You've reviewed every resume, eliminated unlikely applicants, conducted interviews, and narrowed the field of prospective employees to a qualified few. It's time to check references and make a final decision. A snap, right?

A decade ago, that would have been the case. But lawsuits by disgruntled ex-employees who receive poor recommendations and changing employer-employee relations have made checking applicant references a tricky and often unproductive task. Previous employers are often reluctant to comment about former workers; some strictly limit information to verification of dates of employment. Is it possible to separate the stellar applicant from the tarnished one?

When collecting references, one important question may hold the key: Would you rehire this person? The answer may be direct or evasive. It takes a sharp ear, careful probing and interpretation to uncover the truth - and reasons behind that truth.

In preparation, review resumes of final applicants. Especially note gaps in employment. Resignations may not have been voluntary. Few workers willingly leave gainful employment without securing other positions first. Some resign from positions in which their poor performance will surely result in dismissal. They figure, correctly, that resignation will "read" better than firing on a resume. A few simply couldn't do the job. Others were fired in lower-level positions and rose to the levels of their incompetence (the Peter Principle) before leaving. There are many reasons for leaving.

Note each applicant's first and last position with each company. Some employees tender resignations to avoid prosecution for embezzlement or material theft, drug abuse and (most recently) sexual harassment. Fortunately, this is rare. If you haven't ascertained that work gaps are for acceptable reasons, the reference check is your last opportunity to do so. If possible, make your reference check with each applicant's previous supervisor, not a personnel director. Those who worked directly with the applicant will provide more valid - and more candid - appraisals.

If you're fortunate, you'll contact a supervisor who will be forthright about your applicant's job performance. But it's still important to ask that key question: Would you rehire this person?

Listen carefully. You'll be noting tone of voice as much as words that are spoken. A prompt, positive response is the ideal answer. A long hesitation before a lukewarm "Oh, I suppose so" is not the best sign. If the answer is no, ask if it is company policy not to rehire previous employees.

For a candidate who has changed levels within a company, ask the question for several levels of job responsibility: Would you rehire as a receptionist, as an office manager, as a sales manager? You'll spot the Peter Principle victim by the Page 75 From Page 38 responses. Then reevaluate each applicant in terms of the responsibilities of your opening. An outstanding receptionist or sales rep may have failed miserably when bookkeeping was added to her duties. If your position has no financial elements, that person still may be your ideal candidate.

Few previous supervisors of truly awful employees will want you to suffer as they have. Tone of voice, refusal to answer any direct questions and responses couched in legalese are keys to problem applicants. When you hear, "I've been strictly instructed to refuse comment about this employee" or "Our attorney said to refer all inquiries to him," don't ignore it. Just as reading body language and voice tone is important when interviewing job applicants, reading unspoken cues of references can guide you to the best new employees. Still, push hard for candid answers. Occasionally, a reference will break down out of sheer exasperation if you're persistent: "I'm not supposed to, but I just can't hang up without tell you (This reference then told a tale of drug abuse and criminal sexual activity.)

Even an evasive reference often will offer clues in closing statements. One reference I contacted refused comment about an employee's performance, but she paused and inhaled long, audible breaths each time I posed a question. Toward the end of the conversation, I repeated my key question. Again, she refused to give information. I waited - another technique that encourages references to fill uncomfortable voids of silence by offering information. There was another long pause; then she said pointedly, "Oh, how I wish I could tell you more." We discovered later the applicant was suspected of embezzlement, but there was not enough evidence for prosecution.

As you hang up, summarize the conversation by posing the key question again, in less intimidating fashion. If you've detected problems with the applicant, say lightly, "So do I assume correctly you wouldn't rehire this person?" Anxious to terminate an uncomfortable conversation, a reference may drop his guard at this point, relieved to be off the "hot seat." "Not on your life!" one reference blurted, "but you didn't hear it from me."

How far and how hard can you push a reference for information? You want the contact to remain genial, not unpleasant or antagonistic. Get as much information as possible without pushing the other person's or your own comfort level. Respect his/her legal safety zone - don't push a reference into areas that may expose him or her to legal liability.

If a reference stoically refuses to provide information beyond dates of employment and positions held, it may still be possible to get the name and phone number of another source of information.

And always be polite.