A strong final candidate can make a compelling case in the interview, present relevant results, and have a resume that aligns well with the job requirements. Yet it is often only during the reference-checking process that a clear enough picture of the manager’s actual leadership style emerges to support a well-informed decision. A guide to conducting reference checks on managers must therefore go beyond simply confirming employment history and titles. It should help the board, the CEO, and HR assess the candidate’s ability to drive results through others, even under challenging conditions.
When recruiting executives, the cost of a mistake is rarely limited to a new recruitment process. Poor leadership can lead to a loss of direction, higher employee turnover, a deteriorating work environment, and delayed business decisions. For organizations in northern Sweden, where competition for experienced leaders is fierce and the pool of candidates is often limited, it is particularly important to balance speed with quality and integrity.
Reference checks for managers should assess the job requirements profile
A reference is not a general assessment of whether the candidate is pleasant, driven, or easy to work with. It should provide evidence of the requirements that are critical to the specific role in question. That is why an effective reference check begins well before the first interview, with a thoroughly developed job profile.
If a new operations manager is to lead change, the references should examine how the person fostered understanding, made decisions in the face of resistance, and followed up on implementation. If the role involves personnel responsibility in an organization with high workplace safety standards, the interview should instead provide concrete examples of how the candidate has handled conflicts, prioritized tasks, managed rehabilitation, and ensured psychological well-being.
There’s a difference between asking whether a manager is strategic and asking, “Can you describe a time when that person had to choose between short-term results and a long-term, sustainable solution? How did they act, and what was the outcome?” The latter question makes it harder to answer with vague, positive generalizations and provides a basis for comparison with the candidate’s own examples.
Choose references that provide the right level of transparency
The candidate should always give their consent regarding which references are contacted. At the same time, ask for references from a variety of sources, such as the candidate’s most recent supervisor, former coworkers, a colleague on the management team, or a key internal collaborator. Not all of these perspectives are needed in every hiring process, but for a senior management role, a reference from a former supervisor alone is rarely sufficient.
When a candidate chooses their own references, the selection is naturally biased in their favor. This doesn’t make the references useless, but it does call for a more professional conversation. Verify the relationship with the candidate, the time period you’ll be discussing, the organization’s situation, and the reference’s ability to actually assess the area in question.
A reference from a former board chair can provide valuable insight into business acumen and the scope of the mandate. A direct report can better describe the manager’s presence, feedback, and ability to foster accountability. In certain assignments, an external client or business partner may be a relevant source, but only if the role involved clear business or relationship responsibilities.
The Right Questions to Ask When Checking References for Managers
A structured interview guide ensures comparability among references and reduces the risk that the conversation will be influenced by personal chemistry or confirmation bias. The questions should be open-ended, followed by specific follow-up questions, and always linked to the assignment’s most important success factors.
Start with the context. What were the candidate’s responsibilities? What goals, constraints, and changes characterized the period? Without context, it is difficult to evaluate a result. A manager who did not meet the budget may have taken over in a very difficult situation, while a manager who exceeded the goals may have benefited from unusually favorable conditions.
Next, move on to questions about leadership behavior. How clear was the candidate about the direction and expectations? How did the person build an effective team? How were conflicts, poor performance, or disagreements within the management team handled? Ask the reference to describe what the candidate actually did, not just what qualities the person is thought to possess.
It’s also wise to assess candidates’ self-awareness. Ask the reference what recurring areas for development they’ve observed, what types of situations might challenge the candidate, and what kind of support would help the person succeed most effectively in a new role. A relevant area for development isn’t automatically an obstacle. On the contrary, it can provide the hiring organization with a better basis for onboarding, defining the candidate’s scope of work, and providing managerial support.
Conclude with a forward-looking question: Under what circumstances would you like to work with the candidate again? The answer is most useful when followed by “why?” and “in what kind of assignment?” A moment of hesitation can be significant, but should never be interpreted without first understanding the context.
Look for patterns, not perfect answers
The goal is not to find a manager without any weaknesses. Especially in senior leadership roles, there are often experiences involving tough decisions, changes, and relationships that didn’t work out perfectly. What matters most is whether the candidate’s accounts are consistent, whether they take responsibility for their part, and whether the lessons learned are relevant to the new role.
Compare the reference responses with the candidate’s own narrative, tests, or other assessment elements. If the candidate describes themselves as an inclusive and developmental leader, but several references primarily highlight strong decisiveness and limited buy-in, this is a signal that needs to be understood. It could pose a risk in an organization that needs to build trust. In an urgent turnaround assignment, however, the same behavior may have different consequences.
A single negative comment should be handled with care. Ask what was behind it, whether it was a recurring issue, and whether other references describe the same thing. But don’t dismiss recurring patterns just because the candidate has strong qualifications. The value of reference checks often lies in the nuances that don’t come up in a formal interview.
Privacy and equal treatment are part of quality
Reference checks must be conducted with respect for the candidate’s privacy and with a clear connection to the position. Collect only information that is relevant to the assessment, and avoid questions about, for example, health, family circumstances, religion, political views, or other personal matters unrelated to the position.
The documentation must be objective and limited to what is necessary for the hiring decision. Record specific examples and assessments against the job requirements, rather than vague evaluations. Also, handle the information in accordance with the organization’s procedures for personal data and confidentiality. In the public sector, the process must also be designed with due regard for applicable rules regarding public access to information and document management.
A transparent process strengthens both the employer’s brand and the candidate’s trust. The candidate should know when references are being checked, who is being contacted, and how the information will be used. This is particularly crucial in discreet processes, where the candidate is still employed.
Common Mistakes That Weaken the Basis for Decision-Making
The most common mistake is to check references too late, when the organization has already made an emotional decision in favor of a candidate. In that case, the reference check becomes a formality rather than an actual quality assurance measure. Instead, plan to include it as an integral part of the final assessment—after the candidate has been approved but before a final offer is made.
Another mistake is allowing different interviewers to improvise. When questions, documentation, and evaluation vary, it becomes difficult to compare responses fairly. A third risk is filling in knowledge gaps too quickly with assumptions. If a reference is vague or cautious, the interviewer should probe further; they should not interpret the silence as a positive answer.
For board and CEO recruitments, external, independent reference checks can be particularly valuable. This creates distance from internal expectations and provides a more consistent basis for decision-making. Besi conducts structured and quality-assured assessments in which references are evaluated in relation to the organization’s strategy, culture, and actual leadership needs.
Would you like to discuss how your reference-checking process can provide a more reliable basis for decision-making in a critical executive recruitment? Besi offers confidential consultations for boards of directors, CEOs, and HR executives on issues related to leadership, candidate selection, and objective candidate assessment.
A well-conducted reference check is no guarantee of future results, but it puts the organization in a better position to make a responsible decision about who should lead the next important step.