Reference Check Questions: What Do Referees Get Asked?

Reference check questions in Australia typically follow a structured format designed to verify a candidate's employment history and assess their performance, character, and suitability for a new role. While the exact questions vary by employer and industry, most reference checks cover the following core areas:

Employment verification questions:

• Can you confirm the candidate's job title and the dates they worked with your organisation?
• What were their primary responsibilities in this role?
• Was the candidate employed full-time, part-time, or on a casual/contract basis?
• What was the reason for the candidate leaving the organisation?

Performance assessment questions:

• How would you rate the candidate's overall performance in their role?
• What were the candidate's key strengths?
• Were there any areas where the candidate could improve or develop?
• How did the candidate handle pressure or tight deadlines?
• Can you provide an example of a significant achievement or contribution by the candidate?

Character and interpersonal questions:

• How did the candidate interact with colleagues, clients, and management?
• Was the candidate reliable and punctual?
• How did they respond to feedback or constructive criticism?
• Would you describe the candidate as someone who takes initiative?

Suitability and rehire questions:

• Would you rehire this candidate if the opportunity arose?
• Is there anything else you think we should know about this candidate?
• On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the candidate overall?

These questions are designed to elicit honest, specific feedback rather than vague endorsements. Employers value concrete examples and candid observations over generic praise.

If you have been nominated as a referee, understanding what to expect can help you provide a more useful and confident response. Here is what typically happens:

Initial contact: You will be contacted by the prospective employer, a recruitment agency, or an automated screening platform. For phone-based reference checks, you will usually receive a call or email requesting a convenient time. For digital reference checks, you will receive an email or SMS with a link to an online questionnaire.

Duration: A phone reference check typically takes 10 to 15 minutes. Digital reference checks can be completed in 5 to 10 minutes at a time that suits you, which is one reason they are increasingly preferred by both referees and employers.

Confidentiality: Your responses are generally treated as confidential and shared only with the hiring decision-makers. Most employers will not share the specific content of your reference with the candidate, though the candidate may be told whether the reference was positive, neutral, or raised concerns.

Legal protections: In Australia, referees are protected by the principle of qualified privilege when providing references. This means you are protected from defamation claims as long as your comments are honest, made without malice, and provided to a person with a legitimate interest in receiving them (i.e., the prospective employer). You are not obligated to provide only positive feedback — honesty is both legally protected and ethically expected.

That said, you should avoid making statements that are speculative, based on rumour, or relate to protected attributes under anti-discrimination law (such as the candidate's health, family status, or political views). Stick to what you personally observed about their work performance and professional conduct.

Being asked to provide a reference is a professional responsibility that should be taken seriously. A well-prepared referee gives more useful feedback and reflects well on both themselves and the candidate. Here are some practical steps:

Review the candidate's role: Before the reference check, take a moment to recall the candidate's responsibilities, achievements, and any notable projects you worked on together. If it has been some time since you worked with the candidate, review any records or notes you may have.

Understand the new role: If the candidate has told you about the role they are applying for, consider how their skills and experience align with it. The employer may ask questions specifically about the candidate's suitability for the new position, and your ability to speak to this adds significant value.

Prepare specific examples: Generic statements like "they were a great employee" carry less weight than specific examples. Think of one or two concrete situations that illustrate the candidate's strengths — such as how they handled a difficult project, resolved a conflict, or exceeded a target.

Be honest and balanced: The most credible references are balanced. Mentioning a genuine area for development alongside the candidate's strengths actually increases the overall credibility of your reference. Employers are sceptical of references that are unrealistically glowing with no substance.

Know what you can and cannot say: You should only comment on matters you have direct knowledge of. Avoid speculation about the candidate's personal life, health, or reasons for decisions you were not privy to. If you are asked a question you cannot answer, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I'm not in a position to comment on that."

Respond promptly: Delays in reference checks are one of the most common bottlenecks in the hiring process. If you have agreed to be a referee, make an effort to respond to the request within 24 to 48 hours. If you are unavailable, let the candidate know so they can nominate an alternative.

Your referees are one of the most influential factors in the hiring decision — yet many candidates treat reference selection as an afterthought. Taking a strategic approach to your references can make a meaningful difference to the outcome:

Choose the right referees: Select people who can speak authoritatively about your work performance. Ideally, this means direct managers or supervisors from your most recent roles. Colleagues and clients can also be appropriate, but most employers prefer at least one direct manager. Avoid personal references (friends, family) unless specifically requested — they carry very little weight in a professional screening context.

