The 10 Most Common Mistakes in Executive Search – And How to Avoid Them
- Somogyi Katalin
- Aug 8, 2025
- 9 min read
Hiring a senior leader is one of the most critical decisions an organization can make. Yet, we often see companies stumble at the very first steps of the recruitment process. Based on years of executive search experience, here are the most common mistakes – and how to prevent them.
I. The Role Is Not Properly Defined
Many companies believe that once they have a job description, they're good to go. In reality, this document is often a generic, outdated administrative formality that doesn’t reflect the actual business needs or strategic context.
A well-defined executive role must be tightly aligned with the company's current situation and future direction. The success of the search depends not just on what the leader will do, but much more on why and how they’ll be expected to do it.
Here are some critical aspects to clarify before launching the search:
1. Current Business Challenges and Goals
Where is the company today, and where does it want to be in 6, 12, or 24 months?
Example: A “Sales Director” role means very different things in a stagnant market versus during a phase of regional expansion.
2. Organizational Maturity
Is the company operating with mature, structured processes, or is it still scaling and building them?Is the leader expected to take a hands-on operational role, or will their main focus be on strategic direction?
In startups or smaller firms, hybrid roles are often required: leaders both strategize and execute at the same time.
3. Team Structure and Capabilities
How large is the team?What strengths and skill gaps exist?Is there a solid, high-performing team in place, or will building and energizing a new team be part of the role?
It makes a difference whether a leader inherits a cohesive, experienced team – or needs to turn around a demotivated one.
4. Change Management Demands
Is internal resistance expected?Is the strategy shifting?Will there be organizational restructuring?
Will the leader’s role be to simply "hold the line" – or to act as a change agent driving transformation?
5. Decision-Making Autonomy
What level of decision-making authority will the executive hold?Are they expected to merely advise – or make independent strategic calls?What kind of financial, human, and organizational resources will they have access to?
This is critical to ensure the right executive fit. A proactive leader may become frustrated in an over-regulated, rigid environment – and vice versa.
6. Hierarchical Position in the Organization
Where does this role sit within the decision-making layers?Who are the horizontal “peers” this person will need to work with daily?Who will they report to, and how frequently?
This is especially important in matrix organizations or international setups where cross-functional and cross-border collaboration is essential.
7. What Leadership Style Works in the Culture?
A laid-back, startup-style leader likely won’t succeed in a highly formal, regulated environment – no matter how talented they are.
The implicit and explicit rules of leadership behavior and values may not be documented, but they are deeply felt. (See my previous post on: When Should You Involve a Headhunter? – 5 Strategic Moments in Leadership Hiring)
This is where a skilled executive search partner adds real value: by understanding both the candidate and the company in depth, and finding the real points of connection.
8. Expected Complexity of the Role
How many stakeholders must this leader engage with? (e.g. clients, internal leaders, owners, external partners)What is the organizational complexity: multiple locations, countries, business units?How high is the market pressure, uncertainty, or pace of change?
You can only define the right level of leadership maturity if you clearly understand the complexity of the role.
9. Clear Success Definition – What Does Success Look Like in 6–12 Months?
Instead of just listing responsibilities, answer these questions:
What specific outcomes do we expect in 6–12 months?
How will we measure success?
When will we be able to say: “this hire was a success”?
A well-defined executive role should always include a “Success Profile” – the strategic outputs and measurable impact the leader is expected to deliver.
10. Growth Potential (Upward Mobility)
Is this a final destination, or part of a leadership pipeline?What does the candidate see in terms of future prospects?Are there opportunities for regional, international, or ownership-level growth?
Ambitious leaders are often motivated by where the role can take them – this can influence their decision to join or not.
IMPORTANT: Defining the position should be a strategic dialogue, not merely a task for HR documentation. It requires high-level business alignment and joint discussion among key decision-makers (CEO, CFO, owners, board members). In this process, the executive search partner adds real value by:
Bringing the real expectations into focus
Helping define the key success factors
Avoiding hidden pitfalls — such as unspoken expectations or internal contradictions
Therefore, the hiring process should begin with clear business objectives, and only then should a tailored competency and behavioral profile be developed.
II. Overemphasis on Past Experience — Instead of a Future-Focused Approach
The traditional approach to executive selection prioritizes previous industry experience above all else. This often appears in briefs as:
“At least 10 years of experience in the X sector”
“Has worked in a multinational environment with similar corporate culture”
“Understands the competitive landscape, market, and clients”
While these criteria are not inherently irrelevant, overemphasizing them can block truly forward-looking hiring decisions.
Why is past-centric hiring problematic?
1. Past success is not a guarantee of future success
A leader who thrived in a stable, predictable environment may struggle in a turbulent, transforming organization.What worked in the past may now be a liability. Familiar routines can become dysfunctional in new contexts.
Example: A senior executive from an FMCG background with 15 years of experience in a growing market may not easily adapt to a digitalizing B2B environment.
2. Future challenges often require new ways of thinking
Today’s biggest leadership challenges are not in areas where traditional experience applies, but in:
Driving digital transformation
Leading sustainability (ESG) strategies
Managing hybrid, multigenerational teams
Shaping new business models
These demand not "template solutions" from the past, but new thinking.
3. Overvaluing industry experience narrows the candidate pool
By insisting on leaders with similar backgrounds, companies risk missing out on highly adaptive, high-potential talent.
This is especially limiting in small or niche industries, where the top talent has already held similar roles — and may not be motivated to repeat the same challenges under familiar conditions.
Instead of focusing only on the CV, consider the following indicators of future potential:
✅ Learning Agility
Can the candidate learn quickly in new environments?
Do they recognize patterns and apply them to new contexts?
How do they respond to unfamiliar challenges?Research shows that leaders with high learning agility are up to twice as likely to succeed in new roles.
✅ Adaptability and Resilience
Can they provide examples of successfully adapting to change?
Do they thrive in structured or chaotic environments?
How do they respond when direction needs to be recalibrated?
✅ Transformational Thinking and Strategic Flexibility
Can they introduce new perspectives within the organization?
Are they capable of “what if…” thinking?
Are they willing to challenge and evolve the status quo?This is crucial in companies where leaders are expected not just to maintain, but to drive transformation.
✅ Cultural and Values-Based Alignment
A leader who was successful elsewhere but does not resonate with the company’s core values will not be a sustainable solution.
What values do they stand for?
How do they make decisions in conflicts?
What leadership model do they follow?
In summary, past experience is necessary — but not sufficient. The true predictors of future performance include:
Learning Agility
Adaptability
Transformational Thinking
Leadership Self-Awareness
Values-Based Alignment
These cannot be read from a CV alone. Structured, competency-based interviews — possibly supplemented by assessment centers or deep-dive executive interviews — are essential to uncover these capabilities.
III. The Misinterpretation of “Culture Fit” – The Risk of Excessive Homogeneity
The phrase “good culture fit” has become an almost mandatory element in executive recruitment briefs. But what do we actually mean by it?
“Someone we can easily relate to.”“A person whose style is similar to ours.”“Someone we could have a beer with.”
This kind of “fit,” however, may not be beneficial in the long run. In fact—in some cases—it can be actively harmful.
Why is misinterpreting “culture fit” dangerous?
1. It leads to a homogeneous leadership team
When every new leader is chosen for being “like us,” the result is:
identical perspectives
similar decision-making patterns
the same comfort zones
This creates an echo chamber effect, which:
reduces innovation – no new ideas
slows progress – no challenges to the status quo
increases organizational blind spots – repeating the same mistakes
2. It blocks diversity
True cognitive diversity doesn’t come from a résumé. It comes from differences in:
decision-making styles
approaches to risk management
problem-solving strategies
underlying values
When these differences have no space in the team, creativity and performance decline—especially in complex, fast-changing environments.
3. It rewards assimilation over adaptation and growth
An excessive “culture fit” mindset selects leaders who integrate quickly but never challenge anything. The consequences:
lack of critical thinking
no constructive conflict
cultural stagnation instead of development
A strong organizational culture is not a closed system—it is a dynamic, evolving space shaped by its leaders.
From “Culture Fit” to Cultural Contribution
Advanced executive selection practices now focus not only on whether a candidate fits the existing culture, but also on:💡 What will they contribute? How are they different? How can they move the culture forward?
This is the cultural contribution mindset.
How to assess it:
✅ Values-based interviews
We don’t just seek identical values—we look for mature responses to value conflicts.Example: What does a leader do when the values of performance and collaboration are in conflict?
