A glowing reference does not always tell the whole story. Nor does a brief or restrained response prove that there is a problem. How can employers separate evidence from personal impression?
References can provide useful information, but they offer a limited perspective. The person giving one may have seen only part of the candidate’s work, have a particularly close relationship with them or, conversely, have had a disagreement that affects their view.
Research on structured online reference checks, published in July 2026, found a tendency towards overly favourable ratings. The study found that asking referees to consider the situation from the hiring manager’s perspective can reduce this bias. The CIPD’s selection guidance, updated in September 2026, also cautions against basing recruitment decisions on references alone.
An impression is not yet evidence
Instead of asking whether someone was “good”, explore aspects that matter to the role:
- What responsibilities did they actually have?
- Which results or contributions did the referee observe directly?
- In what situations did they work most effectively?
- What support or context helped them perform well?
- What should their future manager know to support their transition?
Questions should relate to the requirements of the role and be asked consistently. This makes responses easier to compare and helps distinguish observable facts from opinions and areas the referee could not assess.
Follow up without looking for a pre-written verdict
If a reference is vague, unusually glowing or unexpectedly critical, ask for examples and context before drawing conclusions. It can also help to compare the response with the interview, the candidate’s stated achievements and other evidence gathered during the process.
A difference is not automatically a contradiction. It may reflect different responsibilities, different periods or a particular working relationship. The aim is to understand what accounts for the difference and whether it matters to the actual requirements of the role.
At AMKALIS, drawing on our executive search experience since 2009, we see references as one part of the assessment. They should add context and help establish what the evidence really shows, not simply confirm an impression formed earlier.
Sources
- AMKALIS, executive search and recruitment since 2009: https://www.amkalis.com/es/
- Jacobson et al., “We Are High Performers: Vicarious Self-Promotion Underlies Managers’ Leniency in Online Reference Checks”, published 13 July 2026: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.70072
- CIPD, “Selection methods”, updated 22 September 2026: https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/factsheets/selection-factsheet
