Better references start with better questions. Reference checks are most useful when they verify observable work behaviour, not when they invite unrestricted personal opinions. In Canada, that distinction matters because reference information is personal information, and seeking a reference is a collection while providing one is a disclosure. Employers generally need meaningful consent for both under Canadian privacy guidance.
A sound process uses the same core questions for comparable candidates, keeps every question tied to the job, and avoids protected human-rights grounds. It also separates references from criminal screening. A basic criminal record check, Judicial Matters Check, and Vulnerable Sector Check aren't interchangeable, and the check must match the role and the legal process.
The eight reference checks questions below focus on the decisions hiring teams need to make. They cover performance, resilience, departure circumstances, collaboration, development, ownership, reliability, feedback, and role fit. Each question includes practical follow-ups, evidence to record, and examples of how to use the answer without turning a reference call into an informal character investigation. A configurable platform such as Alero can also support custom reference questionnaires and consolidated screening, but the quality of the workflow still depends on lawful consent and disciplined questioning.
Table of Contents
- 1. Can you describe the candidate's overall job performance and key strengths in this role?
- 2. How did the candidate handle challenges, setbacks, or periods of underperformance?
- 3. Why did the candidate leave this role, and would you rehire them?
- 4. Describe the candidate's ability to work collaboratively and communicate within a team environment.
- 5. What areas would you suggest the candidate focus on to improve or develop further?
- 6. How would you describe the candidate's work ethic, initiative, and ownership of results?
- 7. Were there any concerns related to attendance, reliability, or adherence to workplace policies?
- 8. How did the candidate handle feedback, criticism, or disagreement with leadership, and how fit are they for this specific role?
- 8-Point Reference-Check Questions Comparison
- Turn Answers Into a Consistent Hiring Decision
1. Can you describe the candidate's overall job performance and key strengths in this role?
Start by establishing the reference's position, relationship with the candidate, and firsthand knowledge of the work. Then ask the question openly and let the reference decide which strengths matter most. A former direct manager may discuss delivery and judgement, while a project lead may offer better evidence about collaboration or technical execution.
Listen for specific examples, not polished adjectives. “Excellent communicator” tells you little until the reference explains what the candidate communicated, to whom, in what context, and with what result. If the reference mentions a project, ask what the candidate personally owned, what changed because of their work, and how the result was assessed.
Useful follow-ups include:
- Request an example: “Can you describe a specific situation where you saw that strength in action?”
- Clarify contribution: “What part of that outcome was directly owned by the candidate?”
- Test relevance: “How does that strength show up in work similar to this role?”
- Compare carefully: “How did their performance compare with others in comparable roles?” Ask for work-based context, not an unsupported ranking.
A reference's tone can help you decide where to probe, but it shouldn't replace evidence. Some people are naturally reserved, and some organizations restrict what former managers can disclose. Record the answer factually, including the example, responsibilities, and outcome. Don't write “the reference seemed evasive” as though it were a finding. Write what the person said and identify what remains unverified.
Practical rule: Treat praise as a starting point. The hiring value appears when the reference connects it to an observable behaviour and a role-relevant result.
For a phone or email process, use a consistent introduction and consent confirmation before asking the first substantive question. A provider such as Alero's reference and credential checks can help employers send configurable questions, but the employer should still define which capabilities matter for the vacancy.
2. How did the candidate handle challenges, setbacks, or periods of underperformance?
This question reveals more than a request for “weaknesses” because it asks about behaviour under pressure. Use neutral language such as challenges, learning moments, or periods where expectations weren't met. That framing makes it easier for a reference to describe what happened without turning the call into a demand for damaging personal commentary.
Ask for one concrete situation. For example, “Tell me about a time when the candidate faced a deadline they were struggling to meet. What did they do, and what happened next?” Then separate the stages of the response. Did the candidate flag the risk early, seek help, reset priorities, accept coaching, and change their approach? Or did the issue surface only after the deadline passed?
The strongest answers contain a sequence:
- Context: What was the assignment or expectation?
- Behaviour: What did the candidate do?
- Response to feedback: How did they react when the concern was raised?
- Outcome: Was the work recovered, and what changed afterward?
- Learning: Did the candidate apply the lesson in later work?
