Executive search
Headhunting Reference-Check Notes: A Template That Separates Evidence From Inference
A copyable reference-call notes template for search firms that records permission limits, first-hand examples and gaps, and keeps consultant inference apart from attributed accounts.
Reference-check notes are useful when the next reader can tell four things apart:
- what the reference saw directly,
- what the reference heard from others,
- what the reference never had a chance to see,
- what the consultant concluded afterwards.
Blending these four obscures the source of a conclusion. A note like "strong operator, board liked her" does not tell the next reader who observed what, when, or whether the reference was even in the room.
The template gives each kind of information its own field and records permission and contact limits for the next reader. It has no overall score or verdict field. People reviewing the whole picture remain responsible for the decision.
TL;DR
- Record permission and contact limits before the content of the call: who granted the contact, which topics are excluded, and whether the reference sits at the candidate's current employer.
- Tie every example to a job criterion agreed at kickoff. Capture it as a concrete first-hand example, then add a separate line for what the reference did not observe.
- Keep the reference's attributed account and your own inference in different fields. Label inference as inference and give the reason for it.
- Log contradictions with a named clarification owner and a defined audience. Do not settle them inside the note, and do not attach an automatic candidate verdict.
The reference-check notes template
Copy these five blocks into whatever permitted tool your firm already uses: a document, your ATS notes field, or a shared drive. Fill Block 3 once per job criterion. Use the candidate code from your mandate file rather than full personal details wherever your process allows.
Block 1: Permission and contact limits
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Candidate code and mandate | Internal identifiers only |
| Reference name and current role | As the reference describes it |
| Permission source | Who agreed to this contact, when, and where that agreement is recorded |
| Contact limits | Topics the candidate or reference asked to exclude; any "not before" timing |
| Current-employer status | Is this person at the candidate's current employer? If yes, quote the specific permission covering it |
| Confidentiality agreed with reference | What the reference was told about how their comments will be used and who will see them |
| Caller and call date | Who ran the call |
Block 2: Relationship and observation period
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Professional relationship | Manager, peer, direct report, board member, client, or other (specify) |
| Overlap period | Approximate duration and how long ago it ended |
| Frequency of contact | Daily, weekly, or by project |
| Work directly observed | The specific responsibilities the reference saw firsthand |
| Work outside their view | Responsibilities the candidate held that the reference could not see |
Block 3: Evidence per job criterion (repeat per criterion)
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Job criterion | Copied word-for-word from the mandate criteria |
| First-hand example | Situation, what the candidate did, what happened next, and how the reference knows |
| Attributed account | The reference's own characterisation, marked "Reference said:" |
| Hearsay | Anything the reference heard rather than saw, marked "Reported to reference by:" |
| Not observed | Parts of this criterion the reference had no view of |
| Consultant inference | Marked "Consultant inference:", with the reasoning in one sentence |
Block 4: Contradictions and open questions
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Item | The specific point in tension |
| Sources compared | For example: candidate interview vs. reference vs. CV vs. other reference |
| Clarification owner | One named person |
| Audience | Internal only, candidate, or client (and in what form) |
| Status | Open, clarified (with how), or withdrawn |
Block 5: Handover
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Shareable summary | Two or three sentences fit for the agreed audience, using only attributed content |
| Restricted content | Anything the reference asked to keep internal |
| Follow-up needed | Further references, candidate clarification, or none |
Why the fields are arranged this way
Permission sits first because it governs everything below it. If a reference raises a topic the candidate excluded, Block 1 tells the note-taker not to pursue or record it. It also tells later readers that the gap is a deliberate boundary, not an oversight.
The observation period sits before content so the reader can weigh examples against the reference's vantage point. A peer who worked alongside the candidate for eight months on one project has a narrower window than a manager across three years. Neither view is wrong; they cover different ground.
Criteria come from the mandate, not from the call. OPM's job analysis guidance organises assessment around the link between job tasks and required competencies. That is federal assessment guidance. Applying the same organising principle to search-firm reference notes is our adaptation, not an executive-search requirement. In practice, it means the criteria field is copied from what was agreed during your mandate kickoff checklist, not improvised during the call.
Questions are fixed; ratings are omitted. OPM's structured interviews page describes predetermined job-related questions and common rating standards. This template borrows only the first idea. It is not a validated selection instrument, and adding a score to a single reference call would suggest a precision the evidence can't support.
"Not observed" is a required field. An empty "not observed" line usually means nobody asked, not that the reference saw everything.
Original call prompts
These prompts are written for this template rather than taken from a published question bank. Adapt the wording to your voice, but keep the order. Each prompt feeds a specific field.
Opening (Block 1)
- "Before we start, I'd like to confirm what [candidate] agreed I could ask you about. Is there anything you'd prefer we don't cover?"
