Welcome to the communities Nardia.

I guess the person stated this because a huge number of companies only collect 'tombstone', references which have so little information on them - job, start date & end date. These references are pretty worthless in my view.

'Proper' references, as the CIPD state are pretty important.

Hello Nardia,

though you may want to look at Rob Briner tweet here: twitter.com/.../866664881952628736 - seems the evidence shows references checks score higher than handwriting/graphology

See primary source of information here: www.researchgate.net/.../309203898_The_Validity_and_Utility_of_Selection_Methods_in_Personnel_Psychology_Practical_and_Theoretical_Implications_of_100_Years_of_Research_Findings

In reply to David Perry:

As David has said, it depends entirely on what you request as in terms of references and what the previous employer is prepared to provide. Legally, references must always be factual - this can be negative too.

If you ask for a full character reference, that can be quite telling. Unless you seriously doubt a candidate's CV I never quite understand clarifying start/end dates etc.

One of the most useful questions I find is during interview clarifying with candidates that they would be happy for the employer to contact references and if there is anything that they might say that is less than positive about the candidate - you usually find out anything important that way!

There are good points already on the question of references. On the question of why CIPD advice seems inconsistent with other evidence, I'd say this...
1. It's a great challenge, worthy of a bottle of Champagne (I'm afraid that's not an offer though atm, sorry...). Being evidence based means being open to evidence-based challenges, which can be hard but we need to be honest and humble. We all make statements that reflect our world view rather than a considered weighing up of evidence, but what we can do is to be open to countering evidence. We should live by the motto: When the facts change, I change my mind.
2. CIPD has shed loads of content and it's not going to all be based on the best available evidence overnight. Some will reflect received wisdom that should be challenged or at least tested. By picking us up on apparent inconsistencies and helping us pick apart what's evidence is most relevant and of the best quality, we can refine our views for the better.
Many thanks for your post, Nardia. This is very much part of what I hoped the forum would be used for - essentially asking 'what’s the best evidence on x' or 'how do we marry the competing statements & evidence on y'. More please!

It's potentially a flawed approach in many ways - who provides referees who are going to say poor things about you? There are the tombstone versions when references are controlled by HR or policy, agreed references where someone exits under a settlement agreement, and there is no obligation for a nominated or otherwise contacted referee to respond.

The selection process starts right at the job description before the job ad goes out and goes through the the performance of the individual in the job. No single element shows definitively if you have appointed the right person but as a whole, the elements help in making a good decision.