The most common question about our executive interview series is whether we ask genuinely hard questions, or whether the format inherently favors a comfortable, promotional conversation given that executives generally agree to interviews expecting favorable treatment.
Why this tension is real
Securing executive access for future interviews depends partly on treating sources reasonably, which creates a structural incentive to avoid questions that might make a source unwilling to speak with us again.
Our actual approach
We ask questions we think are genuinely relevant and often uncomfortable, and we've had sources decline future interviews as a result. We treat that as an acceptable cost rather than softening our questions to preserve future access.
Why we don't think every interview needs to be adversarial
Not every useful question is confrontational, and we think a substantive, well-informed conversation can extract genuinely useful insight without needing to be combative for its own sake.
Why we think this balance matters
We'd rather ask real questions and occasionally lose future access than produce interviews so comfortable they don't actually tell readers anything they couldn't get from a press release.