Purpose

A Reference Check collects structured feedback from a candidate's nominated referees typically current or recent supervisors to verify employment history, assess performance, and confirm suitability for the role. Unlike document-based checks, reference checks rely on a third party (the referee) to complete the process, which introduces unique delays.

This playbook is designed to help you get references completed faster and with fewer follow-ups. Most delays in this check come from unresponsive referees and unclear expectations addressing those two things is the fastest way to reduce your time to fill.

Biggest Reasons for Slow Time to Compliance and Recommendations

Key insight: The fastest-performing configuration achieves 2.71 days submission-to-approval with only a 4% change request rate. This is achieved through automatic invite sending, buffer (optional) referees, a focused question set, and clear candidate instructions that set expectations upfront. The right setup can cut processing time by over 25% and dramatically reduce change requests.

Here's what's driving the most delays across Reference Checks and specific changes that will have the most impact on your time to compliance. Each recommendation is based on what the best-performing configurations are already doing.

Delay Reason	Frequency	Impact on Time to Fill	Platform Configuration	Why This Reduces Time to Fill
Referee doesn't respond to the initial invite	🔴 High	The single biggest bottleneck. Each follow-up cycle adds multiple days. Without buffer referees, the process stalls entirely.	Require 2 referees but allow 1–2 additional optional referees (e.g. ask for up to 4 to guarantee 2 responses).	Unresponsive referees are the #1 bottleneck. Having backup contacts means the process doesn't stall if one referee goes dark. The fastest-performing configuration uses 2 required + 2 optional referees.
Candidate provides incorrect referee contact details	🔴 High	Triggers a change request back to the candidate, who then needs to track down the correct details adds days.	Include in the candidate description "Contact your referees before submitting, confirm their phone number and email are current and they're expecting a call”.	Candidates verify contact details upfront with their referees instead of compliance chasing dead numbers or wrong emails. Cuts the the several days back-and-forth loop of tracking down correct details after submission.
Referee invites sent manually instead of automatically	🟠 Medium	Creates an unnecessary gap between candidate submission and referee notification.	Set referee invitations to "Automatically Send" upon candidate submission. Enable both SMS and email notifications.	Manual invite sending is one of the most common sources of dead time. Automatic invites eliminate the gap between a candidate submitting their referees and those referees actually being notified, this alone can save days.
Too many questions for RefCheck AI	🟠 Medium	Referees who open a 20+ question form are more likely to abandon it or delay completion. Drop-off increases significantly beyond 15 questions.	Scale question volume based on role seniority. Junior roles: 5–10 questions. Mid-level: 10–15 questions. Senior/Leadership: 15–20 questions. Use a 70/30 split — 70% quantitative (scale-based) and 30% qualitative (open-ended).	Referee fatigue is real. Long questionnaires lead to drop-offs, partial completions, and delays. Keeping question counts proportional to role level and favouring quick-to-answer scale questions means referees complete the form faster without sacrificing the insights you need.
Referee doesn't meet relationship requirements (e.g. friend instead of supervisor)	🟠 Medium	Discovered only after submission, requiring a new referee nomination causes several days of delay.	Spell out exactly what you need: how many referees, what type of relationship, how recent the working relationship must be, and who is NOT acceptable. Avoid vague language like "provide your references."	Ambiguous instructions are the root cause of most change requests in reference checks. When candidates know exactly what's expected, they get it right the first time. The best-performing configurations explicitly state recency requirements (e.g. "within the last 2 years") and exclusions (e.g. "cannot be a family member or friend").

What We Offer for This Check

Capability	Description
Referee collection and invitation	Candidates nominate referees with structured fields (name, email, phone, relationship, organisation). Invitations can be sent automatically or manually.
Customisable question templates	Create role-tiered templates with a mix of quantitative (scale-based) and qualitative (open-ended) questions.
Relationship type validation	Restrict acceptable referee types to specific relationships (e.g. Supervisor/Manager only) to enforce quality standards.
Automatic invite sending	Referee invitations are triggered instantly upon candidate submission no manual intervention needed.
SMS and email notifications	Referees receive alerts via both channels to maximise response rates.
AI-assisted reference verification	AI to automatically send questions (provided by the customer) and to verify that all questions have been addressed and share a applicant rating.

💡 Interested in upgrading AI RefCheck for your check? Reach out to your Account Manager.

Platform Configuration — Recommended Settings

Configure your platform to reduce manual work and catch issues before they become delays.

