Most referral introductions fail before a hiring manager reads them. Here's the four-dimension scoring system and a two-paragraph formula that consistently gets accepted.
The standard referral introduction is a version of this: "Hi, I wanted to introduce you to [name]. We've worked together before and I think they'd be a great fit for your team. They're really smart and would bring a lot to the role."
This tells a hiring manager almost nothing. It doesn't explain the nature of the relationship, the specific work you observed, or why this particular role is a match. It reads like someone doing a favor, not someone making a professional judgment.
The problem isn't that people don't care about the candidates they refer. They do. The problem is that no one ever explained what information a hiring manager actually needs.
On Credora, every introduction is evaluated on four dimensions before it reaches the hiring manager's queue:
1. Specificity of relationship. How clearly do you describe how you know the candidate and in what context? "We worked together for two years building the data infrastructure at Stripe" scores higher than "I know them professionally."
2. Relevance to the role. How well does what you know about the candidate connect to what the company is hiring for? You don't need to map every competency — you need one or two concrete examples that directly relate to the job.
3. Authenticity. Does this read like a genuine, considered endorsement from someone who actually knows this person — or a template? Specific language reads as authentic. Vague superlatives read as filler.
4. Consistency. Are the claims you're making internally consistent? Does your description of the candidate's background match the level and domain of the role?
A strong introduction can almost always be written in two paragraphs.
Paragraph 1: How you know them and what you observed. Describe the context of your relationship — where you worked together, for how long, in what capacity. Then describe one or two specific things you observed them do that stuck with you. "She rebuilt our entire analytics pipeline in six weeks when our previous vendor collapsed" is more useful than "she's a strong engineer."
Paragraph 2: Why this specific role is a match. Connect what you know about them to what the company is hiring for. "Based on what I know about how they work, the product infrastructure role you're hiring for is exactly the kind of problem they're built for" is honest and useful.
Two paragraphs. If you can't write this in 100–200 words for someone you genuinely know, you may not know them well enough to write the introduction.
**Weak introduction (likely goes to backlog):**
"I'd like to introduce you to Marcus. We've known each other for a few years and he's a talented engineer who I think would be a great addition to your team. He's worked at some good companies and has a strong background in software development. I think he'd be a culture fit and bring a lot of value."
**Strong introduction (likely reaches the active queue):**
"Marcus and I worked together at Plaid for three years — I was on the product side, he owned the API team. He was the engineer who led the migration to our new rate-limiting architecture when we hit 10× traffic growth in 2022. The rest of the team was working around the problem; Marcus was the one who wrote the design doc and executed it. For a backend infrastructure role at a company doing serious scale, he's the person I'd call first."
The second introduction is 80 words. The hiring manager knows exactly who referred Marcus, what Marcus did that was notable, and why it's relevant.
Referring someone you don't know well. You can always tell when an introduction is written by someone who met the candidate at a conference rather than worked alongside them. Quality gates can too.
Copying and pasting the candidate's LinkedIn. Summarising someone's résumé is not an introduction. The hiring manager can already read their profile — they need your judgment, not your transcription.
Using generic language. "Strong communicator," "team player," "high performer." These phrases appear in every introduction and mean nothing without supporting evidence.
Writing about potential rather than track record. "I think they could do well in this role" is speculative. "They've done exactly this before and here's the evidence" is actionable.
Two paragraphs. One specific observation. One relevant connection to the role. That's the formula.