Most reference calls are a waste of perfectly good calendar time.
Once, on a reference call, the other party (a self-proclaimed Big Swinging) spent the first 10 minutes talking about his own credentials and how close he was to the GP’s next Managing Partner…
… and that was the best part of the call.
Another time, someone led with a story about flying on a famous GP's private jet.
Cool.
Anyway.
Here’s the usual flow you’ll recognize:
“They’re great.”
“Super responsive.”
“Strong team.”
“No issues.”
It’s the diligence version of “let’s grab coffee sometime.”
The problem isn’t that people are lying. The problem is that generic praise carries zero signal. “They’re responsive” means nothing until you learn responsive to what, when, and with what attitude.
And there’s a second problem that’s even more important:
People naturally defend their own decisions
If someone committed to a fund, they’re psychologically invested in the story that it was a good decision.
So when you ask about flaws, you’re not just asking about the GP - you’re asking them to step onto a tiny stage and say, publicly:
“We saw weaknesses… and still went ahead.”
That can feel like criticizing your own decision.
But “still good” doesn’t mean “perfect.”
I love Seinfeld - but it wasn't the same after Larry David left.
Took me years to admit it.
And that was just a sitcom about nothing.
The key is: ask like a peer, not like the police. Create a good atmosphere. Then - when you are speaking to another LP you click with - you can start to get more specific.
Here are three questions that actually helped me get there.
1) “When you’ve needed something outside the ordinary, how responsive are they?”
Everyone is "responsive" to standard questions. The interesting stuff is what happens outside the lane.
Ask the question. Let them answer.
You’ll often get the generic:
“Yeah, they’re responsive.”
Then follow up, casually:
“Got it - can you think of a concrete example?”
What you’re fishing for is not “they reply fast,” but how they behave when it’s inconvenient:
Do they acknowledge quickly and set expectations if it’ll take time?
Do they go quiet and hope the quarterly deck will distract you?
Do they treat your question like a nuisance… or like part of the relationship?
You’re not looking for a personal concierge. You’re looking for evidence they have their house in order - and that you’ll be treated like a partner, not a line item.
2. "What surprised you about working with them - good or bad?"
This became a favorite because it gives people permission to be honest without feeling negative.
Every GP has a pitch: disciplined, collaborative, selective, blah blah blah. Then you actually work with them and reality looks… different.
And “surprised” creates space to talk about that gap. Examples of answers I have given are:
“We were surprised at how good they are at training junior employees and still getting real value out of them.”
(Signal: real bench, repeatable machine, less key-person risk than expected.)
“They did some deals that were definitely on the edge of their mandate. We’ve mentioned it, but they weren’t receptive.”
(Signal: style drift, governance posture, ‘we hear you’ vs ‘we don’t care’.)
“Buy and build really is embedded everywhere. We were unsure on that element when we committed, but it’s fully embedded in their value creation plan.”
(Signal: capability is real, not just PowerPoint.)
The gap between pitch and practice is what you’ll live with for 10+ years. Better to learn it now, from someone else’s scar tissue.
/Self promotion
FundFrame is built by LPs who learned this the hard way. We help you document the decisions that matter - and the character signals that informed them.
3. "If you were coaching them on one thing to improve, what would it be?"
Every GP has weaknesses. All of them.
If your reference says "I can't think of a single thing" - they're being diplomatic, not sophisticated as an LP, or checking a box for a friend.
(or in the case of the Big Swinging, all of the above).
This question does two useful things.
First: it tells you what you’ll have to live with.
And sometimes the answers are refreshingly honest, like:
“Their reporting is somewhere between mediocre and bad - you know, like most other GPs.”
(Translation: expect up-beat quarterly reports, where they’ve already forgotten what they wrote last time. Build your own internal process to compensate.)
“I want them to start the transition. For most GPs, it happens a few years late, and I hope they communicate something soon.”
(Translation: succession / ownership / leadership planning risk - and potentially slow, reactive comms.)
Second: it tells you how thoughtful the reference is.
Good LPs have an answer. They’ve noticed patterns. They can articulate tradeoffs. They might even have given the feedback to the GP already.
But most of my reference calls were still mediocre (at best)
One last thing: even with experience and better questions, I’ve still had plenty of genuinely bad reference calls - probably the majority.
Vague answers, box-ticking, or people who clearly hadn’t thought about what they were underwriting.
But that’s also the hidden upside.