How Are Reference Interviews Conducted for Senior Candidates?
In a senior executive recruitment process, most of the effort goes into the search and interview stages. A target organisation list is drawn up, candidates are approached, several rounds of interviews take place and assessment results are reviewed. By the time the decision point arrives, one step is usually kept short: the reference interviews. In many organisations this stage sits at the end of the process as a confirmation step. Two names supplied by the candidate are called, positive remarks are noted, the file is closed and the offer is prepared.
Yet the reference stage is the last independent source of information available to an organisation before the decision is made. Behaviour observed in the interview room comes together with the candidate's own account of it. An assessment report sets out a person's tendencies in a structured way, but it does not show how those tendencies played out in an actual management setting. The reference interview offers the chance to close precisely that gap: it is the only stage at which people who have worked alongside the candidate describe what they observed under specific conditions.
The weight of this stage rises with the level of the role. In specialist and middle management positions the effect of a wrong decision usually stays within the function concerned and is corrected in relatively short order. In a senior appointment the effect spreads to the structure of the organisation, the composition of the team and the organisation's external relationships. The cost of correction is not limited to running a new search; the decisions taken in the interim, the appointments made and the time lost all form part of it. The value of any additional information available before the decision rises accordingly.
The reason this opportunity often goes unused is not indifference. The stage has simply not been designed to produce information. The interview takes place late, the questions are general, the contact is a person chosen by the candidate, and the outcome of the conversation is not written down. Under these conditions, the reference stage failing to contribute to the decision is an expected result.
In this article we examine why the reference stage turns into a formality, the criteria on which the interview is built, and how the resulting information is carried into the decision file.
The Structural Reasons Behind a Formality
The first factor weakening the influence of reference interviews is timing. They are usually held after the decision has effectively been made. The management team has settled on its preference, the compensation review has begun and a start date is under discussion. At this point the function of the conversation is not to gather information but to support a decision already taken. The person conducting it is aware of this and frames the conversation accordingly. A positive finding is recorded, while a negative signal tends to be interpreted and softened, because reversing the process now looks costly.
The second factor is how the contact is identified. When a candidate is asked to supply reference names, it is natural for them to put forward people they know will speak well of them. That list is not wrong, but on its own it is incomplete. The people who hold the most information about how an executive works are often those who reported directly to them and peers from other functions. A reference set limited to former superiors yields nothing about how the executive builds teams, delegates authority and handles conflict.
The third factor is the level of the questions. Asking what sort of manager the person was, or whether the contact would work with them again, invites a general judgement and produces a general answer. The other party replies with a brief positive remark and the conversation ends within minutes. Such questions do not differentiate between candidates; they produce similar answers for almost anyone. Distinguishing information emerges when behaviour is asked about within a specific context.
The fourth factor is the nature of the output at the end of the conversation. When no notes are taken, the information stays in the memory of the person who conducted the interview and is summarised in a few sentences at the decision meeting. That summary does not enter the file as part of the rationale. A year later, when the outcome of the appointment is reviewed, what was learnt at the reference stage cannot be traced back.
The fifth factor is the absence of any link between this stage and the earlier steps of the process. Interviews and assessment work leave the organisation with specific questions. That the candidate worked in a fast growing structure, that team turnover rose during a particular period, or that a tendency became apparent in the assessment are all headings that call for verification. When the reference interview is not built around them, the conversation starts from nothing and stays general. Such a conversation reproduces what was already known at earlier stages. The contribution of this stage emerges when the questions formed in those steps are carried into it.
Taken together, these five factors show that the problem lies not in the stage itself but in how it is set up. Conducted before the decision and in a structured way, a reference interview provides a kind of information that no other stage can produce.
Structure of the Interview: Contact, Timing and Question Design
A structured reference stage begins with three decisions: who will be spoken to, at what point in the process, and what will be asked. These three decisions are taken not at the outset of the process but once the definition of the role is settled. When it is clear what result the role is expected to produce in its first year, which information is needed from which relationship type is largely settled with it.
The criterion for selecting the contact is the working relationship they had with the candidate. Different relationship types carry different information. A former superior has seen how the candidate related to targets and behaved under pressure. A manager who reported directly to them knows how authority was delegated and feedback was given. A peer from another function has observed how they positioned themselves in resource sharing and cross functional disagreement. Covering at least two of these three relationship types prevents a one sided picture. Variety of period matters just as much: references drawn only from the most recent role show the candidate in a settled context, while a conversation covering an earlier period reveals how behaviour shifted with circumstances.
Going beyond the list supplied by the candidate is the point that causes most hesitation in practice. This step is never taken without the candidate's knowledge. At the shortlist stage the matter is discussed openly with them, and the periods and relationship types from which references may be taken are determined together. Speaking with people who were part of the same structure during that period, in addition to the names the candidate has proposed, is agreed within this framework. The approach protects confidentiality and leaves the candidate's relationship with the organisation intact. The measure for the number of references is coverage rather than count: three or four conversations form an adequate picture when they span different relationship types and at least two different periods of tenure.
In terms of timing, the appropriate point is the shortlist stage rather than offer preparation. When a reference interview is conducted while a choice is being made between two or three candidates, the information enters the comparison and can influence the decision. Held after the decision, it carries only a confirmatory function. On the candidate's side it is common for a reference from the current role to be unsuitable on confidentiality grounds; taking references from previous roles and leaving confirmation of the current one to the offer stage is a workable solution.
