| Element of the check | What is supported | Planning use |
|---|---|---|
| Essential prior-employment questions | Xref says its highest-performing checks include 5 essential questions on previous employment | Fix these for every candidate so answers are comparable. |
| Personal-attribute questions | 4-7 questions in the same high-performing checks | Pick from this range based on how much character and working style matter in the role. |
| Role-specific questions | 4-7 questions on the job’s skill set | Write these from the vacancy’s real responsibilities, not from a generic list. |
| Question wording | Questions should not be leading, because that could introduce bias | Ask for examples and let the referee supply the judgement. |
| Short or thin answers | Xref notes that people would rather say nothing than something negative | Treat brevity as a cue to probe, not as neutral. |
These figures come from the vendor guidance in Xref’s reference-check article, and they describe one provider’s approach rather than a legal or industry standard.
Reference check questions work best when they cover prior employment, personal attributes and role-specific skills, stay open rather than leading, and feed a written scorecard that you apply to every candidate.
This step sits inside the wider process of how to hire employees, so run it once interviews have shown what still needs confirming.
What a reference check changes in a hiring decision
A reference check gives the hiring manager evidence from someone who watched the candidate work, and that evidence can confirm, qualify or contradict what the interviews suggested. Xref describes employers using reference checks to ensure compliance, support hiring decisions, identify development areas and uncover opportunities.
The practical consequences are easy to list:
- Confirmation lets you commit. When a former supervisor describes the same ownership and results the candidate described, you can move to an offer with less hedging.
- Contradictions force a follow-up. A gap between the CV, the interview and the referee’s account is a reason to ask the candidate or a second referee, not a reason to reject on the spot.
- Development areas shape onboarding. Honest comments about growth areas tell you where to put coaching in the first weeks.
- Weak evidence means weak weighting. If a referee gives only generic praise, count the check as thin and lean on work samples and interviews instead.
Reference feedback should be one input among several. It earns the most weight for senior, trust-heavy or client-facing roles, where a wrong hire costs the most and where interviews alone are easy to rehearse.
Why the answers you get depend on how you ask
Referees respond to the shape of the question. Xref’s guidance for referees says a good reference is factual, based on observed performance, and honest about strengths and areas for growth rather than claiming the candidate was perfect. It also notes that a referee who is unsure can decline, and that a lukewarm reference can do more harm than good.
That has three implications for the caller:
- Ask about observed behaviour. “What did you see them do when a deadline moved?” produces facts. “Were they a great teammate?” produces adjectives.
- Avoid leading questions. Xref warns that leading questions can introduce bias, so do not signal the answer you hope for.
- Expect honest strengths and weaknesses. A reference that contains no development areas at all is less informative than one that names a realistic gap.
Xref groups reference questions into three categories: essential questions about prior employment, personal-attribute questions and job-specific skill-set questions. Using all three keeps the call from collapsing into either a date check or a character chat.
Reference check questions by role
Start every call with the same essential block: dates, title, reporting line and main responsibilities. Then add attribute and role-specific questions that match the vacancy. The sets below are working templates to adapt, not a fixed script.
Questions for every role
- Relationship: “How do you know the candidate, and in what capacity did you work together?”
- Responsibilities: “What were their main responsibilities, and how did that change over time?”
- Reliability: “Can you describe a time they were under a tight deadline and what happened?”
- Feedback: “How did they respond when asked to revise their work?”
- Close: “Is there anything else I should know that I have not asked about?”
Leadership and management roles
- “Describe a time they had to manage conflict on their team and what they did.”
- “How did they prioritise when several teams needed their time?”
- “What development areas would you name, and how did they respond to coaching?”
Individual contributor and technical roles
- “Can you give an example of work they owned from start to finish?”
- “How was the quality of their output checked, and what did the checks show?”
- “How did they work with colleagues outside their own team?”
Client-facing or trust-heavy roles
- “How did clients or stakeholders react to working with them?”
- “Describe a difficult stakeholder they handled and the outcome.”
- Harver’s sample list for personal references includes: “Would you trust the candidate with large sums of money, children, or sensitive information?” Use that kind of question only where the job genuinely involves such trust.
Peer and co-worker references
Peers see day-to-day habits that a supervisor may miss. Harver’s sample peer questions include a direct attendance question: “Did the candidate miss a lot of work?” Pair it with a request for an example, so the answer is something you can score rather than an impression.
