Not dead yet: The case for keeping reference checks

The reference check has long been one of the staples of hiring.  For generations, part of the process of getting a job involved the employer picking up the phone, chatting with a former boss and (usually) hearing exactly what they expected: a polite and positive account of the candidate’s performance in a previous role. 

But times are changing; the humble reference check is coming under pressure. 

Many recruiters now say they’re a waste of time, not least because the (almost inevitable) rosy account of the previous employee’s performance ultimately provides little value.

At Catalina Consultants, however, we believe there’s still a place for the reference check, so long as it’s done right. In this article, we explain why.

The case against reference checks

Before we get to figuring out how to do a reference check well, it’s worth pausing to reflect on why they have suddenly become so unpopular.

Generally, we’ve noticed that criticism of reference checks comes down to four main things. 

1. They’re predictable and biased

When you call the referee, you know you’ll almost always receive glowing feedback: little wonder when the candidate gets to handpick who’ll speak on their behalf.   

If someone’s former boss didn’t have great things to say, they simply wouldn’t be listed as a reference. 

So, how much value does it really add to call someone who you know is only going to tell you exactly what you want to hear?

2. They rarely change hiring decisions

Many managers and recruiters will admit they’ve never, over their entire career, actually refused a candidate based on a bad reference. Most reference checks are just rubber-stamps rather than truly testing suitability.

That’s probably why a LinkedIn survey  found that more than 70% of recruiters saw reference checks as either pointless or a mere compliance formality. 

3. They slow down hiring

Increasingly, hiring speed is becoming a factor in the recruitment market. Candidates make job decisions quickly and that means they expect to hear back quickly too. 

Chasing down referees can add unnecessary friction to a process that already includes multiple interviews, skills assessments and sometimes even psychometric testing. 

So, if reference checks don’t add substantial value, why keep them at all?

4. They don’t address real hiring concerns

A final major criticism we hear is that reference checks often fail to answer the most important question, namely ‘will this candidate succeed in this role?’. 

After all, a manager or recruiter’s biggest challenge isn’t confirming that a candidate had a particular job—it’s making sure they have the right skills, attitude and outlook to thrive.

Why references still matter (if you do them right)

Despite the merit of some of these complaints, we think scrapping reference checks entirely is a big mistake. Done well, they can offer insights that go beyond a candidate’s CV or interview performance. 

The key, however, is rethinking how they’re used. Here are some of the best ways we’ve seen good companies take advantage of reference checks. 

1. Use them as a hiring tool, not a box-ticking exercise

Don’t ask the questions a referee expects to hear. Instead of just confirming employment dates and job titles, or asking what they did and whether they did it well, ask them meaningful questions. Here are some starters. 

• What challenges did they face and how did they handle them?
• How did you manage them? What approaches did they respond to best? 
• What strengths and weaknesses did they have?
• What do you think they need to work on?
• How would you describe them in three words?

By taking this approach, you can turn the reference check from a box-ticking administrative hurdle to a practical tool.

2. Move them to earlier in the hiring process

Traditionally, the reference check has been the very last thing in the hiring process: a final act just to make sure your soon-to-be employee’s script checks out.

Some companies are flipping the script though. They’re using reference checks before their final interviews to shape their questions and better assess the candidates. 

For example, if a referee says a candidate struggles with time management but excels in creative problem-solving, you may be able to come up with some questions based on this. For example, what are they doing to overcome their weaknesses, or how has their creativity helped their current employer?

3. Automate the process for speed and objectivity

Just because reference checks are old school, that doesn’t mean you have to go about them in an old school way… 

Digital reference platforms can collect structured feedback from multiple references making the process of checking references both faster and more data-driven. 

You’ll have the opportunity to gather reference data in a matter of hours instead of days, all while improving accuracy so long as you ask the right questions.

4. Use references to improve onboarding

Finally, reference checks shouldn’t just be about confirming hiring decisions. They should be a tool for setting up new hires for success. 

By gathering insights on how a candidate likes to work, how they respond to feedback, and what kind of support they need, you’ll be able to craft a tailored onboarding plan that lets your new employee hit the ground running. 

The future: Less “reference check,” more “candidate success check”

We agree that the traditional “Can you confirm Kate worked there?”-style reference call might be on its way out, but the need for deeper insights isn’t going anywhere. In fact, in today’s employment market, it’s becoming even more important. 

By embracing data-driven, structured and strategic reference checks you have the potential to turn the process into a secret weapon —not just in hiring, but in onboarding and retention.

So instead of asking whether the reference check is dead, the better question might be ‘are you doing them right?’.

Do reference checks wrong, and they’re a waste of time.

Do them right, and they’re your secret weapon.

Choose wisely.