In the realm of human interaction, understanding the underlying currents is paramount. Philosopher Kwame Appiah aptly noted, “in life, the challenge is not so much to figure out how best to play the game; the challenge is to figure out what game you’re playing.” This sentiment resonates deeply, particularly when navigating the complexities of human dynamics in professional settings. For the past quarter-century, my focus has been precisely on deciphering these dynamics, relentlessly pursuing the question: “What’s going on here, with this human?” This essay distills insights gleaned from thousands of candidate assessments and an enduring fascination with this pivotal question, offering guidance for superior candidate selection and interpersonal understanding.
The objective here is to empower you to make more informed decisions when choosing a new team member, a business associate, or even a life partner, with speed and accuracy. This exploration encompasses actionable strategies and the foundational reflections that underpin them. Furthermore, it includes a personal evaluation of diverse personality assessment tools and a compilation of effective interview and reference check questions that I’ve come to rely on.
Jerry Seinfeld’s perspective on aging offers a compelling parallel: “I think if you’re a little lucky in life you should enjoy getting older…when you’re young you can’t see what’s going on so well. You get older, you walk into a room and you see who people are faster.” This enhanced perception, born from experience, is precisely what we aim to cultivate in the context of evaluating individuals.
Consider the profound partnership between Steve Jobs and Jony Ive at Apple. Towards the end of his life, Jobs described Ive as his “spiritual partner,” stating, “Jony and I think up most of the products together and then pull others in…he gets the big picture as well as the most infinitesimal details about each product.” Their deep understanding, honed over 14 years of daily interaction, represents an ideal – a perfect 10 in mutual comprehension.
But how closely can we approach this ideal when initially encountering someone, especially when assessing their suitability for a team? Early in my career, making such judgments felt like guesswork, averaging perhaps a 3 out of 10 in accuracy. However, through conducting thousands of interviews, dedicating countless hours to reference checks, and contributing to hundreds of hires across various roles—from research consultants to analysts and investors managing substantial capital—my ability to discern what’s going on has sharpened. While still striving for perfection, I believe that under optimal conditions and with focused attention, I can now reach a 7 in accurately assessing individuals.
Many professionals across industries view talent evaluation as a necessary but unwelcome distraction from their core mission. However, I’ve come to regard it as the most critical skill for anyone building successful teams. In fact, if I possess any unique capability, it lies in this very domain. In today’s complex work environment, effectively managing the human element is paramount for business success. As the innovative gaming company Valve succinctly puts it, “Hiring well is the most important thing in the universe.”
A visual representation of hiring as a critical business skill, emphasizing its importance in building successful teams and organizations.
This perspective on hiring as a fundamental business skill is a relatively recent development. While perhaps less critical in traditional industrial companies of the past, it is now indispensable in complex, intellectually driven organizations like SpaceX. Comparing the U.S. Army of World War II to the Navy SEALs of today further illustrates this shift: the contemporary operational landscape is far more intricate, making the selection of highly talented individuals even more crucial for organizational leverage than ever before.
A perceptive friend of UCLA business strategy professor Richard Rumelt, after reviewing numerous business school case studies, remarked, “’it looks to me as if there is really only one question you’re asking in each case: What’s going on here?’” Rumelt confirms this observation, noting, “it was something I’ve never heard said explicitly but it was instantly and obviously correct. A great deal of strategy work is trying to figure out what is going on. Not just deciding what to do, but the more fundamental problem of comprehending the situation.”
Drawing inspiration from Rumelt, it can be exceptionally valuable during interviews to explicitly ask oneself: what’s going on here with this person in front of me? The more I’ve employed this approach, the more I realize that the elements often perceived as the most challenging aspects of hiring—devising the perfect curveball question, precisely defining the role, evaluating specific skills—pale in comparison to a more fundamental endeavor: cultivating the ability to see individuals, including oneself, with genuine clarity.
This clarity in perceiving people—or at least achieving a more nuanced understanding—is not merely about securing the “best” candidate; it’s equally about identifying the optimal role for each individual. Even among those fortunate enough to have significant career autonomy, I suspect that only a small fraction, perhaps as few as 20%, are currently in roles that truly maximize their talents and skills—roles that provide a profound sense of professional fulfillment. This misalignment is detrimental not only to the 80% who are misplaced but also to the effectiveness of their respective teams.
Poet David Whyte eloquently captures the dynamic nature of life and career progression as a “conversation with reality”:
Whatever a human being desires for themselves will not come about exactly as they first imagined it or first laid it out in their minds…what always happens is the meeting between what you desire from your world and what the world desires of you. It’s this frontier where you overhear yourself and you overhear the world.
