The Reference Call
What happens after you leave the room — and why most senior candidates get it wrong.
I've been making reference calls at board and C-suite level for thirty years.
In that time I've spoken to hundreds of referees on behalf of hiring committees, private equity firms, and boards who needed to be certain about the person they were about to hand significant responsibility to. I've made those calls from London, from Zurich, from a hotel room in Dubai at seven in the morning because the time zones didn't align and the process couldn't wait.
And in thirty years, the single most consistent thing I've observed is this: candidates who lose offers at the reference stage almost never know why.
They assume the process moved on. They assume the committee found someone stronger. They wait for feedback that never comes with any real specificity, and they carry the disappointment into the next search without understanding what happened.
What happened, in most cases, was the reference call.
Let me tell you what that call actually looks like from where I'm sitting.
By the time I pick up the phone to speak to your reference, I've already formed a view of you. Three rounds of interview. A competency assessment, perhaps. A presentation to the board. I know how you think, how you communicate under pressure, what you emphasised and what you avoided. I have a picture.
I'm not calling your reference to build that picture. I'm calling to see whether what they tell me confirms it.
This is the thing most candidates don't understand. A reference call at senior level isn't verification. HR verified your employment dates weeks ago. This call is something different — it's a peer conversation between two experienced people about whether the person they've both known, in different contexts, is who they appear to be.
The tone is different from a standard check. It's open. Discursive. I'll often start with a broad question — how would you describe their leadership style — and then follow wherever the conversation goes. Which means your reference will say things that weren't on any script. Things they hadn't planned to say. Observations that surface naturally in conversation that wouldn't appear on any written reference form. I've had references volunteer information about a candidate's behaviour under pressure, their relationship with their board, the circumstances of a restructure — none of it solicited, all of it relevant. Once it's said, it's part of the picture.
Some of those things will matter more than anything on your CV.
A few years ago I was managing a search for a FTSE-listed business looking for a new Chief Operating Officer. We had a strong final shortlist of two. Both credible. The hiring committee had a clear preference — they'd spent four hours with this individual across two interviews and felt they'd found exactly what they needed: someone who could take a business in a period of significant operational complexity and create order out of it.
I called the reference. A former CEO who'd worked closely with the candidate for three years.
He spoke warmly and at length. Dependable, he said. Thorough. Someone who creates stability. Brilliant at keeping the plates spinning. Exactly who you want when the business needs to consolidate.
Every word was positive. Every word was accurate. And every word contradicted the narrative the candidate had built across four hours of interview.
The committee had hired for transformation. The reference had described maintenance.
I raised it with the committee chair that afternoon. Not to damage the candidate — the reference had said nothing damaging — but because I'd now heard two different accounts of the same person, and at this level, that ambiguity gets resolved in favour of the safer choice. Which, in that instance, was the other candidate. The committee chair's exact words were: we can't afford to get this wrong. That sentence ends more senior processes than any negative reference ever has.
The individual never knew. They received a polite call informing them the committee had gone in a different direction. No elaboration. No feedback that would have helped them understand what had shifted.
They hadn't briefed their reference. Their reference had described them accurately, warmly, honestly — and in doing so, had described someone different from the person the committee thought they'd met.
The second thing that happens on these calls — and I've seen it more times than I can count — is what I think of as the unplanned question.
I'll be mid-conversation with a reference, the rapport is good, and then I'll ask something they weren't expecting. A short tenure from eight years ago. A departure from a previous role that looked, from the outside, like it happened quickly. A gap in the timeline that nobody raised in the interviews because it was long enough ago that it seemed irrelevant.
Good references handle these questions. They're senior, experienced people — they know how to hold a conversation. But there's a difference between handling a question and being prepared for it.
A reference who was briefed will answer directly. They've thought about it. They know the context. They give a considered response that addresses the question and moves on.
A reference who wasn't briefed will pause.
It might be half a second. It might be long enough for them to say that's a good question while they gather their thoughts. But I notice it. Every hiring executive in thirty years of doing this notices it. We've been in enough of these conversations to understand that the pause, the slight shift in register, the moment of gathering — these are signals. Not necessarily of anything damaging. But of something unexpected. Something the candidate hadn't felt the need to address. In a room full of uncertainty, a signal like that gets amplified. The committee doesn't forget it.
