Finding Best-Fit Leaders Requires a Better Framework for Differentiating Talent
In Part 1 of this case study series, we followed the rise and fall of Carl Simpson. A once high-flying performer, he came crashing back to earth after he was recruited for a leadership role in an environment he wasn’t suited for, through a fast-track process that didn’t delve beyond the surface. Like many leaders, Carl was hired for the right reasons, but based on the wrong criteria.
With 50% to 70% of leaders failing within the first 18 months on the job, per a Corporate Executive Board study, it’s clear that a more effective approach to leadership recruitment is sorely needed. The following explores a framework for differentiating executive talent more successfully.
The Need for a Multi-Dimensional Approach
An effective assessment process would have uncovered a problem like the one that plagued our fictional candidate Carl: Though he’d achieved great success in a lean, fast-moving company, his leadership style, skills, and experience didn’t prepare him to lead major transformation at a large, slow-moving, risk-averse business. While the situation called for him to build relationships, influence stakeholders, and secure buy-in, he hadn’t gained the skills or experience to do that. Worse, it wasn’t his natural tendency, and he wasn’t very adaptable.
If the hiring manager had a more accurate picture of Carl and better visibility into the challenges he would face in an unfamiliar setting, there’s a good chance he would not have hired him. Instead, he made one of the classic hiring mistakes: getting so enamored with past performance that he failed to assess the candidate thoroughly and objectively in the context of what the new situation required.
Finding the right leader for the job necessitates an approach that differentiates executive talent, identifying the best-fit candidate based on the right criteria and the right frame of reference. A multi-faceted, multi-method approach directs the assessment process along three critical dimensions.
Objective and Planned vs Subjective and Spontaneous
The sad truth is that many job interviews take an unstructured and spontaneous approach, reducing the odds of an objective evaluation. In contrast, a structured, well-planned interview helps to mitigate the inherent biases we humans bring to the process and avoids the risk of the interviewer asking whatever questions are top of mind. Instead, it ensures the line of questioning reflects not only the specific competencies required for a leader to succeed both in this role specifically and as a leader in general, but also in the context of the organizational structure and culture the new hire will operate within. A well-planned interview also enables the interviewer to test hypotheses that arose from any initial assessments or interviews conducted, rather than selectively listening to confirm hasty assumptions.
Leveraging data is another proven way to replace subjectivity with objectivity during the talent evaluation process. Yet, despite research on the value of data-driven assessments, many hiring managers subconsciously “go with their gut” when choosing among leadership candidates.
Psychometric assessments are one effective tool for obtaining the data to guide a more objective talent evaluation process. For example, a test might reveal that the individual loves to delve into the details—which isn’t ideal if you’re hiring a leader to set strategy. Or, as in the case of Carl, it would have revealed that he tended to avoid consensus building and instead preferred to operate autonomously—a red flag for the culture he was being recruited for. Psychometric assessments can also help determine the candidate’s degree of self-awareness, which is an important trait for any leader. Without structured techniques and measurable data, decision-makers often fall victim to biases like:
-
-
Relying on first impressions
-
Seeking answers that confirm what they already believe (confirmatory bias)
-
Assuming a profile of strengths (or weaknesses) based on limited data (halo/horns bias)
-
Preferring candidates who are like them (similar-to-me bias)
-
All of these biases can lead to subjective decisions and subpar outcomes. In fact, per the Harvard Business Review, as much as 80% of turnover can be attributed to mistakes made during the selection and hiring process, with nearly a third due to overreliance on the hiring manager’s evaluation.
Potential vs Performance
The tendency to focus on past performance and ignore future potential is a very common bias that can derail executive talent recruitment. That’s exactly what happened in Carl’s case: the CEO didn’t look much beyond his prior achievements to determine if he had the agility and resilience to succeed in a vastly different environment.
This particular hiring bias can manifest in other ways as well. A candidate that doesn’t have the required years of experience may have much more potential to perform well in the role than someone who looks, on paper, to be a better fit. That’s especially true when leaders are tasked with tackling complex problems in new and ambiguous situations, where demonstrated agility might trump a longer career in relatively stable environments. Testing leadership candidates for multiple traits and characteristics, using varied techniques, can tell hiring managers quite a bit about their potential to succeed in a given role and environment.
Multi-Faceted and Dynamic vs Single-Faceted and Static
When comparing scenarios, economists use the term “ceteris paribus,” which means “holding all things equal.” While Carl thrived in fast-moving, flat organizations where he had the autonomy and flexibility to make major decisions, he was being recruited for an entirely different environment. All things were not equal; and they rarely are from one organization to the next.
Differentiating executive talent effectively requires examining their skills and competencies through a multi-faceted, dynamic lens, recognizing that all situations aren’t equal or static.
For instance:
-
-
what are the demands and constraints of the new context this candidate will operate in—not just today, but tomorrow?
-
What type of team will they inherit?
-
Do they have the skills and experience to meet their new teams’ evolving developmental needs?
-
Does this new context require strong skills in change management, and how does the candidate’s experience and style suit a culture of rapid change?
-
Had the CEO who interviewed Carl assessed him from a dynamic and multi-faceted perspective, he would have realized that while he needed a disruptive leader with an appetite for risk and the ability to challenge the status quo, Carl didn’t fit the bill. It would have become clear that Carl wasn’t suited to drive transformation in the type of environment he would be joining. For instance, he wasn’t adept or experienced in persuading stakeholders, defining and communicating a vision, rallying colleagues around a new agenda, or building consensus. Simply put, he didn’t match up well with the current and anticipated requirements and realities of the role, company, and culture.
As critical as these three dimensions are in differentiating executive talent, it’s equally vital to apply them consistently across all candidates, both internal and external. Doing so assures all candidates they’re competing on a level playing field and avoids the very real risk of biases either for or against an internal candidate.
By employing a talent differentiation framework that facilitates an objective, well-planned evaluation process, considers both performance and potential, and assesses candidates from a multi-faceted and dynamic perspective, organizations can defy the statistics. This approach positions companies to hire executives who are well suited to the role and the environment, enabling the new leader and the organization to thrive.
The Leadership Advisory Practice at Odgers Berndtson helps organizations discover and develop leaders, strengthen value-creating teams, and prepare for what’s next. Learn how our highly experienced assessors and coaches can help you and your team make a positive impact on your organization and those around you.