And that frontier is the only place where things are real…in which you just try to keep an integrity and groundedness while keeping your eyes and your voice dedicated toward the horizon that you’re going to, or the horizon in another person you’re meeting.
Whyte’s words beautifully illustrate how hiring can be elevated to an art form. When we truly see people, we discern the narrative of their “conversation with reality” up to the present moment, and we catch a glimpse of the trajectory that lies ahead. Occasionally, we can even assist them in “overhearing themselves” and understanding “what the world wants from them,” regardless of whether it aligns with the initial role we envisioned.
Enhancing our ability to see people more clearly involves three interconnected elements: seeing your reflection in the window, seeing the elephants in the room, and seeing the water. Each of these metaphors offers a distinct lens through which to refine our perception and deepen our understanding of human dynamics.
Part I: Seeing Your Reflection in the Window
Sam Harris, in his book Waking Up, provides a powerful metaphor for overcoming perceptual biases:
Imagine that you want to show another person how a window can also function like a mirror. As it happens, your friend has never seen this effect and is quite skeptical of your claims. You direct her attention to the largest window in your house, and although the conditions are perfect for seeing her reflection, she immediately becomes captivated by the world outside. What a beautiful view! Who are your neighbors? Is that a redwood or a Douglas fir? You begin to speak about there being two views and about the fact that your friend’s reflection stands before her even now, but she notices only that the neighbor’s dog has slipped out the front door and is now dashing down the sidewalk. In every moment, it is clear to you that your friend is staring directly through the image of her face without seeing it.
As Harris points out, conveying the dual nature of a window as both transparent and reflective is surprisingly challenging.
Similarly, achieving clarity in perceiving others is contingent upon first achieving clarity about oneself. The interaction we experience with another person is a co-creation; both parties contribute to the dynamic. For example, if an interviewer is tense and holding their breath, it may inadvertently induce nervousness in the candidate, shaping the interviewer’s perception of them as anxious. If a question is framed to emphasize competitiveness, it might elicit a competitive persona from the candidate that may not be representative of their broader character.
Reflecting on my younger self conducting interviews, I recognize the “friend looking through the window” described by Harris. My mind was often preoccupied with instantaneous judgments, constructing narratives based on superficial impressions—”I like this,” “I don’t like that.” I projected my own biases and assumptions onto the candidate’s reality, failing to recognize that even seasoned professionals might be uncharacteristically self-conscious in a formal interview setting. I was oblivious to the inherent power dynamic and its influence on the interaction. Furthermore, while my sensitivity to insincerity was beneficial, it also created a blind spot, leading me to prematurely dismiss potentially valuable salespeople or individuals early in their careers who might rely on jargon or clichés.
To enhance my self-awareness and mitigate these biases—to better see “my reflection in the window”—I began utilizing personality assessments. Over the years, I have taken over thirty different assessments, seeking to gain insights into my own strengths and weaknesses and to refine my ability to perceive others with greater objectivity.
My initial foray into personality assessments was with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)—I typically test as an INTP. However, I have since explored a wide range of tools, from the “Big Five” or OCEAN model (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism), to ghSMART questions (“when I call your former manager, how will they rate your performance on a scale of 1-100?”), and Patrick Lencioni’s “humble, hungry, and smart” framework for ideal team players. More philosophical systems like Bob Kegan’s framework of adult development and the Enneagram, while requiring a greater initial investment of time, have also proven valuable. (A more detailed discussion of my experiences with various assessment tools is included at the end of this essay). I recommend utilizing multiple assessment tools to avoid becoming confined to a single perspective or framework.
Part II: Seeing the Elephants in the Room
Gaining clarity about others involves tuning into a dynamic process of perception. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s “rider and elephant” metaphor provides a helpful framework. Imagine yourself interviewing someone, both of you astride enormous elephants. (Haidt apparently conceived this metaphor during a psychedelic experience.) Haidt suggests visualizing your conscious mind as the rider and your unconscious drives as the elephant—powerful, willful, and often guiding the rider in its preferred direction. The crucial insight is that the rider is not always a reliable narrator of the elephant’s motivations.
Illustrations of the rider and elephant metaphor, highlighting the interplay between conscious and unconscious drivers in human behavior and interactions.
