In the midst of a talent shortage, some HR professionals are questioning the relevance of maintaining the traditional reference check. Let’s take a look at the arguments of those who still believe in it and those who are considering abandoning the practice.
While checking references in the past, Caroline Boyce recently recounted on LinkedIn that she once called a candidate’s “wife” pretending to be his manager; you have to do it, though!
Many of us question the validity of this practice… she said. The detractors use strong arguments: it is difficult to validate the identity of the reference. The candidate will give references that will speak positively of him. It is difficult to give a constructive reference, because of the fear of prosecution by the candidate…”.
Looking in the rear-view mirror, the talent acquisition manager realized – by doing a little in-house analysis – that more than 95% of the references were positive… enough to raise suspicion.
We’ve seen people give great references to get rid of bad apples…”
Taking a step back, the talent acquisition manager still finds good reasons to call a candidate’s former direct supervisors or managers:
Remember that references are used to cross-validate our interview observations. They are useful for validating complex competencies (e.g. management style). We use them to address certain points of vigilance during the interview, and to ensure that our candidate has all the skills required for the position,” she concluded in her LinkedIn post.
Feedback from recruiters
Marie-Michèle Long is a recruitment consultant at Inacre Conseil; and she is not throwing in the towel on the practice:
I find it relevant to take a reference, not to validate whether they liked the candidate or not, but rather to validate the personality type of that person. What is their thinking, their leadership, is it someone who follows the norm or likes to make changes?”
Probing a candidate’s personality through a reference check call is faster and less expensive than conducting elaborate personality tests, she argues. But she remains realistic about the quality of the information gathered.
Certainly, with all the standards surrounding reference taking, we have to refocus the questions and the reasons for them. And, unfortunately, we don’t always get real answers.”
Sébastien Vachon, senior talent management consultant at La Tête Chercheuse, believes that references should be challenged at a minimum.
You have to go a little further, and make the reference gathering process a little more strategic than operational. No candidate is perfect, after all! In addition, it is important to know the title and function of the reference. A little Google or LinkedIn research is in order!”
Since references are usually handpicked by candidates, the consultant suggests increasing the sample to 4 or 5 to flush out a few nuggets of authentic information.
Julie Belanger, a recruitment consultant, is more realistic.
In my opinion, making references on principle is a waste of time in the context of a pandemic,” she says. On the other hand, I have occasionally made references to confirm questions or go further into the type of person or understand the role in more detail. We have to adapt our questionnaire for each person. In the past, it’s helped me confirm that I had the best candidate for the job, but in a senior management context… I wouldn’t do it for a PHP developer, though!”
What about you as employers? Do you always check references in a resume?