The guiding principle in question design is to tie each question to the responsibilities of the role's first twelve months. If the executive being sought is expected to lead a transformation programme in the first year, the questions are built around that requirement. Rather than working through a generic competency list, the organisation's concrete expectation is turned into a question. This approach makes the interviews comparable, and when the same questions are put for every candidate, the evaluation rests on common ground.
The areas an interview can cover fall under the following headings:
• The initial state of the structure the candidate took over and the change that emerged during their tenure
• Decision making style: which decisions they took themselves, which they left to their team and how that boundary was set
• Approach to building and developing teams: who was recruited, who was developed and who left
• The course taken when an expectation was not met and how the matter was addressed
• The position adopted in a disagreement between functions and how the outcome took shape
• The area of greatest difficulty during the tenure and what was done about it
• The characteristics of the working environment in which the person produced their best results
Putting the same questions for every candidate is what makes the stage comparable. Seeing the difference between candidates depends on being able to set answers in the same area side by side. Where different questions are asked of different candidates, the information may look rich but never enters the comparison, and the decision rests once again on impressions from the interviews.
How the conversation is conducted also affects the result. At the outset the contact is told plainly where the process stands, how the information will be used and to what extent it may be shared with the candidate. Without that framing the other party proceeds cautiously and confines themselves to general remarks. Planning at least half an hour allows the conversation to reach the level of examples; a ten minute call never gets there.
Who conducts the interview is a separate matter. Where it is carried out from inside the organisation, what the contact passes on may be limited by a concern about creating a negative impression of the candidate. Conducted through the consultant running the process, the conversation moves more freely, and because the contact is speaking to someone able to make comparisons, the account tends to be fuller.
Each of these headings calls for an example in reply. The role of the person conducting the interview is to take one further step when a general judgement is offered, asking whether the contact recalls a situation that illustrates it. Distinguishing information almost always emerges at this second step.
Carrying the Findings into the Decision File
Information from a reference interview falls into one of three categories: information that confirms the existing assessment, information that adds a new dimension to it, and information that contradicts it. All three hold value for the decision, though each is handled differently.
Confirming information increases confidence in the decision and generally requires no further action. Information that adds a new dimension usually points beyond the decision itself: findings about the conditions under which the candidate produces results faster, the kind of support they need, or who they should make early contact with inside the organisation belong not to the decision stage but to the integration plan. Recording these findings feeds directly into the planning of the first months. We examined the scope of that work in our article The First Months of a Senior Appointment.
Contradicting information requires the greatest care. A negative observation arising in a single interview is not a conclusion in itself. The contact's relationship with the candidate, the conditions of that period and the state of the organisation at the time may all have shaped it. The first step is therefore verification: the same subject is raised with a different contact. If an observation points in the same direction across two independent sources, the matter is discussed openly with the candidate. An observation evaluated alongside the candidate's own account rarely turns the decision negative; more often it indicates that an adjustment is needed in the definition of the role or in the scope of post appointment support.
One further distinction applies across all three categories: whether what is passed on rests on first hand observation or on talk circulating within the sector. At senior level most candidates are known in their market, and that visibility brings assessments of them into circulation. Where the information offered in an interview rests on what the contact has heard rather than on their own experience of working with the person, it does not enter the decision file as an observation. Clarifying the source at every significant point is the only way to preserve that distinction.
Reference findings also bear on the offer stage. What emerges about the environment in which the candidate produces their best results, the breadth of decision making they need and the reporting structure that suits them concerns not only the compensation side of the offer but the framing of the role. Obtained before the offer is drawn up, this information allows the definition of the role to be shaped around the candidate's strengths. Obtained after the decision, the same information remains no more than a note.
The personal nature of the information gathered at this stage is also taken into account. The consent obtained from the candidate beforehand covers which periods and which individuals references will be taken from. The contact is told how what they say will be used and for how long it will be held. Sharing records only with those involved in the decision and handling them in line with the retention period once the process closes is part of running the stage as an institutional practice.
The final step in turning the stage into a decision input is the written record. For each interview, the contact's relationship with the candidate, the areas covered, the examples given and the interviewer's evaluation are gathered into a short text that becomes part of the decision file. Reference findings are then presented at the decision meeting from the record rather than from memory, and when the appointment is reviewed a year later, the information the process rested on remains traceable. An organisation's ability to improve its own executive recruitment practice over time depends largely on that record.
The stage produces another output: it prompts the organisation to review its own definition of the role. If several reference conversations reveal that a particular expectation is not considered realistic, the difficulty lies in how the role has been framed rather than in the candidates. Definitions that require one person both to lead a broad transformation programme and to carry the whole of daily operations have no counterpart in practice. Reference interviews make that kind of mismatch visible before the appointment is made.
This is also where the stage reveals its need for specific expertise. The person conducting the interview has to weigh what the contact says alongside what they leave unsaid, to deepen the conversation without steering it, and to understand how the sector operates. Treated as a structured piece of work like every other stage of the process, the reference interview repays the effort.
At E&E Group we have placed more than 5,000 executives in over 250 organisations since 1992. We run our executive recruitment processes together with our consultant team's long standing management experience, our international partnership with Friisberg & Partners and the assessment work we carry out with Harrison Assessments. To review your executive recruitment processes with us, you can get in touch.