Avoid treating every setback as a disqualifier. A role may require someone who can learn quickly in an evolving environment, not someone with an uninterrupted record of success. The relevant issue is often whether the candidate took responsibility and adapted.
Pay attention to language, but don't over-interpret a single phrase. “We solved it together” may indicate collaborative problem-solving. “It wasn't my fault” may signal limited ownership, but ask what the candidate did before reaching that conclusion. A reference who says the candidate worked independently may be describing initiative, or may be describing a failure to involve others. Context decides.
For additional guidance on building a structured process, see reference checks that work. A consistent questionnaire helps compare how candidates respond to similar competency prompts rather than relying on whichever topics happen to arise during an informal conversation.
3. Why did the candidate leave this role, and would you rehire them?
This paired question checks the circumstances of departure and the reference's overall judgement. Ask it only after confirming the reference's relationship and the candidate's role. A former manager may know whether the person resigned for a new opportunity, moved after a promotion, left during organizational change, or departed after a performance concern. A colleague may not have reliable knowledge of those circumstances.
Keep the wording neutral. If the reference says the candidate left voluntarily, ask whether there were performance or fit concerns before departure. If the candidate described the departure as a layoff and the reference gives a different account, don't announce that you've found a discrepancy. Record both statements and give the candidate an opportunity to clarify.
The rehire question often produces a more direct assessment than broad praise. If the answer is “yes, with conditions,” ask what those conditions would be and whether they relate to a skill gap, management context, or a serious work concern. If the answer is no, ask, “Can you tell me why you wouldn't rehire them?” Then listen without interrupting.
A no-rehire answer still needs evidence. It could reflect a changed business need, a policy that prevents rehiring former employees, or a genuine concern about performance. Ask what the reference personally observed, when it occurred, how it was addressed, and whether the issue improved.
You also need to avoid using the call to investigate protected information. The reason someone left may intersect with disability, family status, pregnancy, religion, or another protected ground. Don't ask for medical details, family circumstances, or anything unrelated to the legitimate requirements of the position. If a reference volunteers such information, don't record or use it in the hiring decision. Bring the conversation back to job-related facts.
4. Describe the candidate's ability to work collaboratively and communicate within a team environment.
Collaboration isn't a personality test. It means understanding how a candidate exchanged information, handled shared responsibilities, managed disagreement, and contributed to team outcomes in a defined setting. Ask the reference to describe the team structure first. A candidate's communication in a small office won't necessarily resemble their communication across departments or in a distributed team.
A useful prompt is, “Tell me about a project where the candidate worked closely with other departments. How did that go?” Follow with questions that expose behaviour rather than labels. How did the candidate share updates or bad news? Did they clarify ownership? What happened when they disagreed with a colleague's approach? Did they give others the information needed to complete their work?
For remote or hybrid roles, ask directly how the candidate stayed connected, documented decisions, and handled delays when people weren't in the same workplace. A reference should be able to describe channels and behaviours, such as regular updates, clear handoffs, timely escalation, or missed communication. “They were a team player” isn't enough.
Collaboration should be assessed through what the candidate did in a real team, not through whether the reference liked their style.
Look for both positive impact and friction. A strong contributor may improve coordination, make complex information easier to understand, or help resolve a disagreement. A concern may involve repeated missed handoffs, withholding information, dismissing colleagues, or creating confusion about decisions. Ask about frequency and impact before drawing a conclusion.
Role-specific follow-ups matter. For a client-facing position, ask how the candidate handled difficult internal and external conversations. For a supervisory role, ask how they balanced consultation with making a timely decision. For a technical role, ask how they explained trade-offs to non-technical stakeholders. Those questions stay lawful because they connect communication to actual job requirements.
5. What areas would you suggest the candidate focus on to improve or develop further?
References often hesitate to volunteer criticism, so make development the normal subject rather than presenting it as a trap. Ask, “What would help this candidate become more effective in a role like this?” The wording invites useful detail while keeping the conversation focused on capability and future support.
When the reference names a development area, ask for the work context. “Can you give me an example of when that gap appeared?” Then clarify severity. Did it affect performance or was it a longer-term opportunity? What support helped? Did the candidate respond to coaching, practise a new skill, or continue repeating the same issue?
The answer can inform onboarding without automatically rejecting the person. Someone moving into a larger leadership role may need support with delegation. Someone entering a regulated environment may need training on documentation or procedures. Those are planning questions, provided the requirement is genuine and the employer gives the candidate a fair chance to meet it.
Compare the reference's answer with the candidate's own account, but don't treat disagreement as proof of dishonesty. People experience the same work differently, and a former manager may not have seen every part of the candidate's contribution. A pattern across references deserves more attention than one isolated opinion.
Avoid leading the witness. Asking, “They probably need to improve communication, right?” manufactures agreement and reduces the reliability of the answer. Let the reference identify the issue, then ask for examples and relevance.
You can also ask what the candidate did well when developing. Did they seek feedback, apply it, and show progress? That evidence is often more useful than a generic statement that the candidate is “coach-able.” Finally, ask whether the development area would affect the essential duties of the proposed role or could be addressed through ordinary onboarding and supervision.
6. How would you describe the candidate's work ethic, initiative, and ownership of results?
“Work ethic” can become a vague judgement unless you define it through actions. Ask about planning, follow-through, problem identification, escalation, and accountability. The question should measure how the candidate managed legitimate responsibilities, not whether they worked unpaid hours or matched a manager's preferred personality.
Start with an example: “Tell me about a time when the candidate identified a problem and took action without being asked.” What did they notice? Did they confirm the issue, involve the right people, and carry the solution through? If the project stalled, did they explain why and reset expectations?
For roles with independent responsibility, ask whether the candidate could complete work without excessive supervision. For leadership roles, extend the question to delegation. Did the candidate set clear expectations, monitor progress, and hold people accountable without taking every task back?
A balanced reference will distinguish sustainable ownership from visible busyness. Long hours may reflect an urgent business need, poor planning, inadequate staffing, or an unhealthy expectation. None of those alone proves strong performance. Ask whether the candidate's effort was consistent, whether priorities were handled well, and whether results met the required standard.
Listen for ownership language, but don't turn pronouns into a scoring system. “We achieved this” may show teamwork. “I delivered this” may accurately describe individual responsibility. The relevant question is whether the candidate can explain their contribution and take responsibility for outcomes.
A practical follow-up is, “When something went wrong, how did the candidate communicate it?” Strong evidence may include early escalation, a proposed remedy, and a clear account of what would change next time. A concern is a recurring pattern of hiding delays, shifting blame, or abandoning work after the initial enthusiasm fades.
For a small business, this question can expose a mismatch between a candidate who needs structured direction and a role that has limited supervision. For a larger employer, it can reveal whether the candidate works effectively within established controls rather than bypassing them.
7. Were there any concerns related to attendance, reliability, or adherence to workplace policies?
Reliability questions need careful wording because attendance can intersect with protected absences and accommodation obligations. Ask about work impact and documented workplace expectations, not medical conditions or personal explanations. A neutral opening is, “Were there any work-related concerns about reliability, attendance expectations, or adherence to applicable policies that we should understand for this role?”
If the reference raises a concern, ask for the observable facts. What expectation applied? Was the issue isolated or recurring? How did it affect clients, coworkers, schedules, or safety? Was it discussed with the candidate, formally addressed, and resolved? Did performance improve over time?
Don't ask a reference to disclose why someone was absent. If the reference mentions a formal accommodation, stop seeking details. The existence of an accommodation doesn't establish unsuitability, and the employer should focus on the essential duties, available accommodation, and whether the candidate can perform the work with appropriate support.
The same principle applies to policy concerns. Ask about policies relevant to the role, such as confidentiality, safety, documentation, professional conduct, or regulated procedures. Don't ask broad questions about whether the person was a “good employee,” which can invite subjective or protected information.
Ask whether a documented job expectation was met, not whether the reference approves of the candidate's personal circumstances.
Reliability matters most when the role has real operational consequences. A healthcare, finance, government, or client-service employer may need evidence of dependable handoffs and compliance with required procedures. Even there, the question remains role-specific. A reference should describe what happened at work, how the employer responded, and whether the candidate corrected the issue.
Keep records separate from interpretation. “Manager described repeated missed scheduled handoffs during a defined project and said the issue was addressed” is more defensible than “unreliable.” Apply the same standard to every candidate, and consult applicable privacy and human-rights counsel where the response raises a sensitive issue. A structured Canadian compliance workflow can support consent, documentation, and controlled handling, but it doesn't replace sound judgement.
8. How did the candidate handle feedback, criticism, or disagreement with leadership, and how fit are they for this specific role?
Describe the role before asking about fit. Give the reference the relevant demands, such as managing a team, working with regulated information, serving clients, meeting fixed deadlines, or operating with limited supervision. Then ask about feedback and disagreement through a specific example: “Tell me about a time when the candidate received critical feedback or disagreed with a leadership decision. How did they respond?”
The sequence matters. Did the candidate ask questions and seek to understand the decision? Did they express disagreement respectfully? Once the decision was made, did they support it, or did they undermine execution? A candidate doesn't need to agree with every manager. The decision is whether they can challenge an approach constructively and then carry out a legitimate direction.
Ask what happened afterward. Emotional reactions can be human and temporary. The useful evidence is whether the candidate changed their behaviour, continued to deliver, and maintained professional relationships. A reference who says the candidate became defensive should be asked what the candidate did next and whether the concern persisted.
Then return to role fit. “Based on the responsibilities I've described, what concerns, if any, would you have about this candidate's fit?” A lukewarm answer deserves clarification, not an automatic rejection. Ask which requirement creates concern, what evidence supports it, and whether training or management support could address it.
Don't ask about “culture fit” as a proxy for personal similarity. Assess the candidate against stated work requirements and legitimate workplace expectations. That keeps the conversation more consistent and reduces the risk that a reference's preference for a particular communication style becomes an unlawful or biased hiring factor.
The reference's view is one input. Compare it with interview evidence, work samples, credentials, and the candidate's explanation of any material discrepancy. Store the source and date of each answer, and distinguish direct observations from the reference's conclusions.
A short video can help managers reinforce a consistent approach to reference conversations:
8-Point Reference-Check Questions Comparison
| Question | 🔄 Implementation complexity | ⚡ Resource requirements | ⭐ Expected effectiveness | 📊 Expected outcomes | 💡 Ideal use cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Can you describe the candidate's overall job performance and key strengths in this role? | Low 🔄, open‑ended baseline | Low ⚡, one question, light probing | ⭐⭐⭐⭐, strong baseline signal | 📊 Concrete strengths, examples, metrics when provided | 💡 Opening question; baseline assessment |
| How did the candidate handle challenges, setbacks, or periods of underperformance? | Medium 🔄, behavioural probing needed | Medium ⚡, follow‑ups for specifics | ⭐⭐⭐⭐, predictive of resilience | 📊 Accountability, learning, adaptability patterns | 💡 Roles with stress; assess growth mindset |
| Why did the candidate leave this role, and would you rehire them? | Low–Medium 🔄, direct but sensitive | Low ⚡, single question; may need verification | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐, highly predictive (rehire signal) | 📊 Departure reason, rehireability, red flags | 💡 Final‑stage checks; verify candidate claims |
| Describe the candidate's ability to work collaboratively and communicate within a team environment. | Medium 🔄, needs context (team size/structure) | Medium ⚡, examples across interactions | ⭐⭐⭐⭐, predictive of retention & fit | 📊 Team dynamics, communication style, connector vs isolator | 💡 Team roles; remote/hybrid and culture fit |
| What areas would you suggest the candidate focus on to improve or develop further? | Low 🔄, developmental framing | Low ⚡, short, constructive answers | ⭐⭐⭐, useful for onboarding & coaching | 📊 Development gaps, coachability, priority areas | 💡 Onboarding planning; identify consistent gaps |
| How would you describe the candidate's work ethic, initiative, and ownership of results? | Medium 🔄, asks for concrete examples | Medium ⚡, probes follow‑through evidence | ⭐⭐⭐⭐, predictive of performance/autonomy | 📊 Self‑starter level, accountability, need for supervision | 💡 Roles needing autonomy or strong execution |
| Were there any concerns related to attendance, reliability, or adherence to workplace policies? | Low 🔄, factual, documentable | Medium ⚡, may require record checks/legal caution | ⭐⭐⭐⭐, strong predictor in regulated roles | 📊 Attendance patterns, policy issues, accommodations noted | 💡 Safety‑sensitive, client‑facing, regulated sectors |
| How did the candidate handle feedback, criticism, or disagreement with leadership, and how fit are they for this specific role? | High 🔄, subjective synthesis; needs role context | Medium ⚡, provide role brief; probe examples | ⭐⭐⭐⭐, predictive of long‑term fit | 📊 Coachability, conflict handling, fit recommendation | 💡 Managerial hires; final synthesis for fit and onboarding |
Turn Answers Into a Consistent Hiring Decision
A reference call should end with a record another decision-maker can understand. Begin by confirming the reference's identity, title, organization, relationship to the candidate, and period of direct contact. If the person can't establish firsthand knowledge, note that limitation and consider whether another candidate-provided referee is more appropriate.
Obtain and document the candidate's consent before contact. Under Canadian privacy principles, reference information concerns employment history, job performance, disciplinary actions, and opinions about the individual, all of which can be personal information. Federal structured reference-check guidance describes reference checks as a systematic evaluation of past job performance, and the federal guidance has been published since 2009. Ontario public-sector procedures also reinforce consent for each referee rather than relying on a blanket release.
Use the same eight core questions for comparable candidates. Add role-specific questions only when they connect to a legitimate job requirement. For example, a role involving vulnerable people may require a lawful police-record screening step, while a role involving regulated financial duties may require a different documented assessment. Don't use the reference call to explore family status, disability, religion, age, pregnancy, or other protected grounds.
Record answers in two fields:
- Factual response: The reference's words, examples, dates where provided, and observed outcomes.
- Hiring interpretation: The competency or requirement affected, the strength of the evidence, and any follow-up needed.
That separation reduces the risk of turning tone, assumptions, or a single vague comment into a hiring conclusion. If a material discrepancy appears between the candidate's account and the reference's account, give the candidate a fair opportunity to address it before making a final decision. Document the explanation and assess whether the difference is material, contextual, or unresolved.
Criminal screening needs its own decision path. A basic criminal record check, or CRC, is distinct from a Judicial Matters Check and a Vulnerable Sector Check. A basic check may be requested from a local police agency or through a third-party provider, while a VSC has a restricted process. The RCMP's guidance on police dissemination of criminal record information distinguishes name-based checks from vulnerable-sector verification and explains that the latter can only be conducted by the police agency or authorized body in the applicant's local jurisdiction.
For a VSC, the hiring organization makes the request and the applicant provides consent. The applicant doesn't submit the request themselves, as explained by the RCMP vulnerable sector check process. Ontario guidance limits a VSC to positions of trust or authority over children or other vulnerable persons. A child means someone under 18, while a vulnerable person is someone who, because of age, disability, or another circumstance, is dependent on or at greater risk from a person in a position of trust or authority. Use that check only when the role qualifies and follow the appropriate local police process.
Apply PIPEDA or the applicable provincial privacy framework, human-rights protections, retention limits, and relevant RCMP or CPIC requirements. Collect only what's necessary, secure detailed notes, restrict access, and retain information only as long as needed for the stated hiring purpose. Regulated employers should make those controls visible in their written procedure, not leave them to individual recruiter habits.
A concise phone opening can sound like this:
“Hello, I'm [name] from [organization]. [Candidate name] has authorized us to contact you about their application for [role]. Do you have time to discuss their work in [role or relationship]? I'll ask the same job-related questions we use for comparable candidates and record your responses accurately.”
For email, keep the request equally clear:
“Hello [name], [Candidate name] has provided your details and consented to a professional reference for the [role] position at [organization]. Please confirm your relationship with the candidate and complete the attached job-related questionnaire. We'll use your responses only for the stated hiring assessment and will contact you if clarification is needed.”
Alero can combine configurable phone or email reference checks with identity verification and other Canadian screening steps in one candidate-facing workflow. The right setup should still preserve the essentials: consent-first intake, role-specific questions, auditable notes, secure Canadian data handling, and a clear route for resolving discrepancies.
Alero Background & Identity supports configurable professional reference checks, identity verification, credential checks, and Canadian criminal screening for employers. Use Alero Background & Identity to build a consistent, candidate-friendly workflow for reference questions and role-appropriate screening.