The Reference Paradox: When a brilliant résumé meets boardroom frustration
Even for those who have spent a career perfecting the art of reference taking, this remains one of the hardest challenges.
Every year, boards and CEOs voice the same quiet frustration: how do certain leaders keep resurfacing despite mixed track records? According to PwC’s latest Annual Corporate Directors Survey, over half of directors (55%) believe at least one board colleague should be replaced. Yet the same patterns repeat, often protected by reputation, relationships, and references that sound reassuring but reveal little.
That’s where The Reference Paradox begins (and why mastering it may be one of the hardest tests of judgment in leadership). Here, we break it all down and share our experience.
The Ones Who Always Land on Their Feet
Some people seem to move through their careers with magnetic ease. Their CVs sparkle, their names open doors, and their confidence fills the room before they even sit down. Yet scratch the surface, and you sometimes find something else entirely: postponed decisions, half-finished strategies, others doing the heavy lifting while they collect the praise.
After decades in executive search, we still find it remarkable how many of these leaders keep resurfacing in the board room and in leadership roles—reappointed, re-celebrated, reintroduced—as if history quietly resets itself every few years. And the uncomfortable truth? Even the most experienced recruiters and board members can be part of the reason why.
The Reference Paradox
Most of us know the theory: four to six references, structured questions, consistency across interviews. That’s the formal process. Then there’s the informal one—the quiet network calls, the discreet conversations, the “between the lines” checks. It’s there, in those unplanned exchanges, that the truth usually lives.
Still, despite decades of refining the practice, the paradox remains: the process we depend on most to validate judgment is also the one most prone to hesitation, politeness, and bias. A professional reference check should confirm competence. In reality, it often tests our courage to ask what we already suspect.
The Limits of Polite Truths
Few people will openly criticize a former colleague. The business world is small, and reputations—both theirs and yours—travel fast. So instead, we get euphemisms: “They handled a lot.” “They had a strong personality.” “It was a challenging environment.”
You don’t need translation software to know what those mean.
The most revealing moments aren’t in the words but in the pauses—the sudden shift in tone, the careful rearranging of a sentence before it lands. We’ve learned to listen between the lines, not in them. The person on the other end rarely wants to lie. They just don’t want to be the one holding the match when the smoke becomes visible.
The Power (and Pain) of the Informal Reference
Then come the informal ones—the calls that weren’t scheduled, the introductions made quietly over coffee, the people who finally say, “I’ve been waiting for someone to ask me about that person.”
That’s when the real story unfolds. The politics, the fractures in leadership, the teams that quietly dissolved after another “successful” tenure.
The art of informal reference-taking rests entirely on human connection. It demands interpersonal skill, judgment, and genuine respect for the people you approach. Each conversation is a professional favor, where someone chooses to share their perspective and experience to help you make a sound decision. That trust is earned, not owed.
Finding the right individuals, making them want to speak with you, and ensuring they feel confident that their insights will be handled discreetly—that’s the line between a valuable conversation and an empty one. In other words, confidentiality is what makes honesty possible.
We’ve seen too many processes skip this step because time was short or optimism ran high. And when a placement fails, the signs were usually there all along—buried in the voices no one called.
When One Bad Reference Told the Truth
Early in our journey as headhunters, Monica had an experience that still shapes how we think about references today.
— Out of six references, one stood out — quietly negative, slightly uncomfortable. But the other five were glowing, and the search was nearing its end, she says.
She decided to move forward anyway.
A month after the candidate had started, the client called — furious. “This man is a pathological liar. Nothing he says is true.”
That one hesitant voice had been right all along.
It was a humbling reminder that one negative out of many doesn’t mean you’ve found an exception — it might mean you’ve found the truth. When something feels off, pause. Because when instinct whispers, it’s rarely without reason.
The Courage to Hear What You Don’t Want To
Here’s the hardest part: sometimes you do hear the truth, and it ruins your perfect shortlist. It’s human nature to want to keep believing. After months of searching, when you finally find the candidate who ticks every box, it’s painful to let go. You start rationalizing the warning away.
But one negative reference—genuine and grounded—should always make you pause.
We learned that lesson the hard way early in our careers. Since then, our rule has been simple: one clearly negative reference should make you stop and think. Ingen rök utan eld—no smoke without fire. The cost of overlooking one red flag is rarely just one failed hire. It’s a ripple that reaches culture, performance, and trust.
Building a Culture of Honest References
If there’s a way forward, it’s this: treat reference-taking as an act of leadership, not bureaucracy. Ask better questions. Stay curious longer than is comfortable. Listen as much for hesitation as for praise. And don’t outsource your instincts to a form.
It also means structuring the process with care. Set aside real time for each conversation — thirty minutes is often right, even if the call ends up shorter. Prepare well, include thoughtful follow-up questions drawn from earlier interviews or references, and take notes while impressions are still fresh. Summarize your conclusions straight after each call, so patterns become clearer with every conversation.
And always, always thank the person who took the time to speak with you. They’re not just checking a box for you; they’re contributing their judgment and experience to a decision that matters. That deserves gratitude.
What the Reference Paradox Really Teaches Us
Even after all these years, reference-taking remains one of the most humbling parts of this profession. Every conversation teaches us something new about people—how we cover for one another, how we rationalize, how we try to be kind. And that kindness is exactly what makes it so hard to find the truth.
That, in essence, is the reference paradox: the very empathy that makes us human also makes us vulnerable to being misled.
References can confirm what’s already known, or they can reveal what everyone has quietly sensed but never said. But even the most rigorous reference process can’t compensate for a board or leadership team built on the wrong dynamics.
That’s why our next piece, Why dynamics and culture matter in board recruitment, explores what happens after the reference check — when the focus shifts from who a person is to how they actually fit and perform alongside others.
