Home » News » Management Skills » Reference checks: what to ask referees

Reference checks: what to ask referees

17 June 2008

Source: WorkplaceInfo

While it is sound practice to use a reference checking form or checklist with standard questions for all job applicants, checkers should also exercise enough flexibility to explore other relevant issues in more depth. The principles involved are similar to those recommended for the employment interview.

What to ask referees and what to do if you don’t like what you hear are critical issues that need to be confronted directly by HR staff and managers involved in the recruitment process.

Standard questions

Typical standard questions cover the following issues:

  • verify dates of employment
  • verify job title
  • verify reporting level of job
  • seek information on nature of job duties and scope of job, eg how many people the applicant managed, size of budget
  • confirm remuneration level – ensure you distinguish between base wages/salary, overtime, non-cash benefits and total remuneration package
  • seek comments on applicant’s strengths and weaknesses
  • seek details of other aspects of job performance, eg work quality, sales/production levels, safety record, attendance/absenteeism, time-keeping, relations with other staff and customers, budget management
  • ask why the applicant left the job
  • ask whether the previous employer would re-employ him/her, and why.

The standard form/checklist should include questions covering all the above areas.

Exploring other issues

The reference above to ‘seeking details of other aspects of job performance’ is the main area in which you may wish to ‘customise’ the reference check for each individual applicant.

This means preparing some behaviour-based or situation-based questions to find out how the applicant had behaved when faced with certain types of work situations. Possibly, you may already have asked the applicant similar questions during his/her interview and wish to check whether his/her response was an accurate reflection of what happened.

Also, note that it is important to look for patterns in the applicant’s work history. This covers personal qualities (such as honesty, reliability, cooperation, teamwork, relationships with peers/subordinates/managers, absenteeism/time-keeping, etc), behavioral style, successes/achievements and failures.

Behaviour-based or situation-based questions can cover issues such as the following:

  • selling ability, skills and record
  • behaviour when under pressure
  • use of initiative
  • relations with customers
  • dealing with difficult customers
  • project management skills
  • managing multiple projects and deadlines
  • meeting deadlines
  • communicating progress of work to others
  • meeting budgets
  • persuading other people
  • implementing, or coping with, workplace change (including overcoming resistance from others)
  • giving and receiving feedback (including handling rejections)
  • decision-making style
  • management style
  • listening skills
  • dealing with workplace conflict
  • delegation skills and/or seeking help from others
  • communicating ‘bad news’ to others
  • learning style.

Use interview techniques

Note: It is best to ask the referee to describe actual work events where possible. The questions can be framed like interview questions, eg ‘Can you provide an example of when …?’, ‘What did [the applicant] do?’, ‘What happened then?’

It is also better to ask a few key questions rather than grab most of the questions from the above list and attempt a lengthy inquisition. Note that the referee’s time is valuable and he/she is doing you a favour by responding to your request, so minimise the inconvenience. If you really need to ask a large number of questions, consider giving the referee the option to respond to a written/emailed questionnaire instead.

Many employment interview techniques will be equally valid for seeking information from referees. They include the use of open-ended questions, encouraging the referee to talk freely and openly, and active listening. Don’t stick rigidly to the checklist script if exploring other areas is likely to reveal useful extra information.

With slight changes, the above questions can also be used for non-work references, eg when you contact the manager of a community service organisation that the applicant has done voluntary work for. The key is to seek comments about skills and behaviour that are relevant to the job applied for.

What to do when discrepancies arise

Sometimes you will receive responses from referees that are unfavourable to the applicant in some respect, or that contradict the information he/she has provided.

Common factual examples include the following:

  • job title or job responsibilities overstated, usually either to mask a lack of relevant experience for the new position or to improve the chances of obtaining a more senior position
  • the referee gives a different reason why the person left the previous job, eg dismissed instead of voluntarily resigned
  • remuneration in previous job overstated, perhaps in the hope of obtaining a better deal from a new employer
  • period of employment overstated, possibly to cover up some event the applicant wants to conceal, such as dismissal, long-term unemployment, imprisonment or a short-term job that didn’t work out.

Even when the facts are consistent, a referee may be critical of an applicant’s work quality, competence, attitude or other issues.

Information in context

When the above arises, it is important to put the information received into its correct context, for example by doing one or more of the following:

  • Contact multiple referees, not just one. Look for patterns of behaviour, these are more significant than one-off events.
  • Consider whether unfavourable circumstances may have applied in the previous job that are unlikely to occur in the job you are offering.
  • Consider seeking information from other sources, such as the applicant’s customers, suppliers, or outside-work people who can provide relevant information. Obtain the applicant’s prior permission to contact such people.
  • Evaluate the significance of the discrepancy and its relevance to the job. If it indicates a fundamental problem such as incompetence or dishonesty, it is a warning that employing the applicant is risky.

    A minor overstatement of past achievements or remuneration need not be an issue in the context of all the other information available and should not rule out an otherwise suitable person. Nor should concealing something like a short-term job that didn’t work out.

    Many good employees have one or two of those in their history and are embarrassed to talk about them – again it’s a matter of looking at the whole volume of information you have collected.

    In any case, applicants can attempt to conceal gaps in their employment history by claiming they were self-employed, studying, worked for an employer now out of business, or they travelled overseas during the period in question. These claims will be very hard to disprove. Although you could ask for evidence in the form of ABN documents, passport entries, enrolment confirmation, etc; in practice you will seldom see them.

  • How qualified is the referee to make the observation? Verify that he/she has had adequate opportunity to observe the applicant at work, is impartial, and is suitably competent/qualified to evaluate his/her performance.
  • You could consider contacting the applicant or calling him/her in for another interview to discuss any discrepancies in information and attempt to clarify the situation. This is a risky step, however. In the case of factual information, such as doubt over possession of qualifications that an applicant must have in order to perform the job, it is worth sorting out, but only if it is the only remaining barrier to making a job offer to the applicant.

    But where a referee has been critical of the applicant’s job performance or personal qualities/behaviour, discussing it at a re-interview will alert the applicant that he/she has received an unfavourable reference. Unless you had the referee’s permission to discuss it with the applicant (which is extremely unlikely), this is too big a risk to take, and again you should rely on the total volume of information from other sources, including other referees.

    In summary, only consider this step if you have already decided to offer the job to the applicant if the issues in question can be clarified.

  • Finally, consider your own duty of care as an HR practitioner or employer. For example, if an employee’s negligence, incompetence or dishonesty causes harm to another party, the employer/organisation may be legally liable for damage or harm caused to others. If the employee’s shortcomings could have been identified by a proper reference/qualifications checking process, or if the process was conducted and the employee was hired in spite of adverse information, the duty of care may be breached.
  • Consider the circumstances. Can competent performance be achieved by on-the-job training and induction? What is the chance of a past situation arising again, eg placing a person with a record of dishonesty in a role that handles cash or other financial transactions?

A job applicant has a duty not to deliberately deceive an employer, and this includes supplying information that would avoid misleading the employer. However, the applicant is entitled to refuse to supply referees (or permission to contact them) if he/she chooses. If such failure could prejudice the job application, the employer should advise the applicant at the time.

Summary

Reference and qualifications checking is just one step of the recruitment and selection process, albeit one of the most important ones.

The important thing is to make your selection decision based on all the relevant information you collect from the various steps of the process.

Conducting reference/qualifications checking in a thorough, consistent and fair manner will improve the quality of the information you receive. However, it is still affected by subjectivity and constraints on providing and using information, so it cannot provide all the answers.

« »