Reframing the interview process through this lens, we recognize that there are two “elephants in the room”: yours and the candidate’s. The challenging reality is that we are largely unaware of both. However, the encouraging news is that many “riders” have journeyed alongside the candidate’s “rider and elephant” combination. By integrating your observations of the candidate’s “rider” and glimpses of their “elephant” with the collective experiences of others who have interacted with them, and by accounting for the influence of your own “elephant” and those of the references, a more comprehensive understanding of the candidate’s behavioral patterns emerges.
Chris Argyris distinguishes between “espoused theory” (what someone articulates in an interview) and their “theory-in-use” (the mental models that truly govern their actions). It’s not merely a gap between words and deeds, but rather between consciously stated beliefs and the deeply ingrained, often unconscious, frameworks that drive behavior. While interviewing the “rider” provides valuable information, it’s crucial to remember that in the daily complexities of real-world situations, the “espoused theories” of the rider frequently yield to the “theories-in-use” of the elephant.
Questions designed to probe beyond the “rider” can offer glimpses into the “elephant.” Consider questions like: “What are you compulsive about?” This can sometimes reveal underlying drives. Or: “Where have you experienced a moment of ignition, when you saw some older person doing an activity and you intuited that they were wired the same way you were, and you said to yourself ‘I want to be that’?” Another effective question is: “How would your spouse/sibling/parent describe you with ten adjectives?” If the candidate possesses self-awareness and is willing to share a third-person perspective (which occurs roughly 50% of the time, more frequently with more experienced candidates), these adjectives can illuminate both the “rider” and the “elephant.”
During interviews, I strive to cultivate a sense of stillness to differentiate signal from noise, to discern the “elephants” from the “riders.” The simplest method to create this stillness is to minimize my own talking. Encouraging the candidate to ask questions is also invaluable. Questions possess a high signal value, revealing more than almost any other candidate input. This is more challenging in practice than it appears; it requires creating a safe space for the candidate to ask genuine questions and providing concise answers to avoid time constraints—particularly difficult when the questions are insightful. I note down each question and sometimes respond with, “I’ll answer, but first, I’m curious, why did you ask that?” I look for the palpable sense of a “hungry mind” evidenced by the flow and nature of their questions – a quality that is exceptionally difficult to fake.
Try to approach the interview with fewer preconceived notions about the role. I often begin by asking, “So what criteria would you use if you were the one hiring someone for this role?” This question consistently yields unexpectedly insightful responses. Some candidates provide tactical answers when abstraction is expected, while others refine my own hiring criteria. Some employ jargon that might indicate they are conforming to external expectations rather than expressing their own authentic perspective. All responses are invariably revealing.
While interviews can offer glimpses of the “elephant,” it’s important to acknowledge the inherent limitations—we remain largely “blind.” Therefore, engaging with individuals who have firsthand experience with the candidate’s “rider-elephant” dynamic—their “theory-in-use”—becomes significantly more effective and efficient. Ideally, these interactions should span numerous iterations over an extended period, akin to the deep understanding a spouse or sibling possesses.
An in-person interview is just one data point, and not necessarily the most reliable. While relying solely on my personal impressions has occasionally yielded acceptable outcomes, I’ve learned that maintaining humility about one’s ability to truly understand someone in a contrived, one- or two-hour interview setting is more challenging than initially anticipated.
Before conducting interviews, I sometimes revisit this insightful passage from Philip Roth’s American Pastoral:
You might as well have the brain of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them, while you’re anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you’re with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion empty of all perception, an astonishing farce of misperception.
I now consider in-depth reference checks with individuals who know the candidate well to be five times more valuable than the interview itself. In situations where a high-trust relationship exists with the reference provider, and they possess the perspective to see the candidate objectively, these references can be ten times more valuable.
Given the paramount importance of references, the primary purpose of the candidate interview might well be to enhance your ability to conduct effective reference checks—positioning your own perspective as just one among many. This requires embracing “negative capability,” a concept coined by poet John Keats, which, in one definition, is “the innocence from agendas that enables one to become like what one observes rather than impose the self upon it, the patient and lingering curiosity, the willingness to wait and delay knowing, that allows a person to reach into the different reality than his or her own.” This is challenging because our interview impressions are vivid and multi-sensory, while reference insights are primarily conveyed through language.
In my experience, integrating your own interview perspective with reference insights should feel somewhat unsettling and disorienting—otherwise, you might not be fully embracing the multiple perspectives. You should encounter aspects of the candidate that seem contradictory or confusing. If you initially perceive their flaws, recognize that their strengths are yet to be fully revealed, and vice versa.
