My partners and I see plenty of processes in which everything is formally correct.
Structured interviews.
Clear scoring matrices.
Tidy minutes.
On paper it all fits, and yet a doubt remains.
One mandate in particular has stayed with me.
The situation was complex, with (as so often) a lot of time pressure.
Many shareholders at the table, and a great deal at stake.
All the interviews had been held.
All the documents checked.
All the scores were in.
And still the decision was open.
In the end, there was one more meeting.
No further assessment.
No big panel.
Just two people in the room:
the designated CEO and the main shareholder.
Two hours of conversation.
Open.
Direct.
No agenda.
No pitch, no slides, not even prepared questions.
They talked about expectations, conflicts and trust, and about the first crisis that would certainly come.
They agreed:
how we make decisions.
How we deal with mistakes.
Who backs whom, and when.
Afterwards, the decision was clear.
For everyone.
What happened in that room is hard to measure.
No tool captures it.
You feel it.
Showing up in person signals seriousness, and makes it clear:
this appointment is a matter for the very top.
In transformations especially, that’s decisive. Strong leaders want to know who they’ll really be working with.
Who’ll stand beside them in the storm.
Who takes responsibility.
Who’ll back unpopular decisions too.
A conversation as equals often creates more commitment than any extra clause in the contract.
It decides whether someone just signs.
Or really shows up.
And stays.
How much room does this conversation get in your selection processes?
