Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

What to ask references before you hire a senior executive

Use executive reference calls to verify role-relevant behavior through specific examples. Obtain appropriate consent, ask comparable questions, and seek contrasting evidence. A reference should clarify a hiring risk rather than supply a general endorsement or an amateur personality assessment.

Structured interview is an interview whose questions and sequence are determined in advance. The American Psychological Association’s 2018 defining entry, APA Dictionary of Psychology: structured interview, supplies that core distinction. For executive references, a prepared evidence interview also needs role-related evaluation standards. A rehearsed introduction followed by an improvised request for praise does not create a comparable assessment.

A private moment that makes the issue visible

Composite scenario, not a client case: You take a reference call on the way home and hear that the candidate is exceptional. You arrive with a favorable impression but no example about the difficult operating decision the role requires. Your partner asks whether the search is over. The most consequential uncertainty remains untouched.

Use the research within its limits

U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Structured Interviews describes predetermined job-related questions and consistent rating standards for employment interviews. Those principles can inform a reference-call plan, but the guidance is not a validation study of the exact reference script proposed here. References also differ in what they observed, so comparable questions need context-aware interpretation.

State the decision before discussing personalities

Choose the risk the call must test before contacting the reference. Identify how the reference knows the candidate and which part of the work they directly observed. Route consent and record handling through the appropriate process.

Use the executive reference evidence interview

  1. Confirm the observation context. Ask when and how the reference worked with the candidate. Establish reporting relationships and what the reference saw directly rather than through reputation. Ask which projects and decisions the reference actually saw. A senior title or long acquaintance does not establish direct knowledge of the relevant work.

  2. Ask for a relevant decision. Use the role scorecard to request a specific example. Ask what the candidate decided, the constraints involved, and the result the reference could observe. Separate the candidate’s contribution from the team’s outcome. Ask what authority the candidate held and what another leader supplied.

  3. Seek a contrasting case. Ask when the same strength was less useful or what support improved performance. Do not turn a request for balance into pressure to produce a negative story. Request conditions under which the approach worked less well. The aim is useful context, not an obligation to produce criticism.

  4. Compare accounts carefully. Check a material discrepancy with records or another appropriate source. Give the candidate a fair opportunity to clarify relevant context instead of interpreting every difference as deception. Define the discrepancy precisely before seeking clarification. Differences in dates, authority, and interpretation may require different follow-up.

  5. Record the hiring implication. State which role requirement the evidence supports and which remains unresolved. Keep sensitive information restricted and retain only what the authorized process needs. Explain whether the evidence changes a requirement rating, suggests onboarding support, or leaves the question open. Do not let a warm endorsement settle an unrelated risk.

Give the call one consequential question

Before contacting a reference, state the uncertainty the call could resolve. Perhaps the candidate has described leading a difficult integration, but the panel does not know whether they controlled resource tradeoffs. A reference who observed that work may clarify authority and contribution. A general question about whether the person was impressive is less likely to resolve the gap.

Choose the reference context accordingly, within the consent process. A former colleague may know collaboration well while having little view of the candidate’s financial decisions. A former supervisor may know outcomes but not the daily working relationship. Record that scope instead of assuming any senior reference can answer every requirement.

Prepare a common core of role-related questions and a place for clarifying follow-ups. The core supports comparison; the follow-ups establish what the account means. Do not require identical detail from people who observed different work. Preserve the difference in observation rather than turning all calls into equally weighted endorsements.

Ask for an event the person can reconstruct

Begin with when and how the reference worked with the candidate. Ask which decision or project they can describe directly. Then establish the circumstances: the constraint, the candidate’s authority, the alternatives, and the outcome the reference observed. These details help distinguish an account from a general reputation.

Useful proposed questions include: What decision did this person own when resources conflicted? What did they do when another executive disagreed? Which part did you see yourself? What changed afterward? Ask only the questions relevant to the scorecard and appropriate to the reference’s role. A longer list does not automatically create stronger evidence.

If the answer remains broad, request one example rather than suggesting the story you hope to hear. A leading prompt can produce agreement without clarification. When the reference cannot supply an example, record the limit. Lack of direct observation is different from evidence that the candidate performed poorly.

Look for boundaries around a strength

Ask when the candidate’s approach needed support or worked less well. A person who moves quickly may need a stronger consultation boundary in a different context. The useful information concerns the conditions and behavior, not a personality label. Do not pressure the reference to balance every positive account with an invented negative one.

In a hypothetical call, a reference praises a candidate’s integration leadership. Further questions reveal that the candidate managed execution while another executive made the major allocation choices. The panel retains the execution evidence and seeks separate evidence of allocation judgment. It neither dismisses the contribution nor treats it as proof of authority the candidate did not hold.

Ask what enabled success. The answer may identify an experienced deputy, strong operating records, or a specific governance arrangement. These conditions can matter to the new role. A capability demonstrated with appropriate support remains valuable, but the hiring team should know whether comparable support will exist.

Reconcile a material discrepancy carefully

Write the two accounts precisely before interpreting them. One person may describe leading a project while another uses leading to mean final decision authority. Clarify the term and the observed responsibilities. Avoid treating every difference as dishonesty when the accounts may concern different parts of the work.

Use appropriate records or another authorized source if the discrepancy affects the appointment. Give the candidate a fair opportunity to explain relevant context through the hiring process. Do not circulate an unverified allegation to the full panel as established fact. Sensitive issues belong with the responsible people and legal advisers.

Restrict the record to necessary business evidence. A reference call can produce information the panel did not request and should not use. Follow the authorized process for handling it, rather than preserving every remark because it was said. The assessment needs a defensible rationale, not an unrestricted collection of personal information.

Turn the call into a hiring implication

After the call, return to the original uncertainty. State what the reference established, which requirement it affects, and what remains unresolved. An enthusiastic conversation that did not address the target question should not be counted as closing that risk.

Compare evidence across calls by relevance and observation, rather than counting favorable voices. Several people repeating a reputation may add less information than one detailed account of the required decision. Likewise, a single negative opinion without a relevant example should not automatically outweigh verified work.

Carry useful support conditions into the appointment plan if the candidate is selected. If the call identified a need for stronger context, access, or consultation during the transition, assign that support. Reference checking earns its place when it changes a hiring judgment or prepares a more realistic working arrangement.

Put the boundary into words

We are checking how this person handles a specific kind of operating decision. Please describe an example you observed directly. What was difficult, what did they do, and under what conditions would you expect them to need additional support?

Work through a bounded example

Hypothetical application: A candidate describes leading an integration. A reference confirms the contribution but explains that another executive controlled the resource tradeoffs. The panel narrows its inference and asks for further evidence about the decision authority the new role would require. It does not discard the candidate’s contribution or overstate it.

Check the failure mode before scaling

Do not solicit gossip or bypass the consent process with covert calls. Avoid medical, protected, or irrelevant personal information. Employment counsel and qualified people leaders should guide sensitive questions and the handling of an allegation.

Run consent-based checks through the authorized hiring process. Employment counsel and qualified people leaders should guide sensitive questions, allegations, and record handling. Keep irrelevant personal or protected information out of the assessment. Do not treat a reference’s refusal or inability to discuss a topic as proof of a negative event.

Review the work, then revise the arrangement

Review each call against the original risk. Count verified examples rather than the number of enthusiastic references, and name any role requirement that still lacks direct evidence.

Use U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Job Analysis to link each reference question to a task or competency the new role requires. That link keeps the call from becoming a search for general approval. A reference’s enthusiasm can accompany useful evidence, but it cannot replace evidence about the hiring uncertainty you intended to investigate.

Connect this decision to the next one

Coordinate the call with How to hire executives who fit the work ahead of them. Unresolved capability may need How to use a work sample when hiring a senior executive. Distinguish presentation from substance through How to avoid hiring charisma instead of executive ability. The wider endorsement question connects to When does social proof help a buyer make a better decision.

Sources

Steady at the Top