✅ Behavioral scenario analysis
How do they make decisions in ethical dilemmas?
How do they respond to people who think differently?
How open are they to collaborating with culturally diverse team members?
✅ Cognitive diversity assessment
Problem-solving style (analytical, intuitive, creative)
Decision-making approach (data-driven vs. experience-based)
Risk-taking profile
Use behavioral and values-based assessments, and evaluate cultural contribution—what the candidate adds, not just how they fit.
IV. Overly Short, Accelerated Selection Processes
Executive hiring often takes place in the middle of a business crisis:
the previous leader has resigned or been removed
a key project has launched without a leader in place
the organization is undergoing restructuring
or simply, it’s summer and “we need someone before everyone goes on holiday…”
That’s when the internal pressure builds:
“We need someone. Fast. Now. Tomorrow. Yesterday.”
But this pressure erodes the quality and depth of the selection process.
What are the consequences of rushing the decision?
❌ 1. Superficial selection
Decisions made on “who feels most likeable”
No genuine measurement of competencies
❌ 2. Critical competencies remain undiscovered
The leader cannot effectively manage the team
Unable to perform in transformational situations
Generates conflict—or avoids it entirely
❌ 3. Hidden risks go undetected
Cultural misalignment
Low learning agility
Past ethical or collaboration issues
❌ 4. Onboarding is not prepared
The new leader is left to figure things out alone
No organizational readiness to integrate them
Significantly higher risk of failure—which often becomes reality
Speed Shouldn’t Come at the Expense of Depth
Efficiency is not the same as haste. A well-structured yet agile executive selection process does not slow you down—on the contrary, it reduces the risk of costly mistakes and accelerates integration.
What should be included?
✅ Competency-based interviews
Pre-defined, behavior-based questions
✅ Executive assessments (personality, leadership style, decision-making profile)
Using validated psychometric tools (e.g., Hogan, SHL, AON)
Measuring competencies aligned to leadership roles
Assessing learning agility, adaptability, and motivational drivers
✅ Organizational simulations / case interviews
Thinking in response to relevant business scenarios
Strategic approach, stakeholder management, crisis response
✅ Structured reference checks
Not just “were they good?”, but targeted questions such as:
“How did they respond when they had to make a difficult decision affecting their team?”
“In what kind of environment did they truly excel—and where did they struggle?”
V. Lack of Strategic Alignment with the Leadership Team
In many organizations, leadership selection—especially at senior executive level—is decided within a very small circle:
by an HR business partner and the direct manager,
by the CEO alone, or
based on the recommendation of an external consultant—choosing someone whom few others in the company actually know.
This is particularly risky when the role is:
cross-functional (e.g., finance, operations, or transformation leadership),
culturally sensitive (e.g., leading a newly established division), or
a driver of major change (such as digitalization or organizational restructuring).
What happens when there is no alignment?
❌ The new leader is not accepted
From day one, they are met with distrust (“Who is this person?”)
An “us vs. them” mentality quickly develops
❌ They cannot enforce decisions
Lack of backing and sponsorship
Other leaders become dismissive, passive, or openly resistant
❌ Strategic fragmentation emerges
Different interpretations of priorities
The new leader “runs their own race” without a shared direction
❌ Their onboarding and performance are at risk
Failure becomes systemic rather than individual—yet the individual pays the price
Build Strategic Alignment into the Process
✅ 1. Joint strategic briefing at the start of the search
Involve the leaders the new hire will work with closely.Ask together:
“What type of leader do we need right now?”
“What challenges will they face?”
“What should success look like within 6–12 months?”
This is not an HR decision or an individual preference—it is collective commitment.
✅ 2. Panel interviews with multiple stakeholders
The candidate should not be interviewed by just one person
Include the key stakeholders they will collaborate with closely
This is not only about assessment—it’s also the start of relationship-building
✅ 3. Competency-based feedback round
All participants evaluate the candidate against the same criteria:
strategic thinking
collaboration style
decision-making competencies
conflict management
motivational alignment
A structured framework helps avoid bias from personal likes or dislikes.
✅ 4. Leadership team alignment workshop after selection
A 1–2 hour facilitated session with the new leader can help establish:
“What do we want to achieve together?”
“What will support us—and what could derail us?”
Comments