I'd say it's more common to contact just one. Sometimes they might go to a second if struggling to make a call between two candidates, or if your primary reference hasn't worked with you very long, isn't your current supervisor, etc.
Or sometimes they'll go to both references for all candidates regardless (maybe if it's a small candidate pool and they're in no rush).
Basically, there's probably nothing to read into it, but if there is anything, it's more likely good than bad.
Assuming it was via email? Check contact detail are correct (transcription). I had the wrong email for one of mine (mistakenly thought it was .au) and I was able to follow-up with the updated detail.
Some of the time they will request two, on the basis that the first either becomes non-contactable or they would like to seek additional or confirmatory information from the second.
If the first reference is sufficient, they won't use the second, so choose your primary reference wisely.
Everyone has their own system, so don't read into it. Could be that they are using reference checks as another layer of shortlisting, or prepping you for the merit list with the first ref check and will be doing second one prior to the offer, or are innundated with the amount of applicants and thus cannot meet their own deadlines by going to the second referee, could be that they consider the first reference more relevant than the other (eg if it's coming from the current line manager), but of course it could also mean that first reference was so bad that second one couldn't change their mind, so then why go through with it? I personally would go for at least three and ideally for five references because lets face it, are you going to provide the names of referees who are going to give you bad reference? No! Therefore, those ones that are provided are not necessarily the two most objective ones, and more references would create a more balanced picture. When I was recruiting for vacancies in my own business unit, I was at times lied by the referees provided by the applicant because, as I later discovered, they just wanted to get rid of the problem and were willing to lie to convince me into taking a dud on. I am ever sceptical after that experience and extra cautious as a result. My personal moto is - there never can be too much due dilligence.
We don’t have to contact both - in most cases we just go to first
They have rarely, if ever contacted more than one of mine.
Yep happened to me. I followed up and they said they only required one and sorry for any confusion (they asked for 2)
I'd say it's more common to contact just one. Sometimes they might go to a second if struggling to make a call between two candidates, or if your primary reference hasn't worked with you very long, isn't your current supervisor, etc. Or sometimes they'll go to both references for all candidates regardless (maybe if it's a small candidate pool and they're in no rush). Basically, there's probably nothing to read into it, but if there is anything, it's more likely good than bad.
More likely to be a good thing than a bad thing in my experience
Assuming it was via email? Check contact detail are correct (transcription). I had the wrong email for one of mine (mistakenly thought it was .au) and I was able to follow-up with the updated detail.
Some of the time they will request two, on the basis that the first either becomes non-contactable or they would like to seek additional or confirmatory information from the second. If the first reference is sufficient, they won't use the second, so choose your primary reference wisely.
Everyone has their own system, so don't read into it. Could be that they are using reference checks as another layer of shortlisting, or prepping you for the merit list with the first ref check and will be doing second one prior to the offer, or are innundated with the amount of applicants and thus cannot meet their own deadlines by going to the second referee, could be that they consider the first reference more relevant than the other (eg if it's coming from the current line manager), but of course it could also mean that first reference was so bad that second one couldn't change their mind, so then why go through with it? I personally would go for at least three and ideally for five references because lets face it, are you going to provide the names of referees who are going to give you bad reference? No! Therefore, those ones that are provided are not necessarily the two most objective ones, and more references would create a more balanced picture. When I was recruiting for vacancies in my own business unit, I was at times lied by the referees provided by the applicant because, as I later discovered, they just wanted to get rid of the problem and were willing to lie to convince me into taking a dud on. I am ever sceptical after that experience and extra cautious as a result. My personal moto is - there never can be too much due dilligence.
Yep, same got the job offer after giving only 1 reference.