In executive hiring, few words are used as often — and understood as vaguely — as fit. It signals alignment, confidence and reduced uncertainty. Yet in practice, “fit” often reflects familiarity more than suitability, and this is where leadership appointments go wrong.
The issue is not the concept itself, but the way it is typically defined.
When “fit” becomes a shortcut
When boards or owners say they want a candidate who “fits”, they often mean someone who resembles leadership profiles that have worked before. It is an understandable instinct. Research in behavioural science shows that the human brain is wired to favour the familiar when information is complex or uncertain (Kahneman, 2011).
But leadership effectiveness does not depend on familiarity. It depends on context.
Even highly competent leaders perform differently across environments because conditions — ownership expectations, organisational maturity, culture, pace and pressure — shape what is required. When “fit” is left undefined, it becomes a source of hidden risk in leadership decisions, often reinforcing familiarity rather than suitability.
A broader view of leadership suitability
The relevant question is not whether a leader fits the current culture, but whether their judgment and behaviour align with the conditions the organisation must navigate next.
A more accurate approach is to anchor “fit” in four dimensions:
- Strategic context: What phase is the organisation in, and what must change?
- Conditions for leadership: What constraints, expectations and pressures will shape performance?
- Role clarity: What is the real work the leader must deliver, not just the job title?
- Behavioural requirements: Which leadership behaviours create traction here, not in general?
This moves the conversation from similarity to suitability, and from preference to evidence.
A well-known example of unfamiliar leadership creating value
When Ford appointed Alan Mulally as CEO in 2006, many questioned whether an aerospace executive was the right “fit” for the automotive industry. On paper, the link was weak. In practice, the context required a leader who could align a fragmented organisation, install disciplined execution and rebuild trust.
Mulally’s outsider perspective turned out to be precisely what the moment demanded. His “One Ford” approach helped stabilise the company through the 2008 financial crisis, without a government bailout, and restored long-term performance (Harvard Business Review, 2017).
This was not cultural misfit. It was contextual fit.
Why this matters in executive search
If “fit” is defined too narrowly, organisations risk:
- defaulting to familiar profiles
- overlooking candidates with complementary strengths
- reinforcing outdated leadership models
- hiring for the past instead of the future
This is why executive search must do more than match CVs to job titles. It must provide a clear understanding of what the organisation truly needs, not just who feels comfortable.
Search partners should:
- challenge narrow briefs
- introduce alternative candidate types
- use disciplined behavioural evaluation
- help owners and boards see the role through the lens of context and conditions
The purpose of executive search is not to select leaders who feel familiar, but to reduce uncertainty in decisions that shape an organisation’s future.
A more useful definition of “fit”
Fit is not the leader who looks familiar. Fit is the leader whose behaviour, judgement and strengths match the realities they will face.
When defined this way, “fit” becomes a valuable concept — not a shortcut.
The leaders who create real progress are not always the ones who resemble what has worked before. They are the ones who are suited to the organisation’s future.
References
- Harvard Business Review. (2019). The Problem with Hiring for ‘Cultural Fit’.
- The New York Times. (2014). Alan Mulally’s Lesson for Leaders: Focus on the Fundamentals.
- Harvard Business Review. (2017). How Alan Mulally Saved Ford Motor Company.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow.