If the referrer is a current employee, someone from a department other than development won't "feel" the negative consequences as someone in dev. So a referral

If the referrer is a current employee, someone from a department other than development won't "feel" the negative consequences as someone in dev. So a referral from a developer might carry more weight than one from someone in sales. Additionally a current developers referral would carry more weight than a salesperson's referral because a developer ought to be able to gauge the candidates abilities a bit more. The negative consequences for the developer comes mostly from psychology (which affects some more than others) in that most people apply personal pressure to ensure the success of a hire that they referred for fear of looking bad (current employees might feel this more than say a third party business contact that referred someone). So... "A referrer shouldn't feel the consequences of a bad hire. The referrer didn't make the hiring decision, it's not their fault if you hired the person they referred." A referrer might feel the consequences of a bad hire in that they, assuming they care about their personal referral capital and reputation, may have to pick up the slack for a "bad hire". You are correct they didn't make the decision to hire the person. The negative consequences aren't direct not intentional but they expose additional "skin" in a referral hence giving their referral more weight in ordering candidates. Maybe that's just wrong to consider and view things? On a slightly different note: in the past we have taken current developers and a potential hire out for lunch to see if there is "cultural fit". I don't like this idea anymore unless, we have agreed and intend to hire the candidate pending the lunch. However, the existing developers will not be able to override the hiring decision as it is not for them to say "no" but rather it is an opportunity for the candidate to decide if they can get along with the existing team? Is that fair?