[georgespencer]

> Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working for a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing them out".

I totally used to think that too, but whenever I've asked people about our process they say - "sure when you're making an offer, make it contingent on references and do a bunch of them."

I never revoke an offer unless we find out something truly bad at reference stage. Everyone has their foibles, and it's just useful to have more information about how to work with them.

[ptero]

So, is the reference checking goal to look for truly bad things that would disqualify a candidate? If so, are you trying to see if the candidate is an ass who was not acting this way during the interviews? This, to me, is the only way that could in principle be caught during referencing, but I wonder if it actually does.

I thought someone (a reference) who would badmouth a colleague to a prospective employer would not be a reliable source of the information. This is an honest question -- I do wonder when you find disqualifying things what do they look like?

[avitzurel]

To me, references are like a polygraph. It's a nice thing to have but in a politically driven world, it can also be vindictive.

I listened to a podcast a while back about bankers that were given horrible references by vindictive bosses because they didn't cooperate with some loan policy or something like that.

[georgespencer]

It's a great question!

Firstly by taking a bigger sample of references it's more likely we will find commonalities in the negative points.

Secondly we get different perspectives on negative traits. The man you fired who hates you because you were a micromanager is balanced by the woman who was your boss and wanted you to keep close to the person underneath.

Disqualifying things are generally not specific. It's a multiplicity of people saying "do not hire this person."