The Power of Spectrum/Tradeoff Questions

Nobody wants to blow up a big job opportunity for their beloved former colleague. When you speak to references, they are often even more reluctant to talk about a candidate’s weaknesses than the candidate is. It’s important to get creative in the way you ask questions to ensure you get an accurate picture.

Many years ago I was doing references on a CFO candidate on behalf of the private equity firm that owned the company. The company in question had a very particular culture, driven by its quirky but highly successful CEO. Specifically, every member of the company, from top to bottom, was encouraged to overtly challenge their colleagues’ thinking—even on subjects that were far outside of their “swim lane.”

For example: if you were the CIO, and you had a minor misgiving with (say) a proposed change to the sales compensation plan, you were expected to raise your concerns loudly, despite having little relevant domain knowledge. If you dared to express your concerns privately—or after the fact—you were deemed to have done a disservice to the company.

Of course, it was critical that the new CFO embody this trait in full. The right-hand person to the CEO, more than anyone, needed to be comfortable with the unusually direct, contrarian tone that would often arise in meetings.

We had a candidate who we hoped would fit the bill nicely. Let’s call him Doug. Doug had an impressive and relevant track record. He had worked in some fairly high-pressure environments as well. But one of our biggest concerns emerging from interviews was his ability to thrive in this rather unique “culture of dissent.”

Enter the reference call…

As part of my standard practice, I ask each reference to rate the candidate 1-10 on a list of competencies (a powerful practice that’s the subject of a prior blog post!) In this situation, I really wanted to test one in particular: “Outspoken with opinions.” However, I knew that many of this candidate’s prior bosses were big fans, and therefore might be prone to inflating their ratings on this critical competency.

So instead, I asked each reference to place this candidate on a SPECTRUM. This spectrum would force a TRADEOFF between two clearly competing competencies—i.e., there was no way to say that Doug was exceptional at both.

The paraphrased question was as follows:

“If you were to place Doug on a sliding scale, where one end of the scale was ‘Extremely diplomatic’ and the other end was ‘Extremely outspoken,’ where would you put him?”

Fortunately, Doug’s references all confirmed that he erred pretty strongly on the side of outspokenness. And, as we learned in the coming months, he did! He turned out to be a strong carrier of the company’s unique contrarian culture.

If there’s a particular competency you want to test in a reference call, and you’re concerned about getting an inflated picture, give the spectrum/tradeoff question a try. Just think about the opposite of the competency in question, and give it a phrasing that is not clearly “better” or “worse” than the competency in question—that’s the other end of your scale.

• For example, if you need crazy levels of detail orientation, use a spectrum of “Focuses on the big picture” to “Dives deep in the details.”
• If you need someone who moves fast at all costs, use a spectrum of “Gets things right” to “Does things quickly.”

Final point…some references may try to hedge their bets, putting the candidate right in the middle of your scale. If you hear this response, just ask them which side this person tends to err on, one or the other. The vast majority of the time, they will pick a side, and you will have your data point!