01
The obvious question
The question usually arrives after the fact, or as a warning: if this does not work, what will it cost us? Attention goes to severance, a second search fee and a disrupted year.
02
The deeper decision
A wrong appointment is rarely a single event. It unfolds over time: early doubts explained away, a board reluctant to admit misjudgement, a leadership team adapting to a style that does not fit, and strategic momentum quietly lost.
The deeper question is therefore not ‘what will an exit cost?’ but ‘how long would it take us to recognise a mistake, and what would we have lost by then?’ That shifts attention from the price of failure to the quality of the evidence before the decision.
03
What changes the answer
- Speed of recognition
- Boards that review the mandate explicitly notice drift sooner than boards that wait for results.
- What ‘wrong’ means
- A capable person in the wrong mandate fails differently from a person who was simply not capable.
- The team around them
- A strong team can absorb a mismatch for a while; a fragile one cannot.
- Ownership patience
- Some owners give eighteen months, some give six. Neither is wrong, but it changes the calculation.
04
What it really costs
Direct cost
Severance, a second search and assessment, interim leadership, legal and advisory support.
Decision cost
Board and shareholder time spent recognising, debating and resolving the problem — often more than the original appointment consumed.
Failure cost
Strategy stalled or reversed, key people lost, customers and partners unsettled, and an organisation that becomes cautious about the next leader before they arrive.
Value and risk
Against this sits the cost of prevention: a clearer mandate, deeper evidence and an honest conversation about risk before the decision rather than after it.
What determines external cost?
- How long the mismatch runs before it is acted on
- Seniority and visibility of the role
- Contractual terms
- Whether interim leadership is needed
- Stakeholder sensitivity — lenders, investors, family shareholders
Market pricing depends on scope and context, so no figures are given here. Sourced reference points may be added when they can be verified.
05
What most people underestimate
- Talent leakageThe people who leave first are usually those with the most options.
- The defensive boardHaving chosen the person, boards often protect the decision longer than they would protect the business.
- Strategy debtInitiatives started under the wrong leader often have to be unwound before anything new can begin.
- The next appointmentAfter a failure, the next choice tends to over-correct — choosing the opposite rather than the right.
06
What evidence actually matters
What tends to persuade
- Unanimous enthusiasm after final interviews
- References chosen by the candidate
- A track record in a comparable organisation
What tends to predict
- Whether the board agreed the mandate before meeting candidates
- Evidence of how the person behaves when context changes
- Assumptions written down explicitly — so they can be tested later
- A planned review point after the first months
What persuades is not irrelevant. It simply tends to weigh more in the room than it deserves.
07
What to ask next
- 1Which assumptions about this person are we making without evidence?
- 2What early signals would tell us the appointment is not working?
- 3Who on the board will raise doubts — and will they be heard?
- 4Have we discussed what we would do if we turned out to be wrong?