The Specialty · Boards & Investors

The most expensive hire a board makes shouldn’t rest on a good interview.

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.

Illustration: the Executive Diligence panel room. On the left board, the weighting — Character 40 (gated), Fit 25 (gated), Learning agility 20, Competence 15 — and the note “The right people multiply everything.” On the right board, the order of the room: 1 score alone, 2 name the evidence, 3 argue the other side, 4 check the gates, 5 then decide. Dr. Scott Kimball sits at the head of the table with four sealed candidate folios in front of him and two panel members either side.
The room, and the order it runs in. Two boards are set before a single finalist walks through the door.

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

You can train skill. You cannot train character on a company’s timeline.

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.

Illustration: a leader at a boardroom table between two boards — “What you receive (cannot purchase)”, listing builds trust, creates momentum, invites ideas, makes people better; and “What you pay (the energy tax)”, listing friction, politics, fear, and value destroyed over time. Who you keep in the room matters.
The right people multiply possibility. The wrong people levy a tax.

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

Four dimensions, weighted for the seat.

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.

DimensionWeightGateWhat it asks
Character40≥ 3.5Who are they when it costs something? The permanent variable.
Fit25≥ 3.0Four separate scores: stage, seat, principal, values in practice.
Learning agility20—How fast do they update when the evidence changes?
Competence15—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

Built to defeat the way panels fail.

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.

Blind independent scoring

Scores and evidence submitted before anyone speaks.

Defends against — anchoring and groupthink.

Behavioral event excavation

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.

A designated disconfirmer

One panelist must build and present the case against the hire.

Defends against — consensus drift. Somebody has to be paid to be unconvinced.

A live work session

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

Five stages.

StageWhat happensWhy it is there
0Calibration with the boardThe 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.
1Candidate pre‑workA structured pack completed by the finalist: career ledger, four nominated situations, how they operate, and named references with a required spread.
2Résumé extractionTenure pattern, scope inherited against scope built, inflection points, the bench they left behind, and what is verifiable against what rests on their telling.
3The panelBehavioral excavation, the live work session, and fit — then blind independent scoring before any discussion.
4ConvergenceLargest disagreement first, the disconfirmer’s case heard uninterrupted, gates checked before totals, and one reservation named and assigned.

The deliverable

What the board receives.

Written independently of the panel’s preference, and short enough to be read before the vote.

SectionContains
The callHire, hold, or pass — in the first line. A board should not read four pages to find the verdict.
The seat, as definedThe outcomes and the stage, restated. Half of all bad executive hires are a good candidate against a job nobody had defined.
Scores against the barAll four dimensions with weights, the four fit scores, and both gates shown passed or failed.
Character — the evidenceThe specific incidents behind the score, sourced to the interview or a named reference.
What a résumé and a polished hour hideThe risks that would not have surfaced otherwise. This section is the product.
The dissentThe disconfirmer’s case, recorded even where the panel rejected it. A board is entitled to the argument it did not win.
Conditions and the reservationWhat 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

Read it before you buy it.

Two of the engagement documents are published in full. Nothing here asks for an email.

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

A second opinion on the choice you’re already leaning toward.

Fast, independent, and confidential. Independent of the search firm and of the hiring executive.