Boards2 min read
What boards get wrong about culture fit
'Fit' is the most used and least examined word in executive appointments. Used carelessly, it becomes a polite word for sameness.
By Avier Partners
Ask any nomination committee what it is looking for in a senior appointment, and somewhere in the answer you will hear the word fit. The candidate must be capable, experienced, credible, and they must fit.
It is a reasonable instinct. Leaders who are at odds with the values of an organisation rarely last. But the word is often used in ways that quietly undermine good decisions, and it is worth examining why.
Fit as comfort
The most common failure is to confuse fit with comfort. A candidate who shares the board's background, education and manner of speaking feels like a good fit, because the conversation flows easily. A candidate who challenges the board's assumptions, or simply communicates differently, feels like a risk.
This is not a judgement about values. It is a judgement about familiarity, and it systematically narrows the field toward people who resemble the current leadership.
If every finalist feels comfortable in the room, the board has probably described the past rather than the future.
Fit with what, exactly?
The better question is not whether a candidate fits the culture, but which parts of the culture the board wants to preserve and which it wants to change.
Most organisations that are looking for a new leader are, at least in part, looking for change. A business moving from founder-led to professionally managed needs someone who respects the founder's legacy and is comfortable building systems the founder resisted. A bank rebuilding its technology needs a leader who values its prudence and is impatient with its pace.
In both cases, a candidate who fits perfectly would be the wrong appointment.
A more useful discipline
We encourage boards to replace the single question of fit with three separate ones.
- Values. Does this person share the non-negotiable commitments of the organisation, for instance to integrity, to customers, to safety? These should be tested rigorously and through references, not inferred from manner.
- Contribution. What will this person add that the organisation currently lacks? The answer should be specific.
- Adaptation. What will this person need to adjust to, and what support will help them do so?
Separated in this way, the conversation becomes more honest. A board can see clearly that a candidate shares its values, brings something new, and will need help in specific areas. That is a very different decision from concluding that someone does not quite fit.
The cost of getting it wrong
Homogeneous leadership teams are not only a matter of fairness. They are a matter of performance. Teams of similar people make faster decisions with greater confidence and, too often, the same mistakes.
The best boards treat difference of experience, of perspective, of temperament as an asset to be managed rather than a risk to be avoided. They still care deeply about fit. They are simply more precise about what they mean by it.
