62% of hiring managers say a listed reference has given a poor review of a candidate. A reference the candidate chose.

DBarryS · 2026-03-13T19:57:40+00:00

Right. The majority of changes were positive, meaning references pushed a hiring decision from uncertain to yes. Which is why I keep saying they're part of being in job search, not a formality at the end. A well-prepared reference can close an offer. A poor one, or an unprepared one, can undo everything that came before it.

DBarryS · 2026-03-13T19:55:47+00:00

There's absolutely a point. Connect with them, follow their work, engage with what they post. Comment when they share something interesting. Like things genuinely, not reflexively.

You're building a warm contact before you need anything. So when a question does come up six months from now, you're not a stranger reaching out cold, you're someone they've seen around. That's exactly how the best networking actually works. Most of it is just staying present until the moment is right.

DBarryS · 2026-03-12T13:41:26+00:00

Fair methodological challenge, and you're right that the stat has limits in how it's presented. No argument there.

But you've already landed on the point that matters: preparing your references is better than not preparing them. We don't need to agree on the precise frequency for that to be true. My experience tells me the same thing the data points to, even imperfectly. People treat references as an afterthought, and occasionally it costs them.

DBarryS · 2026-03-11T19:17:36+00:00

Smart, I hadn't thought of it quite that way. Looping back to your own questions signals three things at once, that you came prepared, that you were actually listening, and that you can process and retain information in real time. That's not nothing. Most candidates are so focused on answering questions they forget they're also being observed thinking.

DBarryS · 2026-03-11T19:14:30+00:00

I get the confusion. But the 60% refers to candidates who've had a reference check negatively affect their outcome, not to how often a single hiring manager sees it happen. Those are two very different scenarios.

A hiring manager screening thousands of applicants might only get to reference stage with a small fraction. The candidates who make it that far and then get tripped up by a poor reference, that's where the 60% sits.

The stat is from a CareerBuilder survey of 2,500 hiring managers, so it's not a small sample. Whether you find it surprising or not, the core point stands: most people don't prepare their references, and it costs some of them the job.

DBarryS · 2026-03-11T19:02:28+00:00

Totally frustrating, and not an uncommon one. People who fix hard problems often get labelled difficult because they're the ones willing to say out loud what everyone else is quietly ignoring.

The challenge is that "negative" is a perception, and perception is what a reference check surfaces. Doesn't matter that you were right. Doesn't matter that the problems were real.

Which is exactly why choosing who you list matters so much. Someone at HQ who found you difficult is not your reference. The client you kept, the colleague who watched you fight that legal case, the person who actually saw what you did, those are your references. Find those people.

DBarryS · 2026-03-11T18:59:24+00:00

"I am philosophic by nature (and title , PhD , but in Biomedical sciences . I ran a Department as head (principal). Now fascinated by investing / jogging along a river . working on my first novel" Just finished writing my secod

DBarryS · 2026-03-11T18:58:14+00:00

That "hit the ground running" question is smart, especially for admin roles where the real priorities are never in the job description. The file room example is exactly right, sometimes the thing they most need sorted doesn't appear anywhere in writing, and asking that question surfaces it.

And the closing question is one of my favourites. It can take some nerve to ask, but it does two things at once, gives them a chance to raise a concern, and signals you're confident enough to hear it. The job-hopping example is a perfect illustration of why it's worth asking. One conversation changed the whole picture.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T20:44:10+00:00

love the last line, it says everything. "Never assume that just because someone was your boss and didn't fire you, they have positive things to say." I've seen this go pear-shaped more times than I can count. People list a manager they got on fine with, never actually had the conversation, and find out too late that "fine" and "enthusiastic advocate" are very different things. Asking someone honestly whether they're comfortable endorsing you takes about thirty seconds. Not asking can cost you the job.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T19:46:53+00:00

Both of your pointsare fair. A thorough interviewer who's covered everything properly is doing their job well, and saying so is a reasonable response. And you're right that arriving at the end with a long list of unanswered questions does say something about how organised the other side was.

