Stop skipping the referencing

You've run a thorough interview process. The candidate's skill set sounds good, the chemistry was right, and the offer has been drafted and is ready to send. Now for the references. To bother or not? Are they worth the paper they are written on? Do you have time to speak to people?

If referring feels like a headache and a step you are likely to miss, you're not alone. Reference checking is one of the most consistently underused tools in the hiring process, and in our experience, it's where some of the most preventable hiring mistakes are made.

We recently shared some essential steps to help you avoid hiring someone you'll regret, and thoroughly checking references is up there in our top ten. For comms leaders bringing talent into the business, it's worth taking a moment to ask: are you doing this properly?

The two camps - and both have problems

Reference checking, broadly speaking, falls into two categories today - and neither is ideal.

The first is the basic, box-ticking reference: job title, employment dates, and a perfunctory confirmation that the individual worked there. Many companies have defaulted to this approach out of an excess of legal caution, operating under the mistaken belief that saying anything substantive about a former employee puts them at risk. It doesn't - not if the information is true, fair, and accurate.

Here's what the law says: employers are not legally required to provide a reference (unless stipulated in a contract or in regulated industries such as financial services). But if they choose to give one, it must be honest and accurate. According to guidance by ACAS (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service), references can legitimately include an employee's skills and abilities, their strengths and weaknesses, and their suitability for a role - not just the bare facts. The fear of a "bad reference" claim is widely overstated. An employer who gives a misleading or inaccurate reference - including one that is falsely glowing - faces far greater legal exposure than one who gives a fair, evidence-based assessment. For the full picture on what can and cannot be included, ACAS provides clear guidance at acas.org.uk.

The second group goes to the opposite extreme: seeking informal references without the candidate's knowledge or permission, sometimes before they've even met them. We know it happens all the time: a candidate is turned down for an interview because someone in the team who knows them has said something negative about them. They probably haven’t worked directly with them and certainly didn’t line-manage them, yet this referencing process is still playing out. In a sector as well networked as communications, this is a real and common occurrence. Is this really a fair reference? People pick up the phone to a contact, ask what they know about a candidate (at any stage in the interview process), and act on what they hear. It feels harmless - it's just a conversation between colleagues - but it can have serious consequences.

Seeking a reference from a current employer without the candidate's permission is not acceptable practice and doing so is a severe breach of UK GDPR (data protection laws) which can expose a prospective employer to substantial legal liability under employment law. It could also put the candidate’s current role at risk. Informal, hearsay-based references are not evidence; they introduce bias, can breach confidentiality, and can perpetuate inaccuracies about someone's reputation that bear no relation to their actual performance. Structured references reduce that bias. Informal whisper networks amplify it.

What good reference checking looks like

Done well, a reference is one of the most revealing parts of the hiring process. Here's how to do it properly.

• Ask for multiple references, and ask with the candidate's permission. Candidates will naturally choose referees they trust to speak well of them - that's human nature. But asking for references from a range of contacts (line managers, peers, direct reports, clients, journalists) gives you a far richer picture than a single friendly endorsement. With the candidate's knowledge and agreement, you can also seek informal character references that provide recent, relevant insight.

• Use structured, competency-aligned questions. Vague questions produce vague answers. Ask specifically about reliability, communication, stakeholder management, and how the individual performed under pressure. Probe for context: what were they hired to do, how did they adapt, and how did they handle adversity? The specificity of the answers - not just what they say, but how they say it - will tell you a great deal. Yes, that does mean speaking to referees where you can.

• Know what good looks like. Positive indicators include: specific examples of impact and achievement, evidence of growth and resilience, and a referee who would genuinely rehire the candidate without hesitation. Red flags are equally telling: vague or overly cautious answers, referees who sidestep questions about performance, inconsistencies between what the candidate told you in the interview and what the referee describes, or unusually short responses from someone who should know this person well.

• Encourage candidates to prepare their referees. It sounds basic, but it reduces delays, ensures timely responses, and reflects well on a candidate's organisational ability. A candidate who takes ownership of this part of the process is already demonstrating something useful.

When references change the picture

Most references will confirm what you already suspect - that you've made the right choice. But occasionally, they won't.

If concerns emerge that are substantiated, consistent, and directly relevant to the role, withdrawing a conditional offer may be appropriate. The key word is substantiated. Acting on a single ambiguous comment, or on informal industry hearsay, is not grounds for a sound decision - and could expose your organisation to challenge. Document your reasoning carefully, ensure it is fair, and keep it focused on evidence rather than impression.

It's also worth remembering what reference checking does for fairness and inclusion more broadly. A well-structured reference process bases decisions on actual performance, not on who someone knows or how their reputation has been shaped by networks that may not represent them fairly. That matters in a sector where informal connections carry significant weight.

The bottom line

Too many organisations treat reference checking as a formality - something to complete quickly before the paperwork is signed. That's how problems get missed. Skills gaps, performance issues, and conduct concerns that were entirely avoidable tend to surface once someone is onboarded and the reference that might have flagged them is a distant memory.

If you're involved in hiring within your communications or corporate affairs function, raise the bar. Ask better questions. Seek broader references, with permission. Resist the pull of informal intelligence-gathering through your network, however convenient it feels. And take the time to interpret what you hear - including what isn't said.

A brilliant interview can mask a lot. A thorough reference process tends to reveal it.

To download our full Annual Salary Guide 2026, click here.

Time for a change? Check out our latest jobs.