I aim to conduct reference checks with an appreciation for unconventional forms of excellence. Often, when I am the reference provider, I sense a subtly suspicious “gotcha” undertone from the caller (“so why did George leave after only two years?”). I find this approach counterproductive; it tends to make me less forthcoming. Instead, when I am the caller, I try to adopt the mindset of a talent scout for the entire industry, agnostic to where the candidate should ultimately be placed, focused solely on helping them find their best fit. This mindset allows me to evaluate individuals more generously and accurately, accommodating greater levels of idiosyncrasy.
As your sample size of references grows, you begin to calibrate your assessment of reference provider credibility (what is their sample size? What are their biases?) and discern the hallmarks of a truly enthusiastic, “table-pounding” reference. Years later, I still recall a reference check for our CFO hire: the reference provider’s tone conveyed, “why are you wasting my time explaining this, shouldn’t you be focusing on convincing him to join you?” She seemed almost apologetic that I hadn’t grasped his exceptional value yet. I have listened for that tone ever since, and in the rare instances I encounter it, it consistently proves to be a strong positive indicator.
The most challenging aspect is interpreting the “dog that doesn’t bark”—the absence of that enthusiastic endorsement. Is it contextual (the provider is tired, preoccupied, jealous, etc.) or is it a signal? This nuanced interpretation requires extensive experience—the proverbial 10,000 hours of practice—to master.
I also adhere to the default assumption that “everyone is an A player at something.” This approach fosters a more dynamic and effective interview process—a live, engaging puzzle to uncover the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, rather than a binary assessment of whether they are an “A player.” I prefer to envision myself as trying to identify the best possible role for the candidate, which might be the role I initially had in mind, or something entirely different.
Part III: Seeing the Water
In his renowned 2005 Kenyon College commencement address, David Foster Wallace began with a joke about two young fish encountering an older, wiser fish. “Hey boys, how’s the water?” the older fish asks. The younger fish swim on, and after a moment, one turns to the other and asks, “What the heck is water?”
Discerning the “water” in your own environment is remarkably difficult, and only slightly easier in someone else’s. Context is paramount. Initially, I assumed a universal set of attributes would guarantee success across diverse environments. However, while core personality traits remain consistent, individuals are also profoundly influenced by their surroundings.
I sometimes envision meeting a person as encountering the entire Ocean’s 11 crew embodied in a single individual—each of us comprises distinct “parts,” and we construct a narrative of a coherent self, but context dictates which “parts” take center stage. (For further exploration of “parts” theory, see Internal Family Systems).
I now believe there is no such thing as a universally “A player,” independent of time and context. Jeff Hunter, former head of recruiting at Bridgewater, in his insightful essay, “The Myth of A-Players,” points out that Ron Johnson, former head of Apple stores (and considered a potential successor to Jobs), was undeniably an “A player” within the Apple ecosystem. However, after being appointed CEO of JCPenney by Bill Ackman and partners, Johnson’s performance declined dramatically, leading to his dismissal—a “C player” outcome.
When transitioning someone from one ecosystem to another, altering their context, it’s crucial to understand the “water” in both environments. Removing someone from a thriving environment is inherently disruptive and risky, as subtle, often overlooked factors contribute to their success. To what extent does their success depend on the specific “water” of the initial ecosystem? Was there a mentor or champion who fostered a positive feedback loop that might not be replicated elsewhere? Strive to thoroughly understand “what’s going on here” in the candidate’s current ecosystem. For example, in investment management, a portfolio manager might present a major investment idea to their superior, and subtle nonverbal cues (a raised eyebrow, a prolonged pause) might unconsciously lead them to reduce the position size. This constant, often unspoken, tension can be constructive, and removing the portfolio manager from this environment might diminish their performance in the absence of that dynamic.
This is particularly relevant for individuals transitioning to entrepreneurship. They may struggle to recreate the culture and context that fostered their success within a structured organization designed by others. (I explored this transition in my “Letter to a friend who may start a new investment platform”).
It’s even possible for strengths in one context to become weaknesses in another. The Enneagram personality system emphasizes that each of the nine “types,” representing distinct ego patterns, possesses a unique gift but is also prone to challenges when over-relying on that gift. Consider a highly driven, competitive individual. In one environment, their competitiveness might be perceived negatively, fostering a reputation as a “taker” that colleagues are wary of. In another environment, this same trait might be celebrated without reservation.
A key indicator of truly understanding someone—of seeing them clearly—is recognizing how their strengths and weaknesses are intertwined, how their genius and dysfunction coexist. Conversely, excessive enthusiasm or skepticism suggests a lack of clarity.
