Executive Diligence is an independent, structured assessment of your finalist for a CEO, CFO or other C‑suite seat — run by an industrial‑organizational psychologist, the discipline of executive selection. You get a candid written read on the choice you are already leaning toward, and a clear hire, hold or pass call the board can stand behind.
Everything that decides this hire is on the wall before the candidate arrives. The left board carries the weighting — character at forty and gated, fit at twenty‑five and gated, learning agility at twenty, competence at fifteen. It is written down, and it is agreed with the board first, because a bar set after meeting a charming finalist is not a bar. The right board carries the order of the room: every assessor scores alone before anyone speaks, then names the specific evidence behind the number, then argues the case against their own read, then checks the two gates — and only then does the panel decide. That sequence exists to defeat the thing that actually decides most executive hires, which is the first confident voice in the room. The folios on the table are sealed. The books behind the chair — character, evidence, judgment, consequence — are the order the whole method runs in. And the mug is the point of the exercise: the room tells you late. By the time a wrong C‑suite hire is obvious to everyone, the company has already paid for it.
The premise
Adult character is comparatively stable. It is not a development plan, and eighteen months of coaching will not install it. So an assessment that spends most of its attention on competence is measuring the trainable thing and guessing at the permanent one. This method inverts that.
Read the two columns. Everything on the left — trust, momentum, openness, people made better — is what a company receives from one person and cannot purchase any other way. Everything on the right is what it pays, quietly, for years, without ever seeing a line item. Neither column is a skill. There is no course that installs the left one and no performance plan that reliably removes the right one. That is why this method weights character heaviest and gates it: the trainable things are visible on a résumé and fixable inside a quarter; the permanent thing is the one nobody measures, and it is the one that compounds.
The instrument
Every finalist is scored against the role’s real bar — the three outcomes the hire must deliver in twelve months — not against the other candidates.
| Dimension | Weight | Gate | What it asks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Character | 40 | ≥ 3.5 | Who are they when it costs something? The permanent variable. |
| Fit | 25 | ≥ 3.0 | Four separate scores: stage, seat, principal, values in practice. |
| Learning agility | 20 | — | How fast do they update when the evidence changes? |
| Competence | 15 | — | Can they do the work? The most visible and least predictive of the four. |
Gates are checked before totals
A finalist below the gate on Character or Fit is a pass, whatever the weighted score says. Both gates are set with the board before any candidate is seen — a threshold agreed after meeting a charming finalist is not a threshold.
Fit is four scores, not a feeling
“Culture fit” has been the polite name for a great deal of poor hiring. A criterion assessed by how the room feels will quietly reproduce the room — which is both a bad decision and a defensibility problem. So fit is broken into four named dimensions, each scored against evidence: stage (turnaround, scale‑up and steady‑state are three different jobs), seat (the three twelve‑month outcomes), principal (the working relationship with the founder, CEO or chair), and values in practice (the enforced values, not the poster).
The panel
A conventional panel converges on the most confident voice within ninety seconds and spends the rest of the hour rationalizing. Four design choices prevent that.
Scores and evidence submitted before anyone speaks.
Defends against — anchoring and groupthink.
Real incidents walked in forensic detail.
Defends against — rehearsed answers. Hypotheticals measure how well someone imagines being good; character shows up in what a person actually did when it cost them.
One panelist must build and present the case against the hire.
Defends against — consensus drift. Somebody has to be paid to be unconvinced.
The finalist works a real problem with the panel.
Defends against — narration. You stop hearing how they say they lead and watch how they treat people while thinking.
The engagement
| Stage | What happens | Why it is there |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Calibration with the board | The three twelve‑month outcomes, what a 5 looks like on character for this seat, both gates, and the panel with its named disconfirmer — all fixed before a candidate is seen. |
| 1 | Candidate pre‑work | A structured pack completed by the finalist: career ledger, four nominated situations, how they operate, and named references with a required spread. |
| 2 | Résumé extraction | Tenure pattern, scope inherited against scope built, inflection points, the bench they left behind, and what is verifiable against what rests on their telling. |
| 3 | The panel | Behavioral excavation, the live work session, and fit — then blind independent scoring before any discussion. |
| 4 | Convergence | Largest disagreement first, the disconfirmer’s case heard uninterrupted, gates checked before totals, and one reservation named and assigned. |
The deliverable
Written independently of the panel’s preference, and short enough to be read before the vote.
| Section | Contains |
|---|---|
| The call | Hire, hold, or pass — in the first line. A board should not read four pages to find the verdict. |
| The seat, as defined | The outcomes and the stage, restated. Half of all bad executive hires are a good candidate against a job nobody had defined. |
| Scores against the bar | All four dimensions with weights, the four fit scores, and both gates shown passed or failed. |
| Character — the evidence | The specific incidents behind the score, sourced to the interview or a named reference. |
| What a résumé and a polished hour hide | The risks that would not have surfaced otherwise. This section is the product. |
| The dissent | The disconfirmer’s case, recorded even where the panel rejected it. A board is entitled to the argument it did not win. |
| Conditions and the reservation | What must be true for this to work, and the one thing to resolve before an offer — with an owner and a date. |
The standard it is held to
Every sentence in the report traces to an incident, a document, or a named reference. If it cannot be traced, it does not go in. That is what makes it diligence rather than an opinion with a letterhead — and it is what lets a board stand behind the decision afterwards.
The documents
Two of the engagement documents are published in full. Nothing here asks for an email.
The full architecture — the four weighted dimensions and both gates, how the panel is built and what each design choice defends against, the five stages, and every section of the board report.
Download ↓ SW·ED-01 · 5 pages · PDFExactly what a finalist receives: the career ledger, the four situations that become the interview, how they operate, and the reference spread we require. Published so a board — and a candidate — can see the process is structured rather than an ambush.
Download ↓What is deliberately not published
The probe set, the listening criteria, the live‑session observation list and the scorecards are withheld. An instrument a finalist can rehearse against stops measuring anything. The full protocol is shared with the board before an engagement begins.
Before you commit
Fast, independent, and confidential. Independent of the search firm and of the hiring executive.