In the ever-evolving world of talent acquisition, reference checks remain a standard practice. However, I've recently asked my network a question:

Is bringing two candidates to the reference check stage a fair and ethical practice?

The overwhelming consensus from HR professionals, recruiters, and hiring managers is a resounding no. While companies might justify this approach to ensure they make the best hiring decision, the practice has significant drawbacks.

The Candidate’s Perspective: False Hope and Strained Relationships

For candidates, reference checks often represent the final hurdle before an offer. Being asked to provide references is a hopeful moment—only to discover later that they were simply a “backup” candidate.

This leads to:

• False hope: The process feels misleading if references are strong, but the candidate still doesn’t secure the role due to a small deciding factor.
• Professional risk: Candidates hesitate to repeatedly ask the same referees for endorsements, fearing it may strain professional relationships or cast doubt on their credibility.
• Frustration and wasted time: Candidates invest considerable effort in securing references, only to walk away empty-handed.

The Referee’s Burden: A Drain on Time and Goodwill

Reference checks aren’t just a candidate inconvenience; they also affect referees—often senior professionals taking time out of their busy schedules.

Many commenters noted:

Referees have limited patience: If a former manager is repeatedly asked for references for the same person without a job offer, they may be reluctant to vouch for them in the future.

- A one-sided burden: The hiring company benefits from this additional insight, but referees get little in return other than expecting a favour.

The Hiring Manager’s Responsibility: Why This Practice Undermines Decision-Making

Some employers argue that reference checks help finalise a tough decision between two equally qualified candidates.

However, many experts push back against this rationale:

• Hiring decisions should be based on direct assessment, not external opinion: As one commenter put it, “You should never put the decision of who best to hire in the hands of someone you don’t know and doesn’t work for your business.”

• Reference checks are not selection tools: Traditionally, references are a due diligence step, not a deciding factor between multiple candidates.

• It’s an outdated practice: With many companies now limiting references to basic employment verification, the value of this process is already diminished.

So, What’s the Alternative?

If reference checks shouldn’t be used to choose between candidates, how should they be utilised?

• Only check references for the selected candidate: References should be a final confirmation of the hiring decision, not a tiebreaker.

• Be transparent with candidates: If a company intends to reference-check multiple candidates, it should be upfront about it. This will allow candidates to decide whether to proceed.



• Rely on stronger internal evaluation methods: Instead of outsourcing decision-making to referees, companies should invest in more rigorous interview processes, work samples, and skill assessments.

Final Thoughts: A Call for More Ethical Hiring Practices

Recruitment should be built on transparency, respect, and efficiency. Asking multiple candidates for references wastes time and risks damaging relationships and trust in the hiring process. As professionals, we must challenge outdated practices and advocate for hiring processes that are fair, efficient, and genuinely beneficial for all parties involved.

What’s your take? Have you experienced or observed this practice in your industry? Do you think that references should be removed from the hiring process altogether?

#talentacquisition #hiringPractices #HR #recruitment #references #referencecheck