Appointing a Chief Executive and the executives around them, can influence strategic direction, culture and performance for years. Yet the consequences of a poor appointment may take time to become visible. Consequences often emerge gradually, but affect critical elements:
When rapport feels like evidence.
Selection decisions are deeply human. We are naturally drawn to candidates who are engaging, confident, and easy to connect with. Those qualities may matter, but they can also be mistaken for evidence of enterprise leadership effectiveness.
The peer-reviewed Kaplan and Sørensen study analysed over 2500 executive assessments. It found that candidates with greater interpersonal skills were more likely to be hired, while earlier evidence found those skills did not predict subsequent performance. The authors therefore concluded that boards may overplay ‘likeability’:
“…Boards tend to overweight interpersonal skills when hiring CEOs. They should look beyond that and assess whether these candidates can get things done, even if they are not as pleasant to interact with.”
From choosing teams in the schoolyard to appointing leaders in the boardroom, rapport and visible confidence can influence whom we favour. The stakes and process may change; human judgement does not disappear.
The implication is not that interpersonal skills are unimportant. It is that rapport and presence should not be taken as evidence of the broader range of capabilities required to succeed in executive or enterprise leadership.
Moving from impression to evidence.
Given the scale and often delayed visibility of poor executive appointments, selection panels need evidence that goes beyond experience, reputation and interview performance. Used alongside other sources vs. a stand-alone answer, psychometric assessment can reveal patterns, potential, and risks that might otherwise remain unseen, helping panels ask better questions and make more informed decisions.
Executive search reduces the risk of choosing from a limited applicant pool; psychometric assessment provides evidence that mitigates bias, halo effects and over-interpretation of interview polish.
Psychometric assessments are structured, science-based tools that provide evidence about likely patterns in how a person behaves, relates, leads, thinks and decides, and responds under pressure. They identify patterns and probabilities, not fixed truths or guarantees of performance. No psychometric result is inherently ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ and they should never be treated as a stand-alone verdict. What psychometrics add is visibility to role-positive behaviours and potential risks that tend to emerge through day-to-day work or under pressure, but may not be evident in an interview, where candidates have limited time and naturally present their strongest case.
An impressive career history or interview performance does not, by itself, show whether someone has the underlying potential and capabilities to lead an organisation or enterprise. Psychometric assessment allows panels to look beyond past achievements (which are often context-dependent), to also evaluate core behavioural drivers, decision-making style, agility and risk factors, given the unique needs, opportunities, and pressures of their specific role.
Leadership effectiveness is also contextual. A candidate who has succeeded elsewhere will encounter different expectations, stakeholder relationships, or decision-making norms in a new organisation, sector, or country. Assessment can explore how the candidate might adapt to and positively shape the organisation’s culture, strategy, and operating environment.
Assessment tools do not remove judgement from selection; they improve the quality of that judgement. Used alongside interviews, references, and evidence of past performance, robust psychometric assessments help panels test impressions, surface assumptions, and investigate patterns that may otherwise remain unseen. Assessments help the selection panel to ask better questions.
Assessment should test the panel, too
Better selection is not only about examining the candidate. It also requires boards and panels to examine the assumptions shaping their own judgement, for example:
Structured assessment creates a disciplined way to test those impressions against multiple sources of evidence.
Assessment insights can inform targeted interviews and reference checks, highlight development priorities, and support more purposeful onboarding. Used transparently, respectfully, and with cultural awareness, assessment can also give candidates a meaningful opportunity to discuss the context behind their results.
The objective is not to remove humanity from selection. It is to combine humanity with evidence and use both to respond to the person, role, and context. That is how Boards move beyond choosing the candidate who makes the strongest impression, towards choosing the leader best equipped to lead their organisation.
Image credit: Sophia Kunkel (Unsplash)
Need more information? Contact the WBL Team:
winsborough.co.nz | 0800 222 061 | support@winsborough.co.nz