Reducing bias in hiring: how reference checks can help you

TL;DR  

Bias is part of human decision-making. And in hiring, it often shows up in ways we don’t immediately notice.

While structured interviews and assessments help reduce subjectivity, the final decision can still be influenced by personal impressions. But how can you best avoid this? 

One way is by taking a structured approach to running reference checks. This not only adds an external, comparable perspective, but that perspective also in turn helps balance bias and improve the ultimate decision quality. 

Overview

1. Where bias shows up in hiring decisions
2. Why even structured processes are still influenced by subjectivity
3. How inconsistent reference checks can reinforce bias
4. How structured reference checking helps create more objective input
5. How to make hiring decisions more balanced and consistent
   
6. What you can do to implement this

Bias is the default, not the exception

When making decisions, people rely on patterns, assumptions, and past experiences to make decisions quickly. That is what makes bias so difficult to eliminate. It is rarely intentional, but it is always present to some degree.

This is just behavioral psychology and nothing new to most. And for many, it is not even an issue when making personal decisions. But when it comes to hiring decisions, you should become wary of these patterns showing up.

In recruitment, bias often shows up in subtle ways. Biased decisions could be based on:

• who feels like a good fit,
• who communicates in a familiar way,
• or who reminds us of someone we have worked well with before.

None of these are inherently wrong. But when they go unchallenged, they can shape decisions more than we realize.

Structure helps, but it does not remove bias completely

Many organizations have already introduced more structure into their hiring processes with the intention to lower, if not remove, this bias. Maybe you have done so too by for instance:

• Clearer job descriptions.
• More structured interviews.
• Defined evaluation criteria.

These are important steps. But even in well-designed processes that take all these into account, the final decision is often still influenced by interpretation.

Two candidates can receive similar feedback yet be perceived differently. One stands out, while the other feels less convincing. Without additional input, those differences can be difficult to explain and even harder to justify.

Reference checks can reinforce bias if they are not structured

Reference checking is often seen as a way to solve this and validate a candidate. The thing often forgotten is that when reference checks are handled informally, they can actually reinforce existing bias.

In short: Different questions mean different conversations and therefore different interpretations. In many cases, the referee simply confirms the impression the hiring team already has.

And because the process is not standardized, the feedback is difficult to compare across candidates. So instead of adding objectivity, it becomes another subjective layer.

Structured reference checking adds a more objective perspective

When reference checks are done in a consistent and structured way, their role changes completely.

• Questions are aligned with the role.
• All candidates are assessed on the same criteria.
• Responses are documented and comparable.

The questions we are now asking are standardized, objective, and directly aligned with the competencies we’re seeking. That eliminates subjectivity and personal bias.

Karin Toll Lane, Head of Recruitment, City of Stockholm

This creates a more balanced foundation for the final decision. Instead of relying solely on internal impressions, hiring teams gain an external perspective that can confirm, or challenge, their assumptions.

Better input leads to more balanced decision

Let us say this again, as repetition is key: Reducing bias is not about removing human judgment. It is about supporting it with better input.

When hiring decisions are based on multiple, consistent data points, they become easier to compare, easier to explain, and easier to stand behind.

The questions we are now asking are standardized, objective, and directly aligned with the competencies we’re seeking. That eliminates subjectivity and personal bias.

Karin Toll Lane, Head of Recruitment, City of Stockholm

That benefits everyone involved.

• Recruiters gain a clearer foundation for their recommendations.
• Hiring managers feel more confident in their decisions.
• And candidates experience a process that feels more fair and transparent.
  

What’s next?

More organizations are starting to look beyond individual steps in recruitment and focus on the overall quality of decision-making.

Reducing bias is part of that shift.

At Talentech, we help organizations:

• Standardize and structure reference checking
• Reduce reliance on subjective interpretation
• Combine human judgment with consistent, comparable data

Explore how our digital reference checking solution supports more objective and balanced hiring decisions here.

Or, if you prefer, talk to us and see how we can make it work best in your organization.