Two reference questions you've heard before:
- "Would you hire them again?"
- "Is there anything you think we should know?"
The honest answers are yes and no, basically every time, because the candidate chose the references. We've all been on calls where we knew within thirty seconds that nothing useful was going to come out of it.
This is not the references' fault. The format is broken.
What's wrong with the current version
- The candidate picks who you talk to. Self-selection bias is total. You're getting the friendliest relationship.
- The relationship isn't verified. "Former manager" is a self-applied label. No one checks.
- The questions are open-ended. So the answers are vague. So you read tone instead of content.
- The reference is asked to perform diplomacy. Negative information rarely surfaces — not because the reference is dishonest, but because the format makes it socially expensive to share.
Most companies know all of this. They run reference checks anyway, because the alternative — skipping them — feels worse. So an entire stage of the hiring process exists primarily as a formality.
The version that works
Three changes turn this stage from theatre into signal:
1. Verify the relationship
Before a reference is collected, confirm that the two people actually worked together. Same employer, overlapping period, plausible reporting line. This kills the "I'll list my college roommate as my engineering manager" version of the trick. Most candidates don't try this. The ones who do are exactly the ones you want to know about.
2. Make the questions structured
Instead of tell me about Alice, ask: On a scale of 1–5, how would you rate Alice's technical depth in the role she held? Then: Was there anyone on the team stronger than her on this dimension?
References answer comparative questions honestly even when they wouldn't volunteer the same information openly. Calibration beats narrative.
3. Default to short and asynchronous
A 12-minute structured form generates more signal than a 30-minute call, because the reference can think, edit, and submit when they're not on the spot. You also get something archivable — useful for the next round of hiring decisions about the same role.
What we built
Dealt's reference system uses verified work relationships. When a candidate names someone as a reference, that person's history at the same employer is confirmed before the request goes out. The reference receives a structured form, not an open-ended ask. Their identity is bound to their answers in a way that makes the data trustworthy without making the process intrusive.
The result, in the shape that ends up in front of a hiring team, is closer to a signal than a story. Not perfect. But finally useful.
— The Dealt team