I ended a process at final stage because of a pause like that. The candidate was strong. The reference, when they recovered from the unexpected question, gave a perfectly reasonable answer. But the pause had introduced something that hadn't been there before — a question in my mind about whether there was a version of this story I hadn't heard.
I raised it with the committee. The committee decided to re-examine. The process extended by three weeks and the candidate, by the time an offer did come, had accepted something else.
A fifteen-minute phone call with their reference before I made mine would have changed the outcome.
So let's talk about what briefing your reference actually means — because I don't mean coaching them to say the right things. That's not what this is.
What I mean is giving them context. Treating the reference call with the same seriousness you brought to the interview process, because it's part of the same process. It doesn't end when you walk out of the final panel. It ends when the offer is signed.
The first thing your reference needs to know is what the role actually requires. Not in general terms — specifically. Send them the job description. Give them two or three sentences on the context of the business: what it's trying to do, what problem the organisation is hiring to solve, what stage it's at. Your reference is going to be asked whether you're right for this. They can only answer that well if they understand what this is.
A reference who understands the brief will instinctively frame your capabilities in terms of fit. A reference who doesn't will give general praise. General praise doesn't close senior processes. Specific, contextualised corroboration does.
I've been on the receiving end of both, thousands of times. The difference is audible within the first two minutes of a call.
The second thing your reference needs to know is how you positioned yourself across the process. What you emphasised. What the committee responded to. What story you built about your career and your capabilities and your approach.
Because here's what can go wrong without that conversation: your reference knows you well. They've worked alongside you, trusted you, watched you perform. They'll speak to that version of you with genuine warmth and conviction. But it might be a version from five years ago, in a different context, against a different set of challenges. The qualities they emphasise might be exactly the qualities you de-emphasised in four rounds of interview because you understood what this committee needed.
That's not dishonesty. That's presentation. Every senior candidate does it. But if your reference is still talking about the version of you from a previous context, you've now given the committee two portraits of the same person that don't quite match. And committees, when they're uncertain, make the conservative choice.
The third thing — and this requires a degree of candour that most candidates avoid — is anything in your history that might surface on the call.
If you have a short tenure, tell your reference it might come up. If there's a departure that required explanation, tell your reference how you addressed it in the interviews and what context you gave. If there's a gap, tell them.
Not to construct a story. So they're not blindsided.
The reference I described earlier — the one who paused on an unexpected question — hadn't been told that the departure in question had already been raised in the second interview. The candidate had handled it well. They had a clear, honest explanation. But they hadn't passed that context to their reference, because the departure was years ago and they hadn't thought it would come up.
It came up.
There's one more dimension to this that I want to address directly, because I see it misunderstood constantly.
Candidates at senior level tend to choose references who are impressive. Former CEOs. Board directors. People whose names carry weight. And that instinct isn't wrong — a reference from a credible senior figure carries more authority than one from a line manager.
But impressive references are often very busy people. They will take your call. They'll want to help you. And if you've given them no context, they will give a reference that is warm, genuine, and almost entirely general.
Outstanding executive. One of the best I've worked with. I'd work with them again without hesitation.
I've heard versions of that sentence on hundreds of calls. It tells me nothing specific about whether this person is right for this particular role at this particular moment. It tells me their reference likes them. That's useful, but it's not what I called to find out. At this level, everyone's reference likes them. That's why they chose them. What I need is evidence that this person is right for this specific challenge, at this specific moment, in this specific organisation. General praise doesn't give me that.
The references that change outcomes are the ones where someone says: given what you've described — a business going through that specific kind of complexity — what she did at X is directly relevant, and here's why. That answer only happens if the reference knew what to say. And they only knew what to say because the candidate told them.
I've watched candidates lose offers they should have had. Offers that were, in every practical sense, already theirs. Three strong interviews. A committee that had made its decision. And then a reference call that introduced doubt, or contradiction, or a pause that shouldn't have been there.
In most of those cases, the candidate had done everything right up to that point. They'd prepared thoroughly. They'd presented well. They'd understood what the committee needed and they'd given it to them.
And then they'd handed the final step to someone who had no idea what was expected of them.
The briefing call takes fifteen minutes. Twenty if the history is complicated. It doesn't require lawyers, preparation documents, or a formal conversation. It requires fifteen minutes of treating the final stage of a senior process with the same rigour you brought to the first.
Most candidates never make that call. They assume their reference knows them well enough.
They do. That's not the point.
Experience
Negotiation
Coaching
Books