In many hiring processes, reference checks sit quietly at the end of the line. They’re often treated as a final formality, but reference checks are also one of the most debated parts of hiring today (or perhaps it’s cover letters, we’ll cover those in another blog). Some employers see them as an outdated step, others consider them an essential safeguard before making a final decision. 

So which is it? Are reference checks still valuable, or are they simply a relic of older hiring practices? 

The answer, like many things, is most likely subjective and somewhere in the middle. 

The Case Against Reference Checks 

Many employers question whether reference checks truly add value. Candidates naturally choose people who will speak positively about them, which often leads to predictable and rarely decision‑changing feedback. 

Fairness is another concern. Asking candidates to involve past managers can reinforce existing power imbalances, surface old workplace conflicts, or revive relationships they’d prefer to leave behind. A single former supervisor’s opinion may not represent the candidate’s full capability or growth over time. 

Practical limitations also play a role. Many organizations restrict references to confirming dates and job titles, offering little meaningful insight. With these constraints, some employers skip the step entirely, relying instead on interviews, assessments, and probation periods. 

The Case For Reference Checks 

Despite the criticism, reference checks can still be extremely valuable when done thoughtfully. 

The biggest benefit is the opportunity to validate what you’ve heard throughout the hiring process. Interviews are, by nature, controlled environments. Candidates are presenting their best selves and carefully framing their experience. 

A conversation with someone who has worked directly with the candidate can provide helpful context. 

For example, a reference might confirm: 

• How the candidate handles pressure or deadlines 

• Their communication style with teammates 

• Their reliability and follow-through 

• How they respond to feedback or conflict 

Sometimes the insights are subtle but meaningful. A pause before answering a question. A carefully worded response that hints at a challenge. Or a comment like: 

“Very strong technically, though they sometimes struggled with prioritization.” 

These types of observations can help a hiring manager prepare for onboarding and leadership support if the candidate is hired. 

Reference checks can also surface inconsistencies that weren’t obvious during interviews. If a candidate describes themselves as a collaborative leader, but a former manager suggests they struggled working across teams, that may be a signal to explore further. 

One of the most informative parts of a reference check often happens before the call takes place.  

Who does the candidate choose as their references? 

Strong candidates can usually provide at least one former manager who is willing to speak to their work. When a candidate struggles to provide a previous supervisor and instead offers only coworkers or peers, it doesn’t necessarily mean something is wrong. There can be many legitimate reasons for this. But it may prompt further questions. 

• Why is a former manager not available? 

• Was the relationship strained? Why? 

• Did the candidate leave suddenly or under difficult circumstances? 

These situations don’t automatically disqualify a candidate, but they can be signals that warrant deeper conversation. 

In that way, the reference list itself can offer as much insight as the reference calls. 

The Real Question for Employers 

Rather than asking whether reference checks should exist at all, a better question may be: 

Are we using them intentionally? 

When reference checks are rushed, overly scripted, or treated as a box to check, they add little value. 

But when they are approached as a thoughtful conversation designed to understand the candidate more fully, they can still offer meaningful insight. 

Like many parts of hiring, their effectiveness depends less on the step itself and more on how it’s used. 

 

Michelle MacFadgen, CPHR, is the Director, Client Engagement at uptreeHR, an outsourced Human Resource department for small to medium-sized businesses. Michelle and the team are based in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

To book a complimentary 30-minute consult with Michelle, click here.