Are Reference Checks Still Relevant in 2026?

Reference checks, the way most companies in AdTech and performance media still run them, are theatre. They exist to make the process feel rigorous. They don't actually reduce bad hires, they don't surface the things that matter, and in a market where the best candidates are moving fast, they're adding days to your timeline for zero return.

Here's what's actually going on, and what the sharpest hiring teams across Southeast Asia are doing instead.

The problem isn't references. It's how you're using them.

The standard reference check goes like this. You ask the candidate for two or three names. They give you their biggest fan, their most diplomatic former manager, and maybe a colleague who owes them a favour. You call those people, ask some version of "what was it like working with them?" and hear things like "great team player, really driven, would work with them again."

What did you learn? That the candidate has at least three people willing to say nice things about them. Congratulations. So does almost everyone.

The fundamental flaw is that you're asking the candidate to curate the feedback. That's not a reference check. That's a testimonial service. And even when you ask sharper questions "what would they need to develop?" or "how did they handle pressure?" the answers are filtered through the knowledge that this person was handpicked to make the candidate look good.

It gets worse when the reference is from two or three roles ago. People change. Teams change. A glowing review from someone who managed the candidate in 2022 tells you very little about how they'll perform in a completely different structure in 2026.

What's actually going wrong in AdTech hires right now

We see the consequences of bad validation constantly. Here are the three failure modes that keep coming up:

The platform specialist who can't think commercially. They crushed it at one platform or publisher, they can talk DSPs and SSPs all day, their reference calls were stellar. But they've never had to own a P&L, build a client relationship from scratch, or make a commercial decision without someone above them signing off. The reference check didn't catch this because nobody asked about it, and the referees were from the same platform-first environment.

The senior hire who managed up brilliantly but managed down terribly. References from their boss? Glowing. References from their direct reports? You didn't ask for those. Six months in, half their team is looking for the exit and you're wondering what happened.

The regional hire who excelled in one market but can't adapt. Exceptional track record in Singapore, strong references from the SG team. But the role requires building relationships across Manila, Bangkok and KL, and they've never operated outside a single-market bubble. The reference check confirmed they were good at the job they had. It didn't tell you anything about the job you're hiring them for.

In every case, the references said the right things. The hire still didn't work.

What the best teams are doing instead

The companies we see making consistently strong hires haven't abolished references entirely. They've replaced the old model with something that actually tells them what they need to know.

They do back-channel references, not candidate-curated ones. This is the single most valuable shift. Instead of asking the candidate for names, they use their own network to find people who've worked with the candidate. A former colleague. Someone who was in the same team two roles ago. A client they worked with. These conversations are more candid because the person wasn't selected by the candidate and isn't performing for anyone. This requires a strong network, which is one reason why specialist recruiters in tight markets can add genuine value here, but it's also something any well-connected hiring manager can do.

They test in the process, not after it. Instead of relying on post-interview validation from strangers, the best teams are embedding real-world assessment into the interview itself. Not a 45-minute presentation deck that wastes everyone's time, but a focused 20-minute scenario. Give the candidate a realistic problem from your business a campaign that underperformed, a client conversation that went sideways, a budget allocation decision and watch how they think through it live. You'll learn more in that 20 minutes than in five reference calls combined.

They reference for the specific gap, not the whole person. When they do take up formal references, they don't ask open-ended questions. They go in with one or two specific concerns that came out of the interview process. If the candidate seemed light on stakeholder management, the reference call focuses entirely on that. If there were questions about how they handle ambiguity, that's the only topic. This turns the reference from a rubber stamp into a targeted probe.

They talk to direct reports, not just managers. This one is simple and almost nobody does it. If you're hiring someone who'll manage a team, ask to speak with someone who reported to them. The dynamic is completely different from a manager reference. Direct reports will tell you about communication style, how decisions were made, how credit was shared, and whether people actually wanted to stay on the team. That's the stuff that determines whether your new hire builds something or breaks something.

A practical framework you can use this week

If you're hiring right now, here's how to upgrade your validation process without adding time to the timeline:

Step 1: Drop the standard reference check from your formal process. Don't ask candidates for names upfront. It sets the expectation that you're running the old model and it wastes a step.

Step 2: Run back-channel references in parallel with the interview process. Start reaching out to your network the moment a candidate enters the pipeline. By the time you get to offer stage, you already have informal signal. This adds zero days to your timeline because it runs alongside everything else.

Step 3: Build one scenario-based exercise into your final interview round. Make it specific to the role. Not a generic case study an actual problem the team has faced. Keep it to 20 minutes. You're not testing their presentation skills. You're testing their thinking.

Step 4: If you still want a formal reference, make it targeted. One call, one specific concern, five minutes. That's it. Ask the referee about the one thing you're unsure about and nothing else.

Step 5: For any people-management hire, insist on a direct report reference. This is non-negotiable if the role involves leading a team. If the candidate can't provide one, or if the conversation is notably vague, that tells you something.

The bigger picture

The companies that hire well in this market don't rely on any single signal. They build conviction through the process itself the quality of the conversation, the way a candidate thinks through a problem in real time, the informal signals from people who've actually worked alongside them.

Reference checks became standard in an era when hiring was slower, candidates were less informed, and the cost of a drawn-out process was low. That era is over. In AdTech and performance media across Southeast Asia right now, the cost of a slow, bloated process isn't just inefficiency. It's losing the person you wanted to someone who moved faster and validated smarter.

One more thing

We've spent the first half of 2026 tracking the shifts that matter most in AdTech and performance media hiring across SEA the ones that are changing how teams are built, how offers are structured, and how the best companies are staying ahead. We put all of it into one report. If you want a copy, reach out to helen@uncommonlygoodpeople.com and we'll send it over.