My favorite reference check question on a final candidate is: "As their former manager, how can this person best be supported in their new role?" It reveals the management style they work best under, the resources they need to do their best work, and the conditions that let them succeed. Most reference checks are built to confirm the past. This one is built to help you manage the future, which is the part you actually control.
After more than fifteen years placing eCommerce leaders, I have sat through hundreds of reference checks, and most of them are a waste of a good phone call. The hiring manager already knows they want the candidate. The reference already likes the candidate, which is why they agreed to the call in the first place. So the conversation turns into a polite formality: dates confirmed, "would you rehire," a vague question about weaknesses, and everyone hangs up having learned almost nothing.
The problem is not that references are dishonest. It is that the standard questions are pointed backward. They ask a former manager to grade a relationship that is already over. The far more valuable information is forward looking, and there is one question that unlocks it every time.
The Question Most Reference Checks Get Wrong
The classic reference check is built around verification: did this person do what their resume says, and would you hire them again. That made sense when a reference call was the only way to confirm a work history. In 2026, when you already have a full interview process, a scorecard, and often a work sample, verification is the least useful thing a reference can give you. You are not really trying to decide whether to hire anymore. You are trying to decide how to make the hire work.
The other common misfire is the weakness question. "What are their areas for improvement?" puts a supportive former manager in an awkward spot. They do not want to sink someone they like, so you get a rehearsed non answer: "sometimes takes on too much," "cares too deeply." You learn nothing, and you have spent your most valuable question getting there.
The Question I Actually Ask
Once I am confident in a candidate and I am talking to someone who managed them directly, I ask this:
It reframes the entire call. You are no longer asking a former boss to judge someone. You are asking them to hand off someone they care about to the next manager, which is a role most people take seriously. References who gave you nothing on "weaknesses" will suddenly tell you exactly what this person needs, because now it sounds like help instead of criticism.
Underneath that one question are three you are really trying to answer: What management style do they work best under? What resources do they need to be successful? What conditions let them do their best work? A good former manager will walk you through all three without you having to ask them separately, because they have already learned the answers the hard way.
What a Good Answer Actually Tells You
The reason this question is so useful is that the answer is immediately actionable. You are not filing it away as a data point. You are turning it into how you manage this person in their first ninety days. Here is how the most common answers translate into a management move.
| What the Reference Says | What It Reveals | How to Act on It |
|---|---|---|
| "Give them clear priorities and they will run" | Thrives with autonomy, struggles with ambiguity | Set crisp goals up front, then get out of the way |
| "They do their best work with regular check-ins" | Values structure and feedback loops | Book a standing weekly one-on-one from day one |
| "Make sure they have a strong analyst or agency behind them" | Strategic strength, needs execution support | Confirm the supporting resources exist before the start date |
| "They shine when they feel trusted and included early" | Motivated by belonging and visibility | Involve them in real decisions in the first few weeks |
| "They need buy-in from leadership to move fast" | High impact when backed, stalls without air cover | Line up executive sponsorship before handing them a mandate |
Notice that none of these are red flags. They are operating instructions. A candidate who needs a strong analyst behind them is not a weaker hire, they are a hire you now know how to set up correctly. That is the whole point: you are collecting the owner's manual for someone you are about to bring onto the team.
The Follow-Ups That Make It Work
The opening question does most of the work, but two follow-ups sharpen it further:
- "When did they do the best work of their time with you, and what was going on around them then?" This gets you the specific conditions that produced their peak output, not a general description of their personality.
- "If you could redo one thing about how you managed them, what would it be?" This is the honest version of the weakness question. It asks the manager to critique themselves, not the candidate, so you get a candid answer about what did not work without anyone feeling disloyal.
Between the three, you leave the call with a real picture of how this person operates and what you need to put in place for them to succeed. You have turned a formality into the most useful onboarding prep you will do.
Why This Matters Even More in eCommerce
eCommerce and DTC roles are unusually dependent on conditions outside the hire's control. A Director of eCommerce can be excellent and still stall if the tech stack is a mess, the agency relationships are broken, or leadership will not commit to a channel strategy. A Retention lead can be world class and still look average if they inherit a thin data setup. When so much of performance depends on the environment, knowing the environment your new hire needs is not a nice to have, it is the difference between a placement that works and one that quietly underdelivers.
It also matters more now that most of these roles are remote or hybrid. You do not get the ambient information you used to pick up from sitting near someone for three months. The reference call is one of your few early windows into how this person actually works, so it is worth spending on the question that tells you the most. Our post on leading a remote team with kindness gets into how that early support plays out day to day.
A reference check is your last chance to learn about a candidate before they are yours, and your first chance to learn how to manage them well. Do not spend it confirming their start date.
Putting It to Work
The value of this question is entirely in what you do next. If a reference tells you the candidate thrives with clear priorities and a weekly check-in, then that is what their first ninety days should look like, built in on purpose rather than discovered through trial and error. Write the answers down, share them with whoever is designing the onboarding, and revisit them at the thirty and sixty day marks. Used this way, the question shortens ramp time, heads off the avoidable early friction that ends too many good hires, and tells your new team member, without you ever saying it, that you were paying attention to how they work before they even started.
This is also where a recruiter earns their keep. When we run references on a final candidate for a client, we are not checking a box, we are collecting exactly this kind of forward looking intelligence and handing it to the hiring manager as part of the placement. If you want more on getting real value out of that partnership, our guide to working well with recruiters is a good next read, and if you are deciding between two finalists, this breakdown pairs naturally with it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the best question to ask during a reference check?
One of the most useful questions to ask a candidate's former manager is: as their former manager, how can this person best be supported in their new role? It surfaces the management style the candidate works best under, the resources they need to do their best work, and the conditions that let them succeed. Most reference checks are built to confirm the past, but this question is built to help you manage the future, which is the part you actually control.
Why ask how to support a candidate instead of asking about their weaknesses?
Asking about weaknesses puts a former manager on the defensive and usually produces a rehearsed, softened answer. Asking how the person can best be supported reframes the same information as a coaching handoff rather than a criticism, so references open up. You still learn where the candidate needs structure or support, but you learn it in a form you can actually act on as their next manager.
When in the hiring process should you ask this reference check question?
Ask it during reference checks on your final candidate, once you are already confident in the hire and the reference is likely to be positive. At that stage the conversation is less about verification and more about a smooth handoff, which is exactly when a former manager is most willing to share how they got the best work out of the person.
How do you use what you learn from this reference check question?
Turn the answer into a concrete onboarding plan. If a reference says the person thrives with clear priorities and regular check-ins, build that into the first ninety days rather than waiting to discover it through trial and error. Used well, the answer shortens ramp time, reduces early friction, and gives your new hire the conditions to perform from the start.