Reading a Reference Check: Separating Fact from Opinion

Part one of three on getting real value out of reference checks.

At RESOURCE recruitment we conduct telephonic reference checks on every candidate we place. They are competency-based and we work hard to keep them fair and consistent.

But a reference is a conversation with a human being about another human being, and no amount of structure removes the subjectivity from that entirely.

This is not a reason to stop doing references. It is a reason to read them properly. And reading them properly starts with knowing which parts of a reference are facts you can rely on, and which parts are one person’s view.

The factual layer

Some items in a reference are verifiable. They exist in a personnel file, and the person giving the reference is either reporting them accurately or not.

• Dates of employment — when the person started and when they left.
• Position held, and whether the title matches what the candidate claimed.
• Reason for termination as recorded by the employer — resignation, retrenchment, dismissal, contract end.
• Whether formal disciplinary action was taken, and on what grounds, as recorded in their personnel file.
• Whether the employer would re-employ the person.

These carry weight. Not because the referee is necessarily objective, but because they are matters of record — and often obtained from the payroll/ HR Department from the Employee records. A recorded reason for leaving that contradicts what the candidate told you is a genuine, checkable discrepancy.

The subjective layer

Then there is everything else. How they got on with the team. Whether they took feedback well. Whether they were a self-starter. Whether they were “a good fit”.  Whether they would reemploy them.  Even if there were any honesty issues (which did not warrant disciplinary action).

This material is not worthless. Sometimes it is the most useful part of the call. But it is one person’s perception and opinion, formed in a particular working relationship, and it needs to be weighed rather than simply recorded and taken as fact.

When I hear something negative in this layer, I want to know three things before I attach any weight to it.

Who is speaking? A direct line manager who worked with the person daily is a different source from an HR representative reading off a file, who is different again from a business owner the candidate resigned on. Each has a different vantage point and a different set of interests.

How specific is it? “He was difficult” is not usable information. “He pushed back publicly in meetings when decisions were made without consulting the team” is concrete, it describes actual behaviour, and it might be a problem or it might be exactly what you need, depending on your environment.

Does it recur? A single negative comment from one referee is a data point. The same concern from two independent referees is a pattern, and patterns are what you should act on.

Keep it in proportion

One last point, and it is the important one.

A reference is a single slice of a much larger picture. Where the role warrants it, you also have criminal checks, credit checks, qualification verification, psychometric assessment and a second interview available to you. Each of those tells you something a reference cannot.

No hiring decision should turn on one phone call with one person who may or may not have had a good working relationship with your candidate.

In the next post, I look at the reasons a genuinely good candidate can come away with a poor reference — and why it happens more often than most employers realise.

This article is general information, not legal advice. For specific situations, consult a labour law practitioner.

Hiring right the first time is still the best probation strategy of all. RESOURCE Recruitment has been matching KZN employers with quality, properly vetted candidates since 2002 — and our RESOURCEful Background Checks division verifies qualifications, references, and records before you sign that contract.