Manifesto · 2026
Work references have always existed. What’s outdated isn’t the idea of asking for them, but the way they’re done: late, without structure and without comparability. This is an invitation to change that.
In one sentence: we want to move from “a call to tick a box” to evidence you can actually decide with..
In corporate settings this is also known as a reference check..
5–7 min read
Hiring has become harder. Profiles change fast, teams work hybrid, soft skills matter as much as technical ones, and turnover feels more expensive than ever. And now AI rewrites flawless résumés in seconds: CVs have stopped being a reliable signal of who can actually do the job.
In that context, validating references the way it was done 15 years ago —with improvised calls, different questions every time and scattered notes— isn’t “tradition”: it’s unnecessary risk. When anyone can generate a perfect profile, structured external validation goes from being a formality to being the real signal of trust.
The result is a reference check that often doesn’t reduce risk: lit disguises it..
Asking for references after defining the offer turns validation into a formality. If they matter, they should be part of the finalist analysis. Not to “look for problems”, but to decide with more evidence.
Experience helps. But when the cost of a bad hire hits the team, the business and the culture, we need structure. Not to replace judgment, but to strengthen it.
Relationships and recommendations carry weight: that’s part of our work culture. That’s exactly why we need to professionalize it, so that recommendation is clear, comparable and useful.
They’re a source of external validation about how someone actually works in real life: under pressure, with priorities, with a team, with conflict, with feedback. If we don’t capture that well, we lose critical information.
For us, the modern standard has five simple principles:
6–8 critical skills per role, not “everything”. If everything matters, nothing stands out.
The same framework for every finalist. Comparability comes from consistency.
Type of relationship, role, duration and real closeness. Without context there’s no reliable interpretation.
Examples and situations, not adjectives. “Excellent” says nothing; an example does.
Results that let you decide, not just “have an opinion” about each candidate.
Start with what to ask in a structured reference y when to ask for references..
Automation doesn’t exist to “take the recruiter out” of the process. It exists to remove friction: manual follow-up, scheduling, scattered notes, lack of comparability.
The final decision will still be human. What changes is that it will be backed by better-presented information. See also: how to automate work references without losing the human factor.
It’s not about asking for more references, but about turning them into evidence. Prioritizing, standardizing, adding context and making them comparable turns a formality into one of the best signals to decide with.
Early adopters
If you work in recruiting —at an agency or in-house— and you want to change how references are validated, we’d love to talk.
You can also start with the complete guide to structured work references.
