Executive appointments set direction, culture, and shareholder value. Research shows that 50-60% of new executives fail or leave within 18 months. Misappointment delays strategy, increases operational risk, and undermines trust. Evidence-based executive assessments provide the objective counterbalance: insight into suitability, risk, and role fit before you make an irreversible decision.
Executive intuition is valuable, but robust evaluation rules and psychometric data demonstrably outperform intuitive judgments. Executive assessments force clear criteria, calibration, and consistent weighting of information. The result is decision-making that is less prone to bias and has more predictable outcomes. In our experience, stakeholder discussions about executive appointments based on assessments are also much more rational, and sharper risk trade-offs are made.
The financial and organizational damage of a mis-hire is substantial. Conservative estimates cite ~30% of annual salary in direct replacement costs; full turnover costs (productivity, strategy delay, team impact) run as high as 90-200% in studies. Assessment data makes risk explicit, comparable, and governable, making appointments not only defensible but economically rational.
Meta-analyses show that resumes and unstructured interviews predict individual performance only to a limited extent (validity r = 0.18-0.38), while a multi-method assessment is much more strongly predictive (r = 0.65-0.70). Converted to explained variance (r²), this means that resume and “gut feeling” predict only 3-14% of performance differences between candidates, while a multi-method assessment predicts about 42-49% of performance differences.
For CHRO and Board, the implication is clear: context and circumstances continue to play a role, but the predictive power of selection decisions increases, on average, by a factor of five. Decisions thus shift from “it feels right” to a defensible, data-driven consideration of risk; with fewer mis-hires, faster ramp-up, and a demonstrably better return on the hiring investment. Because 50-60% of new executives fail or leave within 18 months, and turnover costs are high, executive assessment is an essential tool to mitigate selection risk.
Leadership impacts organizational health and team dynamics. Organizations in the top quartile of Organizational Health realize, on average, ~3× higher total shareholder returns than the bottom quartile. Teams with high engagement consistently show better outcomes, including +23% profitability and higher productivity. Executive assessments increase the likelihood of leaders delivering results AND healthy teams.
Continuous insight into who can fulfill a critical role now and in the future is a prerequisite. Assessment data makes follow-up evidence-based: potential, stretch, and derailers become visible, allowing for more targeted construction of the talent pipeline and faster response to an unexpected vacancy.
C-level appointments require auditable substantiation. Our assessments deliver consistent criteria, senior-level norm groups, and transparent score anchors. Decisions become reproducible, explainable, and fair, even when an atypical profile is deliberately chosen. This strengthens governance towards the supervisory board, works council, and shareholders.
Carucci, R. (2017). Executives Fail to Execute Strategy Because They’re Too Internally Focused. Harvard Business Review.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Agrawal, S., Plowman, S. K., & Blue, A. (2020). The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes: 10th Q12 Meta-Analysis. Gallup.
Kuncel, N., Ones, D., & Klieger, D. (2014). In Hiring, Algorithms Beat Instinct. Harvard Business Review.
McKinsey & Company (2017-2024). Organizational health index insights.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
SHRM Foundation (2008). Retaining Talent: A Guide to Analyzing and Managing Employee Turnover.
In turnaround, integration and hypergrowth, higher uncertainty requires harder evidence.
Explicitly test values and leadership style to avoid cultural backlash.
Potential ≠ performance; predictive testing prevents under- or overestimation.
Objective data makes role-fit and diversity in style/thinking visible.
Thinking power, judgment, execution discipline and learning agility as predictive indicators.
Leadership style, reliability (say-do gap), psychological safety and engagement effect.
Derailers under pressure, integrity and governance signals, plus explicit mitigation options (team complementarity, guardrails).
Sharpening profile, criteria & weighting; agreements on transparency and filing.
Translation to assessment design; ensure fairness and decision rules.
Clear planning, procedure, privacy and data use.
Context-specific by strategy and stakeholder field.
Validated psychometrics and preparatory assignments (databaseline).
Role-play(s), strategy case and in-depth interview; scoring on pre-weighted criteria; 1 day session.
Preparation of report. Candidate receives a written report + telephone explanation. Sharing is done only with the informed consent of the candidate.
In addition to the candidate report, we provide a board-proof management summary (appointability, strengths, risks, preconditions/mitigations).
Presentation to client/stakeholders; guide decision and first-100-day assurance.
They especially appreciate that the decision is board-proof and explainable: each judgment is traceable to pre-agreed criteria and concrete behavior, with a complete dossier for SB/RVB and OR. The context-specific cases and role-plays align with their strategy, allowing us to test appointability and risks in the reality of their organization. Our human + data approach (validated measurements, structured scoring, and psychological expert judgment) delivers depth without noise.
At the same time, the process is efficient for executives: online preparation and one live half-day session suffice to gather rich evidence. Candidate care is central: information sharing is conducted with informed consent, and the candidate receives a written report and a personal explanation. Finally, a concise management summary alongside the candidate report helps the selection committee decide quickly and with confidence, with clear risk mitigations for the first 100 days.
Compact and scheduled by mutual agreement. We work with high discretion and limited dissemination of reports. Expect an average turnaround time of 2 weeks (head-to-tail).
Marco van Aarle (partner and psychologist NIP) has conducted several hundred assessments at the C1 and C2 levels. He is one of the most experienced psychologists in this field and at this level.
‘Fairness & explainability by design’: transparent methodology, clear reporting, and discrete dissemination. Data stays within the EU with clear retention periods.
Schedule an interview with Marco van Aarle (psychologist NIP). Marco has extensive experience with C-level assessments.
This fact sheet provides an overview of the most commonly used (psychological) selection methods, both classical and modern. The figures are based on meta-analyses and dominant scientific literature.
| Method | Predictive validity (r) | Typical reliability |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive ability (GMA test) | .51 | High (.85-.95) |
| Work test | .54 | High (inter-rater ≥.70) |
| Structured interview | .51 | Medium-high (.60-.75) |
| Unstructured interview | .18-.38 | Low-medium (.40-.55) |
| Integrity test | .41 | High (α ≥.80) |
| Conscientiousness (Big Five) | .31 | Medium-high (α ~.75-.85) |
| Job knowledge test | .48 | High (≥.80) |
| Years of service | .18 | Not applicable |
| Video/asynchronous interview (incl. AI) | .30-.40 | Good at structuring; algorithmically variable |
| Machine learning / algorithmic models | .20-.50 | Depends on dataset; generalizability limited |
| Serious games / game-based work samples | .35-.50 | High on objective metrics |
| Social media screening | .00-.20 | Low and variable |
Call directly:
+31 88 277 377 6
