This morning, I came across a LinkedIn post by Executive Director Stephen Heckbert, decrying the long forms some organizations ask reference providers to fill out. Heckbert pleaded for a much simpler approach: a call from the hiring manager (as opposed to a form from an HR professional) to ask two questions: "Would you hire this person?" and "What should we do to get the best from them?"

Heckbert's comment reminded me of the way I conducted informal reference checks in my last job in the federal Public Service. As the hiring manager, I would call the references provided by candidates and ask three questions:

The first question (What does the candidate excel at?) gave the reference provider an opportunity to describe what the candidate was really good at, where they performed above their peers and, often, what they loved to do. I found this to elicit much more enthusiastic responses than the more traditional question "What are the candidate's strengths?" People would often tell stories to illustrate their opinion, talking about projects the candidate had worked on where they had made a real difference. Their answers gave me a good picture of the type of work the candidate was especially suited for. When such work aligned with the tasks of the job I was looking to fill, I felt good about the potential match.

The second question (How could I help them succeed?) was vastly superior to the more common alternative: "What are the candidate's weaknesses?" The latter question often led to vague answers, such as "Oh, I don't know. I can't think of any weaknesses." This was particularly the case when reference providers wanted to avoid saying anything that might sink the person's chances of getting the job. But with my question, reference providers seemed to trust that I had the best interest of the candidate at heart and that I wanted to help them succeed in my organization. Consequently, they were much more forthcoming in their responses, providing helpful information. I heard things like, "He's a really conscientious employee but sometimes goes into too much detail in his reports. However, he responds really well to direction on what is expected of him, so if you provide clear instructions, he will usually exceed your expectations." Responses like this gave me a good idea of what to expect if I hired the candidate.

The third question (Would you hire this person again?) was perhaps the most important. It was a very direct yes-or-no question. However, what I listened for wasn't just a simple yes or no. I listened for a resounding endorsement akin to "Hell yeah! In a heartbeat." Most people would find it hard to say yes if they really wouldn't hire the person again. In those circumstances, the answers were usually hedged. One reference provider answered my question by saying, after a long pause, "I'd consider it." Another said, "For the right job at the right level." These qualified responses sounded more like nos than yeses.

In his LinkedIn post, Heckbert appealed to government folks to abandon the six-page reference check form. While his proposed alternative of two questions might work in an informal hiring process, it may not work for formal competitions. In the latter case, reference checks are used to confirm a whole host of competencies, and thorough documentation is needed for the file. That said, I agree with Heckbert that the best reference checks are handled by the hiring manager, often as a result of their picking up the phone and speaking directly with a reference provider. Much can be learned in listening closely to the answers to a few choice questions and in paying attention to any pauses, hesitations and qualifying words or tone.