Different ecosystems possess distinct “aesthetics,” and understanding a candidate’s previous aesthetic context is crucial, especially if you intend to change it. A subtle but vital contextual element is the level of mutual belief within a team. I have experienced environments where my superiors believed in me, and others where they did not. My performance varied accordingly. If you are the individual contributor, seek out leaders who demonstrate genuine belief in your potential. This can often be intuited from how current team members speak about the leader; insights from former team members are even more telling. As a leader, hire individuals in whom you can genuinely believe, whose unique brilliance you can recognize and nurture.
One of the greatest gifts we can offer each other—to our children, partners, and teammates—is the positive feedback loop created by genuine belief. By seeing both their genius and their flaws with clarity, and then fostering an environment where their strengths can flourish, we unlock their full potential.
ASSESSING THE ASSESSMENTS
Myers–Briggs
Like many, my initial encounter with personality assessments was through Myers–Briggs, a tool embraced by McKinsey consultants to understand team dynamics. Reportedly, around 80% of McKinsey staff share the ENTJ profile, and Myers-Briggs provides a framework for understanding the complexities of managing diverse personality types.
I typically test as an “INTP.” The introversion/extraversion dichotomy is now widely understood. The “P” (perceiving – comfortable with uncertainty) versus “J” (judging – seeking closure and minimizing uncertainty) distinction has also been insightful in navigating relationships with colleagues and partners. In interviews, I sometimes observe the “S” (sensing – literal and concrete) versus “N” (intuition – abstract) preferences. Understanding this dimension is particularly useful in communication dynamics, especially in manager-report relationships.
High vs Low Self-Monitors
A second valuable framework came from a McKinsey alumna: the distinction between high self-monitors (adaptable to audiences, high flexibility, potentially lower integrity) and low self-monitors (consistent regardless of audience, high integrity, potentially lower flexibility).
As a high self-monitor myself, I’ve observed that many couples consist of a high and a low self-monitor. Two high self-monitors can become trapped in constant mutual adjustment, while two low self-monitors might require a “social guide.”
Big Five or OCEAN
Fifteen years ago, founding East Rock Capital, my mission was to invest with the world’s most talented investors. A psychology professor recommended the “Big Five” or OCEAN model (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism). While initially distracted, I revisited the Big Five after thousands of interviews and found it profoundly insightful. Perhaps the extensive sample size was necessary to appreciate its real-world applicability.
The Big Five’s origin story is compelling: researchers systematically categorized and reduced every descriptive word in the English language to these core factors. For example, “gregarious” and “outgoing” were deemed synonymous, ultimately converging into “extraversion.”
- High Openness: Leonardo Da Vinci
- High Conscientiousness: RoboCop
- High Extraversion: Bill Clinton, High Introversion: Barack Obama
- Low Neuroticism: The Dude from The Big Lebowski
- High Neuroticism: Woody Allen
Researchers further simplified the Big Five to the “Big Two” (Stability and Plasticity) or expanded it to the “Big Ten.” Sam Barondes’ book, Making Sense of People, offers an excellent introduction. Barondes explained he wrote it because, despite the Big Five’s scientific validity, it was underutilized in real-world hiring and management.
ghSMART
Ten years ago, Geoff Smart’s book, Who, led me to engage ghSMART for a “Smart” assessment, experiencing their structured four-hour interview firsthand. Lunch with Geoff further impressed me; he quickly grasped my personality, engaging me in rapid-fire questions with infectious enthusiasm.
ghSMART’s signature questions include the direct: “What are the names of your last five bosses, and how would they rate your performance on a scale of 1-100?” Interviews cover each life phase, capturing highs and lows. While seemingly straightforward, their methodology is nuanced, explaining ghSMART’s willingness to share their IP. For high-stakes senior hires, ghSMART’s services are invaluable.
Geoff Smart’s work is rooted in his father Brad Smart’s, who oversaw hiring at GE under Jack Welch. Brad’s book, Topgrading, emphasizes “resourcefulness” as the meta-competency. He advises constantly evaluating candidates for “Resourcefulness,” asking, “Does this example…show Resourcefulness, or lack of it?”
I imagine dropping candidates on a desert island and returning in five years – some I’d worry about, others I wouldn’t. Y Combinator’s application question, “what’s a system or game you’ve hacked in the last year?” effectively probes resourcefulness.