Ask permission first: Never nominate someone as a referee without asking them first. Contact each referee personally, explain the role you are applying for, and confirm they are willing and available to provide a positive reference. This also gives them time to prepare.

Brief your referees: Share the job description or a summary of the role with your referees. Let them know which skills or experiences you would like them to emphasise. This is not coaching them to be dishonest — it is helping them focus on the aspects of your work that are most relevant to the new role.

Provide accurate contact details: Ensure the contact information you provide for your referees is current. Include their preferred phone number and a professional email address. Incorrect contact details create delays and can give the impression of carelessness — or worse, raise suspicion that the referee may not be genuine.

Follow up with a thank you: After the reference check is complete, send your referees a brief thank-you message. This is not only courteous but also maintains the relationship for future reference requests. Referees who feel appreciated are more likely to provide enthusiastic references in the future.

Have backup referees ready: It is good practice to have one or two additional referees available in case your primary referees are unavailable or unresponsive. Hiring timelines can be tight, and having alternatives prevents unnecessary delays.

While most reference checks produce positive or neutral results, employers are trained to identify certain red flags that may indicate problems with a candidate's suitability. Understanding these can help candidates prepare and help referees provide more thoughtful responses:

Reluctance to provide specifics: When a referee consistently gives vague or non-committal answers — such as "they were fine" or "I don't really remember" — it can signal that the referee is trying to avoid saying something negative. Employers read between the lines, and a lack of enthusiasm is often interpreted as a negative signal.

Discrepancies in employment dates or job titles: If a referee describes the candidate's role or tenure differently from what the candidate stated on their resume, this raises immediate concerns about honesty. Even small discrepancies — such as the candidate claiming a manager title when the referee describes them as a team leader — are noted.

Refusal to rehire: The "would you rehire this person?" question is considered one of the most revealing. A hesitation or outright "no" is a significant red flag, particularly when the referee cannot or will not provide a clear reason.

Performance concerns: If a referee mentions issues with reliability, attendance, meeting deadlines, or working with others, the employer will want to understand the severity and context. A single mention of a development area is normal and expected; a pattern of concerns across multiple referees is a serious warning sign.

Suspiciously perfect references: Paradoxically, a reference that is overwhelmingly positive with no nuance can itself be a red flag. It may suggest the referee is not being candid, does not know the candidate well enough to provide meaningful feedback, or — in worst cases — that the referee is not a genuine former manager but a friend posing as one.

Referee authenticity concerns: Modern screening platforms include fraud detection measures to verify that referees are who they claim to be. Red flags include referees using personal email addresses (Gmail, Hotmail) rather than company domains, phone numbers that trace to the candidate rather than the referee, and referees who cannot answer basic questions about the organisation they supposedly work for.

The traditional phone-based reference check is increasingly being supplemented or replaced by digital reference checking platforms. Both methods have their strengths, and understanding the differences helps candidates and referees know what to expect.

Phone reference checks involve a recruiter or hiring manager calling the referee and conducting a verbal interview. The advantages of phone checks include the ability to ask follow-up questions, detect tone and hesitation, and build rapport with the referee. However, phone checks are time-consuming (often requiring multiple attempts to reach the referee), difficult to standardise, and reliant on the interviewer's skill in asking probing questions.

Digital reference checks use an online platform to send referees a structured questionnaire via email or SMS. The referee completes the questionnaire at their convenience, providing written responses to a standardised set of questions. Key advantages include:

• Faster turnaround: Referees can complete the check at a time that suits them, often in the evening or on weekends, rather than trying to coordinate phone availability during business hours.
• Standardisation: Every referee answers the same questions, making it easier to compare responses across candidates and reducing interviewer bias.
• Written record: Digital responses create a permanent, auditable record that can be stored alongside other screening results, which is valuable for compliance purposes.
• Fraud detection: Sophisticated platforms analyse metadata such as IP addresses, email domains, completion times, and device information to identify potential fraudulent referees.
• Higher completion rates: Studies consistently show that digital reference checks achieve higher completion rates than phone-based checks, primarily because referees find them less intrusive and more convenient.

The most effective approach is often a hybrid model: use digital reference checks as the standard process for efficiency and consistency, with phone-based follow-ups when a response raises questions or requires clarification. Platforms like Refchecks support this approach by allowing employers to review digital responses and flag specific points for phone follow-up.

Regardless of the method, the goal is the same — to obtain honest, relevant, and actionable feedback about a candidate's professional history and suitability for the role.