References rarely tell you someone is bad directly.

Legal concerns and cultural politeness mean most references default to neutral language even when they have serious concerns. They won't say "this person was incompetent"—they'll say "they were adequate" and hope you read between the lines.

Here's how to decode lukewarm reference feedback and spot red flags hiding in bland language.

The Enthusiasm Gap Is Everything

Great references sound like this:

• "She was one of the best analysts I've managed in 15 years"
• "I'd hire him back in a heartbeat"
• "If I could steal her back from her current company, I would"

Mediocre references sound like this:

• "He was fine"
• "She did the job"
• "He met expectations"
• "She was adequate"

The difference isn't subtle—it's a canyon. When someone was truly great, references can't contain their enthusiasm. When someone was merely acceptable, references give you the verbal equivalent of a shrug.

The rule: if a reference doesn't volunteer enthusiastic praise, that's a red flag.

Decoding Common Reference Check Phrases

What they say: "They were a solid contributor." What they mean: They showed up and did the minimum. Not incompetent, but not impressive.

What they say: "They got the job done." What they mean: They completed tasks but needed significant oversight or took longer than expected. You won't get proactive problem-solving or initiative.

What they say: "They had some strengths in [specific area]." What they mean: That's the ONLY strength they could think of. Everything else was weak.

What they say: "They worked hard." What they mean: Effort was there, results were not. This is how references describe someone who tries but consistently underperforms.

What they say: "They're very nice" or "great culture fit." What they mean: I have nothing substantive to say about their skills or performance. When references lead with personality, it's because competence is lacking.

What they say: "They have potential." What they mean: They haven't delivered yet. This is code for underperformance justified by hypothetical future improvement.

What they say: "I'd hire them for the right role." What they mean: Not this role. Maybe something less demanding. Strong references say "I'd hire them back immediately"—not "for the right role".

The Pause Test

Listen for hesitation when you ask:

"Would you hire them again?"

Great references answer immediately: "Absolutely, yes". Mediocre references pause, hedge, or qualify: "Well... it depends on the role".

That pause is your red flag. They're trying to be polite while avoiding an outright lie.

What Strong References Sound Like (For Comparison)

Strong references give specifics unprompted:

"Let me tell you about the time Sarah rebuilt our entire data pipeline in 6 weeks when the original implementation failed. She worked with engineering, identified the root cause, proposed a solution, got buy-in from leadership, and executed it flawlessly. That's the kind of problem-solver she is."

Great references volunteer stories because they're proud of the candidate's work. Weak references stick to generic descriptors because they can't think of impressive examples.

The Questions That Force Honesty

Standard question: "How did they perform?" Standard answer: "Fine." (Useless)

Better question: "Can you give me an example of a project they led that really impressed you?"

This forces specifics. If they struggle to think of one, or the example is underwhelming, you have your answer.

Better question: "If you were building a team today and could hire anyone, would they be on your shortlist?"

This cuts through politeness. Great references say yes immediately. Weak references hedge.

Better question: "What's one area where they could improve or develop further?"

Everyone has weaknesses. If the reference gives a non-answer like "they're great, no real weaknesses," they're being diplomatic, not honest. Strong references give thoughtful, specific developmental areas while maintaining enthusiasm.

The Comparison Question That Reveals Everything

The best reference check question:

"Compared to others in similar roles you've managed, where would you rank them—top 10%, top 25%, top half, or bottom half?"

This forces numerical honesty. Most people can't lie comfortably when asked to rank someone.

Top performers get "top 10%" instantly. Mediocre performers get "well... probably top half?" with hesitation.

What To Do With Lukewarm References

One lukewarm reference: Could be a personality conflict or a reference who's just not effusive. Don't panic.

Two lukewarm references: Pattern emerging. Dig deeper with additional references or more specific questions.

Three lukewarm references: This person is mediocre. Believe the pattern. Great performers don't accumulate multiple "they were fine" references—they accumulate raving fans.

The Bottom Line

Most reference checks are useless because recruiters accept polite non-answers as positive feedback.

How to actually learn from references:

✅ Listen for enthusiasm—lack of it is a red flag ✅ Decode bland language: "solid" = mediocre, "got the job done" = needed oversight ✅ Notice hesitation when you ask "would you rehire them?" ✅ Ask for specific examples—vague answers reveal weak performance ✅ Use the ranking question to force quantitative honesty ✅ Look for patterns across multiple references

When someone was great, their references can't help but brag. When someone was merely acceptable, references give you lukewarm corporate-speak and hope you don't notice.

Don't confuse politeness with endorsement. "They were fine" is not a compliment—it's a warning.

Sources:

• SHRM: Reference Check Legal Constraints Honest Feedback
• ERE Media: Reference Check Coded Language Patterns
• HR Dive: Reference Check Enthusiasm Signal Quality Correlation
• Business Insider: Reference Check Lukewarm Feedback Interpretation
• TalentCulture: Reference Check Storytelling Performance Quality