Setting	Recommended Value	Rationale
Number of checks	Keep it simple, use as few reference check types as possible, with role-specific question templates rather than duplicating entire checks.	Too many check types creates admin overhead and inconsistency. Focus on fewer checks with better configuration.
Rules	Application Required	Ensures every candidate must complete the reference check as part of their application.
Required referees	2 (minimum)	Two referees provides a balanced view of the candidate without over-burdening the process.
Optional referees	1–2 (buffer)	Buffer referees are your insurance policy against unresponsive contacts. This is one of the highest-impact settings you can change.
Invitations	Automatically Send upon candidate submission	Removes manual delays. Referees are notified instantly no waiting for someone to click "send."
Accepted relationship types	Supervisor/Manager (primary). Add Colleague/Co-worker only if your policy allows it.	Restricting relationship types at the platform level prevents ineligible referees from being nominated in the first place.

Recommended Candidate-Facing Description

Use the following text at the point where candidates are asked to nominate their referees. Adjust the specifics to match your organisation's policy.

Please provide details for at least two professional referees who can comment on your work performance and conduct. Whilst 2 references are required, to speed up processing times, we recommend providing 4 total references.

Referees must:

Include at least one current or recent direct supervisor or manager.
Have worked with you in the last 2 years.
Not be a family member or friend.
Have agreed to be contacted before you submit.

If you cannot provide a current or recent supervisor or manager, contact [Department Contact] to discuss options.

AI RefCheck Tiered Questioning

The depth of the reference check should be proportional to the risk and seniority of the role. Using fewer, sharper questions for junior roles and more in-depth questions for senior roles keeps referees engaged and reduces drop-offs.

Role Level	Recommended Question Count	Question Split	Primary Goal
Junior / Entry Level	5–10	80% Quantitative / 20% Qualitative	Verification: Confirm employment details and basic reliability. Keep it fast for referees.
Mid-Level / Specialist	10–15	70% Quantitative / 30% Qualitative	Competency: Assess technical ability, teamwork, and how they handle complexity.
Senior / Leadership	15–20	60% Quantitative / 40% Qualitative	Behavioural: Leadership style, decision-making under pressure, and long-term impact.

Why the 70/30 split matters: Scale-based (quantitative) questions are fast for referees to answer and easy to compare across candidates. Open-ended (qualitative) questions provide depth and context. Leaning too heavily on open-ended questions slows referees down and increases drop-off rates. The sweet spot is a majority of quick-answer questions with a few targeted open-ended ones for the insights that matter most.

Troubleshooting & Edge Cases

Scenario A: Referee does not respond after multiple attempts

Situation: The referee was contacted via email and SMS but hasn't responded after the initial invite and follow-up reminders.

Solution: This is the most common delay. If buffer referees were provided, proceed with an alternative contact. If no buffer exists, send a change request to the candidate asking them to either follow up with their referee directly or nominate a replacement. Consider adding a note: "Your referee [Name] has not yet responded. To avoid delays, please either remind them or provide an alternative referee."

Scenario B: Candidate nominates a friend or family member as a referee

Situtation: The relationship type submitted doesn't meet your requirements (e.g. "Friend" or "Family Member" instead of Supervisor/Manager).

Solution: If relationship type validation is enabled, this should be caught at submission. If it wasn't caught, send a change request explaining: "The referee you nominated does not meet our requirements. Please provide a current or recent supervisor or manager who has direct knowledge of your work performance." To prevent this going forward, ensure your platform relationship type settings only allow eligible options.

Scenario C: Referee provides vague or unhelpful responses

Situation: The referee completed the form but gave minimal or generic answers (e.g. "fine" or "good" for every question).

Solution: This is a judgement call. If the responses don't provide enough information to make a hiring decision, consider: (1) reaching out to the referee directly for a brief phone conversation, or (2) requesting an additional reference from the candidate. Using more quantitative/scale-based questions in your template can also reduce this issue, as they require less effort from referees while still providing structured data.

Scenario D: Candidate cannot provide a current supervisor (confidentiality concerns)

Situtation: The candidate is currently employed and doesn't want their employer to know they're job hunting.

Solution: This is common and reasonable. Accept a recent former supervisor (within the last 2–5 years) or a senior colleague who can speak to their work. Make sure your description includes a line like: "If you are unable to provide a current supervisor, please contact us to discuss alternative options." Do not force candidates to compromise their current employment.

Reference Check Playbook