Over the last several months, we have spoken with dozens of recruiters and HR managers about the onboarding process. Through all the conversations, one thing always stood out when it when it came to discussing the recruiting and the onboarding process. As one HR manager so eloquently put it, “reference and background checks suck! I hate them!”

This got us thinking, what makes references “suck” so much? What are the ways we could help recruiters and HR managers not only do these checks more efficiently but also solve for problems they couldn’t the old fashioned way.

We at Rillate compiled a list of the top 10 reasons reference checks "suck." 

1. If their job is to disqualify candidates, they don’t do a good job at that. Less than 1% of candidates are disqualified as a result of a reference check. Because it happens so late in the recruiting process, sometimes even a bad reference won’t stop a candidate from getting a job because the hiring team is in a crunch to hire someone or are overruled by a more senior member.

2. None of the feedback can be used in the interview process. Since it is used as one of the last steps in the process, none of the information collected can affect the preliminary phone or in-house interviews.

3. They are a time suck. On average a conversation with each reference takes 20 minutes. Since there are 3 references, a check can take over an hour including the time for scheduling and recording the information.

4. The data is trapped. Once HR managers go through the painstaking process of recording that information, it becomes trapped, sometimes even literally when stapled to the back of the resume and filed in a cabinet.

5. Reports are text heavy. Most reviews are paragraphs of text. It not only takes a lot of time to prepare the information, but also makes it difficult to consume. Which leads us to #6.

6. No standard questions. Since the conversations with references are free-flowing, you might not get to ask the same exact question every time. These slight inconsistencies and recording of answers makes it difficult to evaluate candidates equally.

7. References themselves are not qualified. Collecting the information is great, but what makes the references qualified to provide a review? Would you then do a reference check on a reference? And then a reference on the reference’s reference?

8. It publicizes that the candidate is changing jobs. As soon as a HR manager requests a reference check, it discloses that the candidate is on the way out. Since candidate’s would prefer not to make it public until the change in jobs is 100% certain, they won’t ask the most qualified reference, their current manager, for a reference. Not to mention that it makes for a painfully awkward exit interview if that job offer was rescinded after the reference check.

9. Most reference checks are general. Very generalized questions on the candidates strength and weaknesses and are difficult to tailor to the specific job opening and company culture.

10. Education verification isn’t included. For those recruiters that want to perform education verification, it would require a completely different set of calls to the university registrar office.

What do you think? Is there a component of the reference check that you dislike that we missed? What about something you like? Comment below to continue the conversation. 

Dor is the CEO at Rillate. Have a question or comment for him? Shoot him a note at info@rillate.com.