- "The proposed audience is [agreed audience], for [agreed purpose]. Is there any limit we need to discuss before collecting your comments?"
If the reference requests a different audience or use, pause and agree what can be collected and shared. Do not promise that information will remain "just between us" when your process cannot support that promise.
Relationship (Block 2)
- "How did your work connect with theirs, and roughly how long did that overlap last?"
- "In a typical month, which parts of their work did you actually see?"
- "Were there parts of their role you weren't close to?"
Per criterion (Block 3)
- "The role needs [criterion as written]. Can you think of a specific time that came up while you were working together?"
- "What did you see them do, step by step?"
- "What happened afterwards, and how did you find out?"
- "Which parts of that did you see yourself, and which did you hear from someone else?"
- "Is there any side of [criterion] you didn't get to see them handle?"
Closing (Block 4)
- "Is there anything about the situations we've discussed that someone else might describe differently?"
- "If I need to check a detail, is it all right to come back to you?"
Avoid prompts that invite a verdict, such as "Would you hire them again?" The answer is easy to record and hard to interpret. It also tends to end up in the shareable summary with no context attached.
Permission and confidentiality as operating practice
This section describes workflow habits, not legal advice. Consent, data-protection and employment rules differ by jurisdiction and by contract. Check the specifics with your firm's own advisers.
The structure above sits comfortably alongside public methodological references. OPM's reference checking page describes collecting information from people who worked with an applicant about past performance, using job-related questions and consistent procedures. OPM's federal guide recommends references with direct professional observation, permission to contact them, and discussing alternatives when a candidate asks you not to contact a current supervisor. That is federal practice guidance, not a global consent rule, but the habits translate well:
- No backchannel calls. Every reference in Block 1 needs a permission source. If someone volunteers an opinion informally, don't add it to the notes as a reference.
- The current employer is a separate decision. Only contact someone at the candidate's current employer with explicit permission that covers that person. Otherwise, agree alternatives with the candidate, such as former managers, former peers, or a later-stage check.
- Keep the scope narrow. Record only what relates to the job criteria. If a reference volunteers personal details unrelated to the role, don't write them down.
On confidentiality, the AESC Candidate Bill of Rights sets member-firm expectations covering confidentiality of candidate interest and information, including sources and references. The "Confidentiality agreed with reference" and "Restricted content" fields make those promises visible to anyone who handles the note later.
Synthetic worked example
Everything in this example is fictional. The candidate, the reference, the companies and the events are invented to show the template in use. They do not represent any real person, client or outcome.
The fictional mandate is a Chief Financial Officer for "Harbourline," an invented mid-sized logistics business. Two of the criteria agreed at kickoff were:
- C1: Has led a debt refinancing through to completion with external lenders.
- C2: Builds a finance team that reports reliably to a board.
The candidate is coded Candidate R. The reference is a fictional former CEO, "M. Okafor."
Block 1 (synthetic)
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Permission source | Candidate R named this reference during the second interview; consent noted in the mandate file |
| Contact limits | Candidate asked that their current employer not be discussed |
| Current-employer status | No. The reference left the shared company about two years ago |
| Confidentiality agreed | Summary to the lead consultant and the client's CEO; no verbatim quotes shared externally |
Block 2 (synthetic)
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Relationship | Candidate R reported to the reference |
| Overlap period | About three years, ending roughly two years ago |
| Work directly observed | Lender negotiations, monthly reporting, team hiring |
| Work outside their view | Board committee work after the reference's departure |
Block 3, criterion C1 (synthetic)
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| First-hand example | Reference attended lender meetings during a refinancing. Candidate R prepared the model, ran the term-sheet comparison and presented the options. The reference saw the final signing. |
| Attributed account | Reference said: R "drove the timetable" and described the wider refinancing as co-led with the treasurer; the reference did not observe the covenant work directly |
| Hearsay | Reported to reference by the treasurer: R handled covenant negotiation directly |
| Not observed | Day-to-day covenant drafting with counsel |
| Consultant inference | Consultant inference: first-hand evidence supports R leading the model, option comparison and timetable; whether R led or co-led the refinancing overall stays open in Block 4, and the covenant role is less certain because it relies on a second-hand account |
Block 3, criterion C2 (synthetic)
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| First-hand example | Reference saw R hire two finance managers and introduce a monthly board pack with a fixed close calendar |
| Attributed account | Reference said: board packs "stopped arriving late" |
| Not observed | Board reporting after the reference left; how the team performed without R |
| Consultant inference | Consultant inference: there is evidence of building the reporting process; how long it lasted is untested |
Block 4 (synthetic)
| Item | Sources compared | Owner | Audience | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R's CV says "led refinancing"; the reference describes the wider refinancing as co-led with the treasurer | CV vs. reference | Lead consultant | Candidate first; client only after clarification | Open |
Block 5 (synthetic): The shareable summary covers only the attributed points on C1 and C2, plus a note that the board-reporting period after the reference's departure is not covered. No rating is given.
