Assessing for Impact: Why So Many "Great Hires" Don't Work Out

For many CEOs and boards, recruiting senior talent is one of the most critical drivers of long-term success. Yet it’s often one of the least structured processes inside the organization. Search firms are engaged, interviews are conducted, and candidates are discussed. But somehow, six months later, the business is still left wondering what went wrong. The challenge isn’t a lack of talent. It’s that most recruiting processes aren’t designed to uncover the right match for the work that actually needs to get done.

In our work with CEOs, boards, and executive teams, we’ve seen the same pattern play out across industries: time-constrained leaders default to familiar playbooks, delegate too much of the process, and fail to align internally on what success in the role truly looks like. Recruiting becomes a check-the-box exercise. The result? A mismatch between the role and the person hired.

To improve outcomes, it’s worth understanding where and why even well-intentioned recruiting efforts fall short. Here are some of the most common gaps we see:

Failing to define what success looks like.

Most executives begin with an outdated job description. The better starting point? Defining the specific work that needs to be done in the next 12 to 24 months. Whether building a new function, stabilizing a team, or driving a key initiative, this “gold star” vision of success is foundational for alignment. It’s also the lens through which every candidate should be assessed.

Don’t outsource judgment.

One of the most common mistakes we see is delegating too much of the recruiting process to HR. While HR and talent teams play a critical role, the CEO and other key leaders must remain actively involved. Defining the role, aligning on priorities, and evaluating candidates are strategic exercises that require deep context and ownership at the top.

Balance potential with team capacity.

Hiring for potential has its place, but it must be done intentionally and in the context of the broader team. Bringing in multiple executives who are all in scope transitions—in other words, taking on roles that stretch beyond their current level of experience—can increase risk and create downstream pressure across the organization.

Recruiting is not hiring; it’s convincing.

At the senior-most levels, you’re not just filling a seat. You’re persuading a top-tier executive to leave something good for something better. Every touchpoint matters: how prepared the team is, the clarity of vision, and the respect shown for the candidate’s time and career. A disjointed process is a red flag, and savvy candidates will notice.

Interviews should uncover insight, not check boxes.

Too many interviews fail to go beyond surface-level impressions. We often see panels ask variations of the same question or settle for well-rehearsed responses. High-performing teams assign topic areas, probe for real examples, and use structured formats to assess both capability and fit. When the stakes are especially high (and let’s be honest, they often are), bringing in a third party to design or facilitate the assessment process can help introduce needed discipline and objectivity.

Onboarding is not a 90-day sprint.

A thoughtful onboarding plan extends far beyond day 90. It should define a successful first year, build internal connectivity, and align stakeholders on expectations. Bringing in a new executive reshapes team dynamics (new member = new team), and success often depends on how quickly the group realigns around shared goals and norms.

Building a strong executive team requires the same discipline and foresight that leaders apply to any other major strategic decision. Recruiting at this level should be thoughtful, rigorous, and aligned with where the business is going, not just where it’s been.

When the stakes are high or alignment is tough to achieve, an external perspective can bring clarity and structure. But it only works when leaders remain engaged, curious, and committed to getting it right.