A glowing written reference rarely tells the complete story. The most revealing insights about a potential personal assistant often emerge during telephone conversations with previous employers, where tone, hesitation, and careful word choices can signal concerns that would never appear in formal documentation.
The Power of Vocal Cues and Timing
When conducting reference calls, pay close attention to the referee's immediate response to your questions. A confident, enthusiastic former employer will typically answer questions about reliability or trustworthiness without hesitation. Conversely, long pauses before answering straightforward questions about punctuality or honesty should raise immediate concerns.
Listen for changes in tone when discussing specific aspects of performance. A referee might speak enthusiastically about a candidate's technical skills but adopt a noticeably more reserved tone when addressing their discretion or interpersonal skills. These vocal shifts often indicate areas where problems occurred but cannot be explicitly stated due to legal constraints.
Warning Sign One: Excessive Brevity in Responses
When a previous employer provides unusually short answers to open-ended questions, this often suggests they're deliberately limiting their commentary. A referee who responds to "How would you describe their reliability?" with simply "Fine" or "No issues" may be avoiding more detailed discussion for good reason.
Legitimate positive references typically include specific examples or elaboration. A genuinely satisfied previous employer will often volunteer additional information or anecdotes that demonstrate the candidate's strengths. The absence of such detail, particularly when you've asked open-ended questions, warrants further investigation.
Warning Sign Two: Reluctance to Discuss Specific Scenarios
Pay attention to how referees respond to scenario-based questions. When you ask about how the candidate handled confidential information or managed challenging situations, a reluctant referee might deflect with vague responses or suggest you ask the candidate directly.
This deflection technique often indicates that specific incidents occurred but cannot be discussed openly due to settlement agreements or legal constraints. A confident referee will typically provide concrete examples of good judgement or professional handling of sensitive situations.
Warning Sign Three: Damning with Faint Praise
Some of the most revealing warning signs come disguised as positive comments. Phrases like "They were always very busy" might suggest poor time management rather than diligence. Similarly, "They certainly made an impression" or "You'll definitely remember them" often indicate problematic behaviour that cannot be stated directly.
When referees emphasise qualities that seem oddly specific or unexpected, consider whether these might be compensating for unstated weaknesses. Excessive focus on punctuality, for example, might suggest this was previously an area of concern.
Warning Sign Four: Inconsistencies with the Candidate's Account
Carefully compare the referee's account of the role and responsibilities with what your candidate has told you. Significant discrepancies in job descriptions, reporting relationships, or reasons for leaving should prompt additional questions.
Pay particular attention to timeline inconsistencies or differences in how the employment ended. A referee who seems uncertain about basic facts or provides conflicting information about the departure circumstances may be indicating undisclosed problems.
Warning Sign Five: Unwillingness to Provide Specific Examples
When you ask for specific examples of the candidate's work or achievements, a legitimate referee will usually provide concrete instances. Referees who consistently speak in generalities or refuse to give specific examples may be constrained by previous incidents they cannot discuss.
This is particularly concerning when asking about trust-related matters. A previous employer who cannot provide specific examples of the candidate handling confidential information or demonstrating integrity may have experienced problems in these areas.
Strategic Questions for Maximum Insight
Structure your reference calls to maximise the information you receive whilst remaining legally compliant. Begin with open-ended questions that allow the referee to speak freely about their experience with the candidate.
Ask about specific competencies relevant to your role: "Can you give me an example of how they handled confidential information?" or "Describe a situation where they had to use their initiative." These questions often reveal more than direct queries about performance.
Inquire about the candidate's relationships with family members or other household staff. Personal assistant roles often involve complex interpersonal dynamics, and previous experience in managing these relationships provides valuable insight.
Legal Boundaries and Compliance
Remember that referees may be legally constrained in what they can disclose. Under data protection law, they should only share information that is relevant, accurate, and proportionate to your legitimate interests as a potential employer.
Avoid asking questions about protected characteristics or personal circumstances unrelated to job performance. Focus on professional competencies, reliability, and specific examples of work quality.
The Art of Follow-Up Questions
When you detect hesitation or evasion, skilled follow-up questioning can often elicit more revealing responses. If a referee gives a vague answer about reliability, try asking: "Were there any particular areas where you needed to provide additional support or guidance?"
This approach allows referees to discuss problems indirectly whilst staying within legal boundaries. They might not be able to say someone was unreliable, but they can discuss the additional supervision or support that was required.
Documentation and Record-Keeping
Maintain detailed notes of your reference conversations, including specific questions asked and responses received. This documentation serves multiple purposes: it helps you compare different candidates objectively and provides protection should your hiring decisions later be questioned.
Note any areas where you felt the referee was evasive or reluctant to provide information. These gaps in information should inform your final hiring decision and may suggest areas where additional scrutiny is required.
Making Informed Decisions
Remember that the absence of enthusiastic endorsement is itself significant information. In the personal assistant field, where trust, discretion, and reliability are paramount, lukewarm references should be weighted heavily in your decision-making process.
Consider seeking additional references when warning signs emerge, particularly from more recent employers or in different contexts. A pattern of evasive or reluctant referees across multiple previous positions indicates systemic concerns that warrant serious consideration.
By developing sensitivity to these subtle warning signs and structuring your reference conversations strategically, you can gather the insights needed to make informed hiring decisions whilst respecting legal boundaries and protecting your household's interests.
