Should I do reference checks on an experienced candidate?

Question

We're looking at a candidate who has 20 years of experience (largely consulting) who we're thinking of hiring.

Our hiring manager thinks we shouldn't check references saying things like "It's not prudent to check references for someone with over 20 years of experience. They're mainly intended for younger candidates with a limited track record" and "It's a little bit like asking for GPA. It's not something you do for people with that much experience. It's partly offensive and partly not all that useful."

I personally disagree with him and don't think we should make exceptions for any candidate.

Do you do reference checks regardless of experience? If so, what are some arguments in favor of it? If not, why not?

Slight modification

Thanks for the replies - I'll select an answer soon but I'd like to get some more input.

His argument now is that somebody who has had many years of experience and been promoted more than once does not need reference checks because their history of promotions tells you that they are a good employee, and the references they supplied would most likely be people who promoted them. Arguments against that?

Answer 1

I believe reference checks for more experienced candidates count more than for inexperienced ones.

Firstly, the fresh out of college or inexperienced hires do not cost or impact your organization at joining as a person with 20 years experience would - in all likelihoods he would be getting in a reasonable important position.

Secondly, the inexperienced new hires are relatively new in their careers and their behaviour and habits can be more easily moulded - may not be so easy with an experienced candidate.

When hiring, the information you get through interviews and evaluations on-site is a thin slice. Checking with reference (listed or otherwise) is where you can really get the 'real' data. Either way, most of the hiring at any level is preferred to happen through references. It, in my opinion, just becomes more important at a more experience level.

Answer 2

Yes. A reference check can include checking for a history of non-desirable behavior like theft or creating a hostile work environment.

Answer 3

Does your hiring manager believe that 20 years experience guarantees a high performer? If so, get a new hiring manager.

Answer 4

One question. Have you ever given a prospective employer a number to call that you thought would be a bad reference?

References are for praise as far as I'm concerned. If you want to see if they are a criminal force a professional background check and drug test.

Other then that no matter how many checks you put in you really won't see what type of person they are for about 2 - 4 weeks of actual work.

I also agree with sharptooth. Give them tests as part of the interview. Easy and extreamly hard and sit behind or close to them so you can monitor there reactions. This will give you the best information if you know how to read people fairly well.

Good luck

Answer 5

Definitely you have to perform basic checks regardless of the CV length. He might have been just sitting pants all those years.

A similar example: recently we interviewed a guy who had at least 7 years of software development in C++ on his CV. We rolled in FizzBuzz - he spent three minutes and solved it incorrectly. Now if he was writing in 5 languages at the same time, that could be forgiven. If he spent 10 minutes but did it right, it could be forgiven as well. Yet he was only writing C++ and he couldn't solve the simplest practical task in reasonable time with reasonable quality. This simplest test tells more that an hour of interview talking.