21
How to Check References

Over the past 20 years, companies have grown less and less willing to be open with those checking references. This is absolutely an overreaction to defamation lawsuits of 25 years ago, and a trickle down of executive employment contract law.

If you’ve heard that “companies don’t give references anymore,” that’s true, sort of. If you ask someone official at a firm, particularly in HR, there’s a fair chance you’ll get someone who spouts the company line at you. “We don’t give references.” This is simply lawsuit avoidance . . . though when was the last time you heard of someone suing a firm for defamation in a reference?

But some managers who aren’t aware of the rules (and who don’t refer you to HR) often still do answer reference-seeking questions. They may feel they’re not giving a reference, but they’re still telling us stuff we want to know.

They probably know something of “I don’t have to do this” or “I think I’m not supposed to do this.” But there’s a way to go about it that will get us some good information.

The first rule is start with an admission and factual questions. This is what HR has probably told them, or that they have surmised: “We can confirm dates of employment.” They’ve actually probably told them more, like what they really can’t talk about, but most managers miss some of the detailed guidance. And, remember, this is only in companies that have HR orgs that are legally careful. The vast majority of firms aren’t as careful as that.

So for any reference checking, we start with factual questions that help the manager or reference see that we’re not asking for too much. Further, we’re going to say at the outset, “I only have a few questions. This won’t take more than five minutes.” But first, we admit that the interview process has progressed to the final stage, and we are simply checking references. It would sound very much like that:

• “Our firm has been interviewing Allie Simpson. She’s done well, and we’ve reached the point where we do a simple reference check.”
• “We’ve been interviewing Allie Simpson, and we’re in the late stages, where we check references.”

If we don’t tell them it’s in the late stages, or give some indication that the candidate has done well, references are much less likely to be candid about weaknesses or concerns, because they won’t see themselves as messing up the candidate’s chance for a fair shot in the interviews.

Most companies only go to the trouble of checking references at very late stages, if they do it at all. Some, in fact, make offers before checking, but make them contingent on a successful reference check. Why, then, they don’t tell the reference that is beyond us. When a reference hears an offer has been made, he is much more likely to be open with concerns. And to be clear, remember our first principle of interviewing: The Purpose of Interviewing Is to Say NO.

One more key: Always tell references that you’re calling because they were listed as a reference by the candidate. This makes them realize that they’ve been asked a favor by the candidate, and they’re just doing that favor by talking to us.

The first question is a no-brainer. This question even the most hardened of companies tells managers they can answer. Companies allow this question to be answered to provide themselves with the opportunity to police those people who would list them as a part of their employment history when in fact they never worked there.

Therefore we must ask this question first, to make sure the most basic of assumptions is checked. If there is a noticeable difference in the dates of employment, after multiple interviews, this could be (and by us would be) a serious breach of ethics that would result in declining to offer. There are exceptions, but dates are often “fudged,” and the rationale for a “mistake” would have to be compelling if the mistake worked in the candidate’s favor.

The fact that we start with this question helps references understand that we understand the situation they are in, and helps them get comfortable with us for later in the discussion, when we’re definitely going to ask questions that possibly they’re not supposed to answer. To be clear, and as we’ll repeat later, we will not imply that they should answer any questions, nor will we behave disrespectfully or rudely if they don’t. We’re simply going to assume both that (a) there may be rules in place that limit them and (b) they still want to help the person who put them down as a reference. (Wouldn’t you, when you’re listed as such?)

If you’re talking to HR, don’t give them the dates you’ve been given. Ask them to look them up. That is validation. They may not have it available, or at least say they don’t, but usually they’re willing to find it, even in places where referral policing is done.

One more thing about HR: If you’re talking to HR, and you get through all of these questions at a large well-known employer, you are either an exceptionally good relationship builder, talking to an easy mark, or talking to a reference who really loves that candidate. It’s probably all three, and well done.

If you’re not talking to HR, and the manager you are speaking with doesn’t have access to records, you may have to suggest the dates and accept confirmation rather than independent validation. That’s okay.

This is another simple factual question. Many companies tell their managers that “you” (the manager) can’t talk to them, but “we” (HR) can. There are legal reasons for this. And they tell managers that in addition to the dates of employment, they—HR—will also confirm what the job title was.

In our case, we’re asking for two reasons. First, we want to know the actual job title. Remember now, we still haven’t made an offer, and we’re looking for reasons to say no. Sadly, very few people believe that references are checked, and job titles are often doctored. Second, we want the reference to still feel we are asking questions that he or she can’t get in trouble for answering.

To be clear, a job title that is not an exact match is not grounds for significant concern. There is enough lack of clarity within firms themselves that sometimes there is some wiggle room. There are enough subtleties that we could suggest guidance just on the kinds of differentiation we think are reasonable.

As a general rule, the bigger the company, the more clear job titles are. And there are certain titles that mean certain things.

A couple of discrepancies that would catch our eye:

• Use of Manager Without Directs or a Budget. These are not dispositive, but “manager” implies one or both of these. Yes, we know that there are individual contributors who are legitimately called manager, and they don’t have a budget. We would recommend concern is indicated if there is a pattern of discrepancy.

