A poor hire for a leadership role rarely becomes apparent during the first few months. Often, the consequences only become evident when priorities begin to slip, key personnel leave, or change initiatives lose momentum. That is why assessing leadership ability is a central part of every executive recruitment process—not just an optional step alongside the process, but a basis for decision-making by the board, the CEO, and HR.
A resume shows what a candidate has done. An interview can give you a sense of how the candidate communicates. But neither of these is enough to determine how that person will lead your specific organization in the specific situation you’re facing. Instead, a qualified assessment examines the connection between the candidate’s behaviors, the organization’s circumstances, and the business-critical requirements of the role.
Why Leadership Assessments Must Go Deeper
Leadership depends on the situation. A manager who has been successful in a stable, centralized corporation may need different skills to lead a rapidly growing business in northern Sweden, where the availability of talent, geographical distances, and a strong local culture pose unique challenges. Similarly, an experienced change manager may be the wrong choice if the assignment primarily involves restoring calm, building trust, and establishing structure after a turbulent period.
The common mistake is to evaluate the candidate against a general image of a “good manager.” As a result, communication skills, high energy, or a well-known employer can easily be given more weight than the factors that actually determine performance in the role. For a growing company, it may be the ability to build a leadership team and make decisions based on incomplete information. In the public sector, it may involve balancing political guidance, professional judgment, and sustainable operational development.
An effective process therefore begins with a clear requirements profile. This includes not only responsibilities, years of experience, and industry background, but also concrete success criteria: What needs to be different in 18 months? Which stakeholders need to be won over? Which decisions will be the most difficult? And which leadership behaviors must not be compromised?
Assessment of Leadership Skills from Four Perspectives
A well-founded assessment takes multiple perspectives into account. The goal is not to find a flawless person. The goal is to understand the candidate’s strengths, limitations, and likely behavior in the role in question.
Results and Actual Impact
Past performance is relevant, but must be examined carefully. The question is not merely whether the candidate achieved the goals, but how they did so. What were the circumstances? What decisions did the person make on their own? How did the team, customer relationships, delivery, or finances evolve over time?
A candidate describing a successful reorganization should be able to explain the resistance they faced, the difficult trade-offs, and what didn’t work from the start. Specific examples of behavior are more useful than general statements about being strategic, inclusive, or decisive. Structured, competency-based interviews make it possible to evaluate candidates’ experiences against the same criteria for everyone.
Potential and ability to handle complexity
A new leadership role often involves a broader scope of responsibility than the candidate’s previous position. In such cases, the assessment must focus on potential, not just past performance. Analytical skills, judgment, the ability to learn quickly, and the ability to see connections become particularly important when the business is changing or when the market is uncertain.
In this context, occupational psychology tests can be a valuable complement, provided they are administered by trained assessors and interpreted within their proper context. Test results should not be treated as a definitive answer or an automatic ranking. They should serve to generate hypotheses that are then explored in greater depth through interviews, references, and feedback. For example, a high score on a test does not, in and of itself, indicate how a candidate handles conflict within the leadership team or builds trust in an organization with little room for change.
Values, Integrity, and Judgment
Leaders set the standard for what is rewarded, tolerated, and prioritized. Therefore, ethics, accountability, and the way employees are viewed must be evaluated with the same seriousness as business results. This is particularly crucial in roles involving personnel responsibility, safety responsibility, a significant budget, or high public exposure.
The assessment should examine how the candidate makes decisions when goals conflict. How does the candidate handle a high-performing employee who does not adhere to the company’s values? When has the candidate had to turn down a business opportunity? How is transparency ensured in decisions that affect many people? The answers need to be verified against examples and qualified references.
The ability to achieve results through others
The key shift in a leadership role is that results are no longer primarily achieved through one’s own efforts. A manager must be able to set the direction, provide clarity, and develop people with diverse backgrounds. In skills-intensive industries, where competition for experienced employees is fierce, this becomes a direct business issue.
Therefore, assess how the candidate builds teams, delegates, follows up, and provides feedback. A manager who makes quick decisions can be an asset in an emergency, but can also create dependency and reduce the organization’s capacity if authority and responsibility are never delegated. Strengths must always be evaluated alongside their potential drawbacks.
References should verify, not confirm
Reference checks are sometimes used late in the process as a formality. When this happens, they risk becoming merely a confirmation of a decision that has already been made. When done correctly, they serve as a separate evaluation step, in which questions are asked based on the requirements profile and the hypotheses that have emerged during interviews and tests.
Ask about specific situations. When was the candidate most effective? In what situations did the person need the most support? How did coworkers react to changes? What would the reference like a new employer to understand before the candidate starts the job? It’s also wise to obtain references from various sources—such as a former manager, a colleague, and coworkers—when the nature of the position and the candidate’s consent make it appropriate.
Discretion is crucial. For senior candidates, careless reference checks can harm both the individual and the client. References should always be checked at the appropriate stage, with clear consent and respect for confidentiality.
Objectivity requires a process, not just good intentions
All decision-makers have preferences. We tend to trust people who are similar to us, share our background, or communicate in a familiar way. In executive recruitment, this tendency can lead to homogeneous leadership teams and to candidates with the right qualifications being passed over for unclear reasons.
Structured evaluation criteria reduce that risk. When all candidates are evaluated against the same defined competencies, using documented evidence and a common scale, the decision becomes both more comparable and easier to justify. This enhances quality, as well as trust among candidates and internal stakeholders.
Equal and sustainable recruitment is not about lowering standards. It’s about defining requirements that are truly relevant to the position, consistently reviewing applications, and not confusing experience with competence. In practice, this results in a broader and more relevant pool of candidates.
When is an external second opinion needed?
An external assessment is particularly valuable when the role is business-critical, the pool of candidates is small, or when internal decision-makers have differing views on what the position requires. It can also be relevant when an internal candidate is a strong contender but the board needs an independent basis for its decision.
A second opinion should not prolong the process for its own sake. It should reduce uncertainty where it is greatest. For a CEO recruitment process, this may involve an in-depth analysis of strategic vision, board dynamics, and the ability to drive change. For an operational manager, the focus may instead be on execution skills, responsibility for the work environment, and the ability to get multiple functions to work toward the same goal.
Besi conducts in-depth, structured assessments for executive positions, linking the decision-making process to the organization’s goals, risks, and long-term needs. This provides the board and management with a clearer picture of both the candidate’s potential and the conditions necessary for that person to succeed.
Would you like to discuss how assessing leadership skills can strengthen an upcoming hiring decision? Besi offers confidential consultations for boards of directors, CEOs, and HR executives on critical hiring and leadership issues.
The most responsible decision is rarely the one that feels safest in the moment, but rather the one that can be justified when the realities of the mission put that choice to the test.