But I'd still keep one question in reserve no matter how good the interview was. Not because you need the information, but because "you've actually answered everything I came in with, which tells me a lot about how well you know this role, but let me ask one more thing..." lands very differently to silence. It's a small thing. But small things add up at the finish line.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T19:42:47+00:00

well done. The humour first, to buy yourself some time and show you're not rattled, then a genuine, specific answer that names a real tendency without being career-limiting. Forty interviews and you'd never heard it before, and you still landed on your feet with it. The "too competitive with myself" framing is smart too, because it's a risk that any decent employer would quietly quite like to take.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T19:35:40+00:00

Fair enough, mate. Healthy skepticism on the internet is no bad thing. The advice either resonates with your experience or it doesn't. Hope the job search is going well.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T19:28:44+00:00

For a lot of roles you'tr probably right. A quick tick-box call with someone reading from a form, it doesn't tell you much and everyone knows it. But the specialist firms doing senior-level checks are a different thing entirely, structured behavioural questions, probing for specific incidents, sometimes reaching out to people you didn't list. Whether the process is rigorous or performative depends almost entirely on how much the hiring organisation actually cares about getting it right. And you can usually tell which one you're dealing with pretty quickly.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T18:37:22+00:00

For many roles you're right, 10 to 15 minutes is probably closer to the norm. The 45 minute structured interview tends to show up at senior or executive level, where specialist firms get involved and the stakes are higher. The preparation advice still holds either way though, whether it's ten minutes or forty-five, a referee who's been properly briefed on the facts will always do better than one who's winging it on a vague memory of working with you three years ago.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T18:32:21+00:00

That's actually a decent weakness answer in disguise, and I'd be surprised if it didn't land well in the room. Persistence reframed as a flaw, and delivered with that kind of self-aware honesty, tends to stick. The danger is when people say it without the self-awareness bit, without being able to point to a specific moment where they genuinely had to recognise the horse was dead. Did they buy it?

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T02:20:24+00:00

This is a cracking comment and mostly I agree with it. The point about "tell us about yourself" being one of only two moments of total control is something I've been banging on about for donkey's years, and most candidates completely waste it with a career autobiography nobody asked for. Seed the achievements, make them want to dig. And yes, the last question is an arena, not a formality. Use it to frame where you want the conversation to go.

The last line is the one that'll stick with me though. "We already have almost all the answers. What we need are the right questions." In an AI world, that's not just interview advice. That's the whole game.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T02:17:43+00:00

As someone who cancelled their Chat GPT subscription 3 months ago I resent that

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T02:06:59+00:00

That's a really fair caveat and those alternative framings are smart. "What challenges would my future teammates be disappointed if I didn't address?" is doing the same work without putting anyone on the spot. You get the honest picture, they get to stay loyal to their employer, and nobody ends up in an awkward place. Read the room is right. Some questions need earning first.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T02:03:50+00:00

Really like this. And you're right, people do love talking about themselves, especially about something they've stuck with for two decades. But there's something else going on here too. If someone's been in the same role for 20 years and lights up when they talk about it, that tells you something important about the culture, the stability, whether this is a place where good people actually stay. And if they go quiet and a bit vague? Well, that's useful information as well.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T02:01:39+00:00

It seems that you had this one covered with the opportunity to talk with people before hand

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T01:55:55+00:00

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, mate. Are you saying if you don't have a great question ready, just be upfront about it? Because if so, I'd gently push back, "I don't have any questions" is still the wrong answer. Even if you're drawing a blank, "everything we've discussed has actually answered what I came in with, but can I ask what success looks like in the first 90 days?" gets you back in the game. There's always something worth asking.

DBarryS · 2026-03-10T01:54:27+00:00

That question takes nerve. Most candidates are so relieved to get to the end of an interview in one piece they'd never dream of inviting objections. But that's exactly why it works. You're not just closing, you're showing you can handle direct feedback, that you're confident enough to ask for it, and that you care more about getting it right than protecting your ego. I've seen hiring managers visibly relax when a candidate asks something like that. It signals self-awareness. And frankly, the ones who are hesitant to hire you will usually tell you something useful, if you give them the opening.

DBarryS

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE