A useful reference check starts before you call the referee. Ask the candidate what their former manager will say about their strengths, where they needed support and how they performed when a project came under pressure. Their answer gives you a clear forecast to test, rather than leaving you to collect a polite summary at the end of the hiring process.
Then ask the referee for specific observations from work they directly supervised. Confirm the candidate's actual scope, explore decisions and behaviours relevant to your vacancy, and compare the account with what the candidate told you. The value lies in the detail and alignment, not in whether every answer is flattering.
Ask the candidate first
Tell the candidate who you would like to speak with and why. Once they have agreed, ask what that person is likely to say about them. Useful prompts include:
- What did this manager rely on you to handle without close supervision?
- Where did they challenge or coach you?
- What would they say about your communication when delivery was under pressure?
- Which part of your performance would they rate most strongly?
- What would they want you to improve in your next role?
This is not a trap. It lets the candidate add context before somebody else describes their work. It also tests self-awareness. A credible answer usually contains strengths, limits and a clear view of the relationship. An answer that presents every manager, project and outcome as faultless needs more exploration.
Write down the candidate's forecast in plain terms. You are creating points to verify, not trying to catch minor differences in wording. If the candidate says their manager will praise program recovery but note that written reporting improved late in the project, you now have two useful lines of enquiry.
Establish what the referee actually observed
A referee's seniority matters less than their line of sight. Before asking for an opinion, establish how they worked with the candidate, what period or project they shared, and what they personally saw.
Confirm the candidate's title, reporting line, project stage, responsibilities and decision-making authority. Construction titles can hide major differences in scope. A project manager may have owned the client relationship and commercial result, or may have worked under close direction on a limited package. A site manager may have controlled the full program, or inherited plans and subcontractors already set by somebody else.
Keep verification separate from assessment. First establish what the person was accountable for. Then ask how they handled it. Otherwise, a positive reference can sound stronger than the referee's actual knowledge supports.
Ask for events, not adjectives
Questions such as "Were they a good employee?" invite courtesy. Ask for an event, decision or recurring behaviour instead.
For a site manager, explore how the candidate planned short-term work, coordinated subcontractors, handled incomplete information, maintained quality and escalated safety or program risks. For a project manager, examine client communication, commercial judgement, team leadership and the way bad news was raised. For an estimator or contracts administrator, focus on the quality of their assumptions, records, handovers and commercial conversations.
Follow broad praise with a calm request for evidence. If the referee says the candidate was reliable, ask what they could be trusted to own. If they were strong under pressure, ask what the pressure was and what they did. If they built good subcontractor relationships, ask how that showed up when performance slipped or a variation was disputed.
The same discipline applies to concerns. Ask what happened, how often it occurred, what support was provided and whether the candidate changed their approach. One difficult project is context. A repeated pattern across comparable situations is more relevant.
If you want a reference process tied to the real accountabilities in your vacancy, tell us who you need rather than relying on a generic question sheet.
Compare accounts without expecting identical stories
After the call, compare the referee's account with the candidate's forecast and interview examples. Look for alignment in scope, behaviour and the sequence of events. Do not expect identical language or perfect recall.
A difference is a prompt for another conversation, not an automatic reason to reject someone. The candidate and referee may have seen the same project from different positions. Organisational changes, an unclear reporting line or a disputed exit may also affect each account.
Return to the candidate with the substance of the issue and invite a response without turning the discussion into gossip. You may learn that the candidate overstated their ownership. You may instead find that the referee saw only part of the work. The hiring decision should rest on the quality of the combined evidence.
Pay attention when the candidate predicts a development area accurately and explains what changed afterwards. That alignment can show more maturity than a uniformly positive reference with no meaningful detail.
Avoid informal back-channel calls
Brisbane and South East Queensland construction is closely connected, which makes informal enquiries easy. It does not make them fair or useful. Do not contact a current employer or an unapproved person behind the candidate's back. A confidential search can be damaged by a casual call, and the response may come from someone who did not directly supervise the work.
Use referees the candidate has authorised, explain the role you are assessing and keep the discussion relevant to work. If the nominated referee cannot speak to a critical area, ask the candidate whether another appropriate person can. A refusal may have a reasonable explanation; discuss it rather than filling the gap with speculation.
References also need to be weighed against interviews, work history and any role-specific assessment. They are one source of evidence, not a veto handed to a single former manager.
Reference people before the vacancy becomes urgent
Most reference checks happen after interviews, when the employer already wants to make an offer. At that point, the call can become a formality designed to confirm a preferred decision.
A candidate-first process can start earlier. Highset meets strong construction people, understands what they have delivered and completes references before a client has a vacancy. When a relevant need appears, the introduction comes with context about scope, working style and the kind of environment in which the person performs well.
This does not replace the employer's own checks. It improves the starting point. One well-understood candidate gives a hiring manager something concrete to assess, while a folder of CVs shifts the hard work downstream.
Frequently asked questions
What should I ask in a construction reference check?
Confirm the referee's working relationship with the candidate, then verify actual responsibilities and authority. Ask for examples of planning, judgement, communication, leadership and performance under pressure that match the role you are filling.
Should I ask whether the referee would rehire the candidate?
You can, but do not treat a yes or no as the conclusion. Ask why. The answer may reflect performance, the circumstances of departure, available roles or a company policy. The explanation is more useful than the verdict.
What if a former employer will only confirm dates and title?
Accept the boundary and ask the candidate for another authorised referee who directly observed the relevant work. Do not pressure the first contact into sharing more or seek an informal opinion elsewhere.
For a clearer view of the person behind the CV, contact Highset.