A scoring sheet that leads to a decision
A scorecard turns a stack of friendly conversations into a comparison. Keep it short enough that the caller fills it in during or immediately after the call.
- Verification block: record whether dates, title and responsibilities matched what the candidate said, with a simple matched or not matched marker.
- Competency ratings: rate each competency the role depends on, such as delivery, ownership, collaboration and coachability, as strong, adequate or concern.
- Evidence note: write a single sentence of evidence for each rating, ideally quoting an example or a measure the referee gave.
- Contradiction flag: note anything that conflicts with the CV, interview or another referee.
- Recommendation: choose advance, advance with a named follow-up, or hold pending another reference.
Use the same labels for every candidate so the sheets can be compared side by side. A rating without an evidence note should not count, because it records an impression rather than something observed. If an applicant tracking tool holds your hiring records, store the completed sheet there; the guide to ATS Applicant Tracking System: How To Choose, Implement, And Optimize Hiring In 2026 – Gozaik covers choosing and setting up such a system, and Applicant Tracking Systems For Small Business: How To Hire Faster, Cut Costs, And Improve Quality In 2026 – Gozaik covers the small-team case.
Red flags and how to read them
No single signal settles a hiring decision, but patterns deserve a second look.
- Very short answers. Xref observes that people would rather say nothing than something negative, so a referee who answers briefly on a key competency may be avoiding a negative. Ask for a specific example before drawing a conclusion.
- Lukewarm praise. Xref says a lukewarm reference can do more harm than good. If every answer is polite but vague, treat the competency as unconfirmed.
- Reluctance to speak. A referee who declines or deflects may simply be unsure. A reasonable response is to ask the candidate for another referee who worked with them more closely.
- Contradictions. Harver says automated checks can surface inconsistencies that standard question-and-answer checks may miss. With a manual call, you can do the same by comparing the referee’s account against the CV and interview notes.
- References that may be gamed. Harver notes that some references try to game the system, which is a reason to check that referees are who the candidate says they are and that at least one worked with them directly.
Permission, consent and legal limits
Get the candidate’s agreement before you contact anyone, and record it in the candidate file. Whether consent is a legal requirement depends on the jurisdiction and its employment law, so check local rules; as a working practice, asking first also protects the relationship with the candidate and gives you the right contact details.
Candidate consent also shapes who you can call. A referee can say no. Xref’s guidance for referees says there is no harm in turning down a request they are unsure about, so a polite decline is not evidence of a problem by itself.
On legal limits, Harver advises reading the legal issues of reference checking before use. In practice:
- Check local employment law. Rules differ by country and region, so have HR or counsel review the question list before it goes into use.
- Keep questions tied to the job. Questions on observed performance, reliability and conduct at work are easier to defend than questions about private life.
- Document consistently. Record answers on the scorecard, store them in your hiring system and follow company privacy rules.
- Stay neutral on the call. Read the questions as written, listen, and stop if a referee becomes uncomfortable.
Making the call practical
The hiring manager should confirm the candidate’s list of referees, their roles and the best time to call. Xref’s online approach lets referees complete a check in their own time and save their progress, which suits busy supervisors who cannot take a call at short notice. Referees are also advised to re-familiarise themselves with the candidate’s work first, so a short agenda shared in advance helps them prepare.
Where a referee prefers a conversation, keep it structured: verify the facts, ask the role questions, probe for examples, then close with an open question. Complete the scorecard the same day while the detail is fresh.
Frequently asked questions
Can a referee refuse to give a reference?
Yes. Xref’s guidance says a referee who is unsure can turn the request down, and that a lukewarm reference may harm the candidate. Ask the candidate for an alternative referee who knows their work well.
Is an online form better than a phone call?
It depends on the referee. Online checks let referees answer in their own time and save progress, while calls allow you to probe vague answers immediately. Use a form for convenience and a call for senior or high-trust roles.
Should I ask peers as well as a former supervisor?
Yes where you can. A former supervisor speaks to results and reporting, while peers can speak to day-to-day habits such as attendance, which Harver includes in its sample peer questions.
Can a reference check detect fraud?
It can help. Harver notes that some references try to game the system and that checks can surface inconsistencies. Verify who the referees are and compare their accounts with the candidate’s materials.