“Humble, Hungry and Smart”
Patrick Lencioni’s “humble, hungry, and smart” framework is invaluable for team-building. “Smart” here means “people-smart.” Lencioni argues that sacrificing any of these virtues creates team friction. The Ideal Team Player book and his TED talk and podcast offer further insights.
Caliper, Insights Discovery, and Workplace Dimensions are other corporate assessment tools. Hedge funds often use Caliper, which includes an IQ component. Vista Private Equity uses Insights Discovery to identify strong salespeople. Bridgewater utilizes Workplace Dimensions to ensure team balance across Creator, Refiner, Executer, and Advancer dimensions.
These systems likely capture about 80% of human complexity. The key is for teams to choose one, internalize its vocabulary, and use it for communication and hiring decisions.
Bob Kegan and the Enneagram
Bob Kegan’s adult development scale and the Enneagram are more philosophical systems requiring significant upfront investment.
In 2011, I attended a Harvard School of Education workshop on Kegan’s Subject-Object Interview, assessing developmental stages. Kegan identifies five stages, with the “socialized” mind (60% of adults), “self-authoring” mind (30%), and “self-transforming” mind (less than 1%) being most relevant in professional contexts. These stages significantly impact communication and information processing.
Bill Torbert’s Global Leadership Profile further articulates Kegan’s levels.
In 2015, Jim Dethmer’s The Fifteen Commitments of Conscious Leadership introduced me to the Enneagram, initially finding it obtuse. However, over time, its patterns resonated. Each of the nine Enneagram types presents a paradox: a unique gift juxtaposed with a profound blind spot. While initially identifying as a Type 7 (“the enthusiast”), I now lean towards Type 3 (“the performer”). Understanding both patterns is beneficial for self-awareness.
Russ Hudson is a leading Enneagram expert; his podcast with Shane Parrish is a good starting point. For deeper exploration, his workshops are recommended. Initially, recognizing one’s own type is challenging; considering a close relation while exploring the Enneagram can aid in understanding its framework.
Over-reliance on any single framework is a risk. Maintaining flexibility by considering multiple frameworks simultaneously is crucial.
REFERENCE GUIDE
This guide summarizes key principles for effective reference checks.
- Reference checks are about collecting private information, requiring trust and discretion.
- Aim to gather as many private assessments as possible.
- Assume a cautious stance, letting references persuade you towards hiring. “Let the references speak” should be your guiding principle.
- Seek the “Yoda reference”—an unbiased, insightful, and candid source who offers clear-eyed private information. Persist until you find this source.
- Evaluate reference provider calibration: sample size, understanding of role excellence.
- Assess reference provider credibility and biases. Would you hire or work for them? Adjust weight accordingly.
- Disrupt the typical reference “script.” Use the provided questions as a guide, but avoid rigid checklists to foster natural conversation and deeper insights.
- Pay attention to what’s not said—the “dog that doesn’t bark.” This requires calibration and experience.
- Conduct references in person if possible, then Zoom, then phone.
- Start with a safe opener: “Thank you for your time. I’m seeking insights on Jane to find the right role for her. Everything is off the record and won’t be shared with Jane.”
Reference Questions
- How would you describe Jane to someone unfamiliar with her?
- What is your sample size in roles similar to Jane’s?
- Who is the best person you’ve seen in this role (a “100”)?
- Where would you rate Jane on a 1-100 scale?
- Does Jane remind you of anyone else you know?
- What feeling do you anticipate when Jane’s name appears on your caller ID?
- Rank Jane’s hunger, humility, and people-smartness.
- What motivates Jane currently?
- How would you coach Jane to improve?
- If hiring someone to complement Jane (in the same role), what strengths would they need to offset Jane’s?
- Rate your endorsement of Jane on a 1-10 (push for 6 or 8 if 7 is given; explore the “two points” if 8).
INTERVIEW GUIDE
- The primary goal is to gather information for effective reference checks.
- Aim to discern the candidate’s “elephant” (unconscious drives) separate from their “rider” (conscious presentation).
- Create a safe space to explore “how can I help you find the best job for you?” rather than a judgmental “are you an A player?” frame.
- Use frequent interruptions to maintain a dynamic pace and avoid monologues.
Questions for the candidate
- What criteria would you use to hire for this role if you were in my position?
- How would your spouse/sibling describe you in ten adjectives?
- Let’s consider a scenario where this role doesn’t work out in six months. What’s your best guess as to why?
- Name your last five managers and how they would rate your performance (1-100).
- What are you most professionally torn about right now?
- How did you prepare for this interview?
- How do you feel this interview is progressing?
