Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / How Reference Calls Reveal More Than References
Transcript
- Lucas: So we all know the drill: you find a candidate you like, you call their former boss, you ask three vague questions, you get a polite 'they were great,' and you move on. And then that hire flames out in six months. Luna: Been there. I once hired someone who got rave references from two former managers. Three months in, we realized the references were from managers who barely worked with them. Lucas: Right. And that's the problem. Most reference checks are theater. But there's a growing body of research that says if you do them right, the reference call might actually be the single most predictive part of your hiring process. Luna: How so? I thought references were mostly useless because no one gives a bad one. Lucas: That's the conventional wisdom. But a 2024 study from a team at Harvard Business School and the University of North Carolina looked at over 2,000 reference calls across seven companies. They found that the language the reference uses—not just what they say about the candidate—predicts job performance with a correlation of about 0.3 to 0.4. Luna: Wait, that's actually significant. That's higher than unstructured interviews, right? Lucas: Exactly. Structured interviews score around 0.5 if done perfectly. But typical unstructured reference calls? They're usually below 0.1. So this study shows that if you pay attention to the reference's own behavior, you can get way more signal. Luna: What specifically are they looking for in the language? Lucas: Two big things. First: specificity. A reference who gives concrete examples—'she turned around our inventory system, cut costs by 12 percent in two quarters'—that's a strong signal. Vague praise like 'she's a great team player' with no examples? Weak signal. Luna: Makes sense. The second? Lucas: Hedging. References who use a lot of qualifiers—'I think,' 'probably,' 'to be honest'—those correlate with lower subsequent performance. Especially when paired with a long pause before answering a direct question. Luna: That's fascinating. So the reference is actually revealing their own uncertainty, even if they're trying to be positive. Lucas: Exactly. And there's another layer: the quality of the reference giver matters. A lukewarm reference from a known high-performer manager who sets a high bar often predicts better outcomes than a glowing reference from a manager who gives everyone top marks. Luna: So you're saying you need to assess the referee, not just the candidate. Lucas: Precisely. That's the real insight. If you call a manager and they say 'oh, they were fine, I'd hire them again' in a flat tone, but you know that manager has a reputation for being brutally honest? That might be a stronger endorsement than a hyperbolic 'best employee I've ever had' from someone known to inflate. Luna: So how do you actually structure a reference call to surface this stuff? Lucas: First: ask the reference to rank the candidate among all the people they've managed. Something like, 'Where does this person fall compared to the top 10 percent of people you've supervised?' Luna: That forces specificity. They can't just say 'top notch'. Lucas: Right. Second: ask for a specific weakness. Not 'what could they improve?' but 'tell me about a time a project didn't go well under them, and how they handled it.' Watch for deflection. Luna: I like that. And if the reference says 'I can't think of any'? That's a red flag. Lucas: Huge red flag. Everyone has growth areas. Third: ask about the reference's own management style. 'How would you describe your leadership approach?' If they can't articulate that, their rating of the candidate is less reliable. Luna: So you're triangulating: the candidate's performance, the reference's honesty, and their ability to evaluate. Lucas: Exactly. And one more thing: ask for a peer reference. The study I mentioned found that peer references—former colleagues at the same level—were actually more predictive of on-the-job collaboration than manager references. Luna: Because peers see the real day-to-day behavior, not the polished version. Lucas: Right. A former boss sees the output. A peer sees how they get there. Do they share credit? Do they communicate clearly? Those things matter. Luna: I've also heard that you should ask for a reference who is no longer at the same company, because current employees might be coached. Lucas: Great point. Many companies have policies that limit references to confirming title and dates. But if you can get a former manager who's moved on, they're more likely to speak freely. Luna: What about the rise of AI analyzing reference call transcripts? I've seen a few tools that promise to flag sentiment patterns. Lucas: It's early, but promising. One startup I looked at records the call, transcribes it, and then runs natural language processing to detect hesitations, emotional tone, and specific keywords. They claim a 20 percent improvement in predicting six-month retention. Luna: But that raises fairness concerns, right? If the AI is trained on biased data, it could penalize candidates whose references speak with an accent or different cultural norms. Lucas: Absolutely. That's the big caveat. Any algorithmic tool is only as good as its training data. And if the data set over-represents certain demographics, the predictions will be skewed. So human oversight is critical. Luna: So the takeaway: reference calls aren't useless, but you have to do them right, and you have to evaluate the reference as much as the candidate. Lucas: Yeah. And honestly, that's one reason we spend time digging into this stuff on the show. We want to give you tools that actually work, not just conventional wisdom. Luna: Totally. And speaking of that—we keep these episodes ad-free because we think that makes them more useful. If these conversations have moved your work forward in some small way, the best way to support that is a coffee at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Lucas: No pressure, but that support lets us keep this as a resource, not a commercial. Anyway, back to the hiring hacks—I think the next frontier is combining structured reference analysis with behavioral interviewing. What do you think? Luna: I think that's a perfect setup for next week. But before we wrap, one practical tip: next time you're about to make a hire, ask for two references: one former manager, one former peer. And listen to how they talk, not just what they say. Lucas: That's the kind of low-cost, high-impact change that can save you from a bad hire. Thanks, Luna.