping reference checks in context

References are one of the most widely accepted steps in hiring — and yet most people involved in the process quietly question their value.

Employers ask for them. Candidates prepare them carefully. Managers conduct the calls. And almost everyone walks away with the same polite, predictable information.

It raises an uncomfortable question: if references rarely tell us anything new, what are employers actually looking for?

On paper, references are meant to validate a candidate’s past performance, behaviour and reliability. In practice, they have become something much more limited.

Many organizations have adopted neutral reference policies, where former employers will only confirm dates of employment and job titles. Even when more detail is offered, it is often cautious, general and overwhelmingly positive.

This is not because every employee is exceptional. It is because the risk of saying the wrong thing feels greater than the benefit of being candid.

As a result, reference checks tend to follow a familiar script. The candidate was great. They worked hard. They were a team player.

There may be a small, carefully worded area for development, but it is rarely meaningful enough to influence a hiring decision.

So why do employers keep doing them?

Part of the answer is risk management. References create a sense of due diligence. They demonstrate an employer took reasonable steps before making a hiring decision. Even if the information is limited, the act of checking can feel like an important safeguard.

Another part is confirmation. By the time a candidate reaches the reference stage, the hiring manager usually wants to hire them. The interview has gone well. The team is aligned. The reference check becomes less about discovery and more about reassurance. It is a final step that supports a decision that has already been made.

There is also a subtle shift in what experienced hiring managers listen for. It is not always about what is said directly; it is about how it is said.

Tone, hesitation and specificity can carry more weight than the actual words. A reference who speaks easily, offers concrete examples and seems genuinely enthusiastic leaves a very different impression than one who sticks closely to generic phrases.

Even within the limits of a cautious reference, there are signals.

For example, when asked if they would rehire the candidate, a quick and confident yes can be telling. A pause, qualified answer or redirection can also provide insight, even if the words themselves remain positive.

Similarly, references who can describe how the candidate handled pressure, conflict or change tend to be more credible than those who stay at surface level.

None of this is foolproof. It requires interpretation, and interpretation comes with bias. Two hiring managers can hear the same reference and draw different conclusions. That is one of the reasons references should never carry too much weight on their own.

Candidates, for their part, understand the system well. They choose references who will speak positively. They prepare them in advance. They may even coach them on what to expect.

This is not dishonest, it is simply how the process works.

But it does mean references do not provide a neutral or complete picture of a candidate’s past performance. They are a curated one.

So where does that leave employers who genuinely want to make good hiring decisions?

It starts with recognizing the limitations of references and adjusting expectations accordingly. References are not likely to uncover major red flags not already visible in the interview process. If there are serious concerns about a candidate, they should be explored earlier and more directly.

Stronger hiring processes rely less on references and more on other forms of assessment. Structured interviews, where each candidate is asked the same questions and evaluated against clear criteria, tend to produce more consistent results. Asking candidates to describe specific past experiences, including challenges and mistakes, often reveals more than a reference call.

Some organizations are also incorporating practical assessments or work samples. These allow candidates to demonstrate their skills in a way directly relevant to the role. While not always feasible, they can provide a clearer picture of how someone will perform.

There is also value in being more thoughtful about how references are conducted.

Instead of relying on a standard list of questions, hiring managers can focus on a few areas that truly matter for the role. Asking for specific examples, rather than general impressions, can lead to more meaningful responses. Creating a conversational tone, rather than a checklist, can also encourage references to share more openly.

Another practice becoming more common is backchannel referencing. This is when a hiring manager reaches out to someone in their network who has worked with the candidate, without the candidate formally providing that person as a reference. It might be a former colleague, a mutual industry contact or someone at a previous organization.

The appeal is obvious. These conversations often feel more candid. People may be less guarded than they would be in an official reference check and the feedback can be more specific and experience based.

But that does not automatically make it better.

There are some real risks to consider.

One is fairness. Candidates generally expect to know who is being contacted about them. When backchannel checks happen without their knowledge, it can undermine trust in the process. It also removes the candidate’s ability to provide context. A difficult past manager or workplace can shape someone’s experience in ways that are not obvious from the outside.

Another concern is accuracy. Informal feedback can be shaped by personal bias, limited interaction, or outdated information. The person being contacted may not have worked closely with the candidate or may be relying on second-hand impressions. Because these conversations are unstructured, they can drift into opinion rather than fact.

There is also the issue of consistency. If some candidates are subject to backchannel checks and others are not, it creates an uneven process and raises questions about how decisions are being made.

That said, it is not realistic to suggest backchannel referencing never happens, especially in smaller or well-connected industries.

A more balanced approach is to be transparent and intentional.

Some employers tell candidates upfront, in addition to formal references, they may speak with mutual connections. This gives candidates a chance to flag any concerns or provide context. Others ask if there is anyone they would prefer not be contacted, which can help avoid sensitive situations.

It is also important to treat any backchannel information as just one piece of the overall picture. It should not outweigh a strong interview or contradict multiple positive indicators without further exploration. If something concerning comes up, the most reasonable step is to go back to the candidate and ask about it directly rather than treating it as a hidden test.

For candidates, the reality of references is both reassuring and limiting. A well-prepared set of references can support their candidacy and reinforce the strengths they have already demonstrated. At the same time, it is unlikely to dramatically change an employer’s perception.

The best approach is to choose references who can speak to different aspects of their work and to give them enough context about the role to provide useful, relevant insight.

In the end, the role of references is not broken, but is often misunderstood. They are not a deep investigative tool and they are not designed to uncover every risk. They are one part of a much larger picture.

For employers, the goal should not be to extract more from references than they can realistically provide. It should be to build hiring processes that stand on their own, with references serving as a final layer of confidence rather than the foundation of the decision.

For candidates, the goal is to ensure their references align with the story they have told throughout the hiring process.

Hiring is ultimately about judgment. References can inform that judgment, but they cannot replace it.

Tory McNally, CPHR, BSc., vice-president, professional services at TIPI Legacy HR+ (formerly Legacy Bowes), is a human resource consultant, relationship builder and problem solver. She can be reached at tmcnally@tipipartners.com