Reviewing the synthetic notes
A reviewer reading this fictional note should check five things.
- Is every Block 3 example inside the observation window? Yes. The board work after the reference left is correctly listed under "not observed," not filled in from assumption.
- Is any hearsay presented as observation? The covenant point came from the treasurer, and it is labelled that way. A second reference closer to the covenant work, with the candidate's permission, would test it directly.
- Does inference stay in its own field? "Drove the timetable" is attributed to the reference. The inference identifies the model, option comparison and timetable the reference observed, while leaving overall leadership and the covenant role open for clarification.
- Is the contradiction framed fairly? "Led" and "co-led" may describe the same events from different angles. The note doesn't treat the gap as a red flag. It assigns an owner and keeps it internal until the candidate has had a chance to clarify.
- Was the contact limit respected? Nothing about the current employer appears anywhere in the note.
The review does not conclude that Candidate R is suitable or unsuitable. It records first-hand examples for parts of C1 and C2, the limits of the observation and a pending clarification. Use the same separation in your candidate research notes, so interview, research and reference evidence can be reviewed together.
Workflow failures and recovery
A reference turns out to be at the current employer. Partway through the call, you learn that the reference's company acquired the candidate's employer. Recovery: Pause politely and close the call without collecting more content. Record in Block 1 that the call ended for permission reasons. Tell the candidate and agree how to proceed. Don't keep notes taken beyond that point.
Adjectives instead of examples. A note reads "excellent leader, very commercial" and nothing else. Recovery: Move the words into the attributed-account field as the reference's own characterisation. Mark the criterion's first-hand example as missing. If the reference agreed to a follow-up, use the "step by step" prompt to get a concrete example.
The contradiction reaches the client first. A partner mentions the "led vs. co-led" gap in a client meeting before the candidate has been asked about it. Recovery: Tell the client that the point is open, and that the candidate is being asked for context before anything is concluded. The clarification owner contacts the candidate promptly. Update Block 4 with how the point was resolved. In future, check the audience field before any client conversation.
Narrow observation windows across all references. Three references all overlapped with the same project, so most of the role is listed as not observed. Recovery: With the candidate's agreement, add a reference from a different period or relationship type. Don't stretch the existing examples to cover ground they never saw.
Notes forwarded verbatim. A raw note containing restricted content was attached to a client email. Recovery: Contain further sharing and follow the firm's incident and communication process. Establish who received what. Add a separate audience review of the shareable summary before future exports; a template does not technically prevent forwarding the raw file.
Old notes reused in a new search. A consultant revisits a candidate's references from an earlier mandate. Recovery: Treat the earlier Block 1 permissions as limited to that mandate unless they say otherwise. Re-confirm with the candidate before contacting the references again or quoting them. The same check belongs in any candidate rediscovery workflow.
Handing over to the client
The AESC Client Bill of Rights describes, for member engagements, written clarity, confidentiality, and ongoing communication about market response, candidates and obstacles. These are member standards, not a universal rule.
Whatever your affiliation, the Block 5 summary is a practical unit for that communication. Use it to inform a reviewed client update, label unresolved points as open, and state which criteria references did not cover. Clients make better decisions with explicit gaps than with summaries that quietly fill them in.
Where Laisy fits
The template works manually, in any tools your firm already has permission to use.
Laisy offers personally supported early access for specialist executive-search firms, starting with an agreed task alongside current tools. You review client updates before sharing through your usual channel. Applications are individually reviewed; access and response dates are not promised.
If you want to test a structured workflow on real work, the proposal is narrow. Before anything starts, you would agree:
- one live search assignment,
- which permitted inputs to use,
- how outputs will be reviewed,
- what would count as useful evidence,
- the point at which to continue or stop.
No full migration is required, and any pilot work is agreed and reviewed, not provided automatically. You can apply for early access to discuss whether an assignment fits.
Frequently asked questions
Should we add a 1–5 score to each reference call?
We'd advise against it. A single call reflects one vantage point and one observation window. A score hides both, and tends to travel further than the evidence behind it. Record evidence per criterion and leave weighing to the review.
What if the candidate won't allow any current-employer contact?
Respect that boundary and note it in Block 1. Agree alternatives with the candidate, such as former managers or peers from earlier roles, or a later-stage check if they consent at that point. Then list the current role under "not observed."
How much of the reference's wording should the client see?
Only what Block 1 and Block 5 allow. Shareable summaries use attributed content and paraphrase. Anything the reference asked to keep internal stays out, and direct quotes go only where the reference agreed to them.
Who resolves a contradiction between a reference and the CV?
The named clarification owner in Block 4, usually the lead consultant. They should normally ask the candidate first. Record how the point was clarified, or that it remains open, before it reaches the client.