  • This guidance still stands in the event that someone uses “manager” when the reference says “team leader” or “supervisor.” It is a judgment call, but “manager” implies more responsibility in most places, and it’s reasonable to expect a professional to understand the distinction.
• Use of Director While Not Supervising Managers. Director has a broader, less precisely defined usage, and so we would be more broadly flexible here. But “director” generally does imply manager of managers. Again, a pattern is a red flag; this by itself is perhaps unworthy of scrutiny.
• Larger, Known Company with Patterns of Discrepancies. The bigger the company, the more carefully titles are managed. Any pattern of difference there would seriously concern us.

For all of these situations, if there were a discrepancy between the title given and the one the candidate has used, it would be completely reasonable for you to share what was on the résumé or said in the interview, to give the reference the chance to say something like, “Oh, yes, well here the terms manager and supervisor are interchangeable.” This isn’t a great answer (and you may have to assess, unfortunately, the truthfulness of it), but it is one that we would probably counsel giving the benefit of the doubt on if it were the sole discrepancy.

This is again a case where the question does not give the job title, but asks the reference to say it first. This is the difference between validation, which is what we want, versus the more passive “confirmation.”

Notice here that we’re still talking basically about facts—a job description. But now we’re asking for comments. The core of the question stays benign, but we’re asking for elaboration by asking for a comment.

In this case, we read the job description from the candidate’s résumé. [Obviously, for a job of which the reference in question would have knowledge.] This gives some wiggle room, because we don’t require candidates to precisely reproduce the official job description. That’s also why we ask for comments. In our experience, references understand this.

In the majority of situations, the reference makes some comment about the description being basically true, but then comments in some other way that is helpful also.

If a reference up until this point has been fairly tight-lipped, you can ask this question in two parts to increase the chances of a more meaningful elaboration. The first question would be a purely factual one. For instance, “The job we’re considering Allie for will have a budget of X. In his job description, he states that he managed a budget of Y. Is this reasonably accurate?”

Once you have an answer there, it’s easy to simply expand to the entire job description. “Let me just briefly read you the job description and ask for your comments.” This tends to get a little more openness. [Obviously a discrepancy in the budget that wasn’t a rounding error would be noteworthy.]

This probably goes without saying, but we’re not expecting gross discrepancies to be commonplace. If someone has made it through the entire interviewing process—a tough interviewing process—you should have discovered already if he’s willing and able to mislead in a printed document intentionally.

Therefore, it should be easy to be verbally thankful for every answer we get. We want the reference to relax. As often as is reasonable without sycophancy, say thank you, and express appreciation for the time and any candor shown beyond purely factual answers.

The questions we’ve asked up until now have been potentially helpful, but again we hope that big discrepancies would not occur because that would indicate you haven’t been able to see the candidate’s apparent willingness to mislead.

We hope that through simple, benign questions, and answers responded to with thankfulness, that the reference has relaxed enough that we will receive more expansive answers to more substantive questions.

Nevertheless, at no time must we ever express frustration or disappointment with references who hew tightly to a narrow answering of the questions. That will destroy any trust we’ve built, and it’s just not professional. It’s completely appropriate for them to be loyal to whatever guidance they’ve been given, and we have to assume that not being open is in service to a higher value than helping us or the candidate who listed them.

This is a two-part construction designed to smooth the transition from facts to opinions, from surface to substantive. In this case, you don’t have to make it about a project, but rather about anything specific either discussed or stated on the résumé. The bigger/more important the project, the more likely you’re going to get a good answer, because the reference thinks you’re validating the scope of his involvement, rather than his strengths and weaknesses, for example.

The results part will often be assumed by the reference as validation of whatever the candidate has told you, whether he has told you anything in detail or not. The question transitions the conversation from facts to depth.

This is asking for information about our candidate’s strengths, or a significant accomplishment. At this point, we hope, the transition from validating facts to sharing insights has been made.

It does happen that you’ll have a reference who will stick to the party line. If so, there’s nothing wrong with asking this question, knowing full well you won’t get a good answer . . . and, you never know. Maybe at this point she’ll remember she was chosen to be a reference, and she’s supposed to help the candidate. Usually, though, references are willing to be open at this point.

This question has to follow the previous one about strengths or best contribution, because they come as a pair so often in interviewing. In most cases, the approach we’ve outlined here works quite well, even with legally minded managers, and you learn some new information despite it being perhaps “against the rules” to share it.

This is not to say that you’re going to learn something bad: If you’re a good interviewer and have followed a professional process, it’s unlikely that there will be some dark revelation. But in light of our purpose, to say “no,” the fact that it’s possible you will learn anything of concern justifies the effort.

Once references have relaxed enough to answer the previous questions, if they have, this question asks them directly to apply their wisdom and insight to help you “assess” something. Very few can resist the call to their ego here. And once they engage their assessment hat, they’re unlikely to be perfectly positive.

The negatives are what we’re hoping to hear. We don’t expect to hear anything that on its own is a knockout punch, but four or five negatives in the same vein, if they are in an area where strengths are called for in your role, might be enough to cause you to pause.

I’ve always hoped that here anyone I asked to be a reference would scoop up all the negatives he or she may have mentioned in the earlier answers and say, “Regardless of any of my answers, you’d be a fool not to hire him.” But once you’ve asked for assessment in the previous question, you shouldn’t be surprised at the willingness to be what we call in recruiting “dumb honest”: saying something true that could be damaging if taken in isolation.

Managers who check references get better at it and learn what works and what doesn’t. It’s best to have a standard approach, which time and experience will cause you to modify for even better results.