Addressing The Hidden Biases in Executive Hiring
Debbie Morrison • October 24, 2023

In the corridors of corporate power, the recruitment and selection of executives has traditionally been a carefully curated process. While this careful approach is commendable, many executive teams and boardrooms still lack the rich tapestry of gender, racial, and cultural diversities that their companies profess, potentially jeopardising the richness of diversity and the competitive advantage it brings to leadership teams.


For decades, businesses have hailed the importance of diversity, and the values of equal representation and inclusivity. While overt discrimination might no longer be as rampant, the subtle nemesis of unconscious bias still plays a pivotal role. As we unravel the fabric of executive hiring processes, we discover hidden biases which can significantly impact business growth, performance, and the cultivation of a diverse leadership team.


Unconscious Bias in Executive Hiring: What It Is and Its Implications

At its core, unconscious bias refers to the preferences and prejudices we hold without awareness. It's an inherent human trait, driven by our brain's need to categorise and make quick judgments based on past experiences. 


What’s alarming is that such biases, more often than not, aren’t the result of conscious discrimination. They stem from deep-seated stereotypes or societal norms that we've absorbed over time. When left unchecked and translated to hiring, these biases can have detrimental effects, leading to a homogenous leadership team, which in turn has implications for business growth and performance.


A study by Harvard Business Review highlighted that despite equal qualifications, a candidate's gender, name, or even hobbies can influence hiring decisions. 1 When biases creep into executive hiring, they limit the talent pool, skewing it towards candidates that 'look' or 'feel' right, rather than those who are objectively the best for the job.


From a business perspective, this is concerning. McKinsey's landmark study found that companies with more diverse executive teams are 25% more likely to outperform their peers on profitability. When companies overlook diverse candidates due to hidden biases, they're not just bypassing talent—they're missing out on potential profits and innovative ideas.


How Boards Can Identify and Address Bias

Self-Awareness and Training: The first step to combating unconscious bias is recognizing its existence. Boards must commit to regular training that highlights the different forms of bias, from affinity bias (preferring those similar to ourselves) to confirmation bias (focusing on information that confirms our existing beliefs).


Diverse Hiring Panels: Having a diverse group of individuals involved in the hiring process can help counteract individual biases. The broader the range of perspectives, the less likely a single biassed view will dominate.


Standardised Interview Processes: Instead of free-form interviews, boards can employ a standardised set of questions and evaluation metrics. This reduces the influence of a candidate's background or extraneous details.


Anonymous Application Processes: Some companies have started using processes where names, genders, and other potentially bias-triggering information are removed from applications.


Preventing Bias: Proactive Measures

While identifying biases is crucial, prevention is better than cure. Boards can employ the following strategies:


Diversify the Decision-making Team: Ensuring that the team responsible for executive hires is diverse can help bring in multiple perspectives and reduce the impact of individual biases.


Standardise Interviews: By asking every candidate the same set of questions in the same order, boards can ensure comparability and reduce the impact of biases on the decision-making process.


Use Data-driven Metrics: Instead of relying on gut feelings or intuition, boards can emphasise the use of data-driven metrics to assess a candidate's potential and fit.


The Role of Executive Search Firms in Limiting Bias

While internal measures are essential, sometimes, the inherent biases are so deep-seated that an external perspective becomes invaluable. Executive search firms have the expertise and frameworks to source and evaluate candidates objectively. Partnering with a renowned executive search firm can help in the following ways:


Expertise and Objectivity: These firms bring a level of expertise and objectivity to the hiring process, ensuring that the best candidates are shortlisted based solely on merit.

Wide-ranging Networks: They have extensive networks, allowing for a more diverse pool of candidates than a company might be able to source independently.


Bias-free Technologies: Many top-tier search firms employ advanced AI technologies that help in unbiased candidate sourcing and assessment.


A study from Harvard Business Review underscored the value of search firms, noting that companies that used such firms had leadership teams that were 30% more diverse than those who relied solely on internal recruitment processes.


The Urgency of Addressing Bias

The evidence is irrefutable. Addressing and eliminating bias in executive hiring isn’t just an ethical issue—it's a business concern. By limiting the pool from which leaders are drawn, companies can unintentionally stifle innovation, reduce market understanding, and even decrease financial returns.


For boards, the onus lies in not just recognising and preventing biases but in proactively seeking diverse leadership. Boards and executive teams must be introspective, willing to challenge their beliefs and processes. By doing so, they're not just promoting fairness but ensuring that their companies remain at the forefront of global business. So, the next time you sit in that boardroom, remember: diversity isn’t just a checkbox. It's a competitive advantage. 

Your Culture Report Won’t Show You This

By John Elliott • June 6, 2025
On paper, they were fully resourced. No complaints logged. No formal red flags. Delivery metrics holding steady. But behind closed doors, the signs were there. Delays. Fatigue. Silence in meetings where pushback used to live. And a growing sense that key people were leaning out, emotionally, if not yet physically. When the cracks finally showed, the conclusion was predictable: “We need more people.” But that wasn’t the real problem. The problem was trust. And most organisations never see it until it’s too late. The Hidden Cost of Disengagement In Gallup’s 2023 global workplace report , only 23% of employees worldwide reported being actively engaged at work. A staggering 59% identified as “quiet quitting”, psychologically detached, going through the motions, doing only what their job description demands. Source: Gallup Global Workplace Report 2023 Disengagement is expensive. But it’s also quiet. It doesn’t show up on a balance sheet. It doesn’t send a Slack message. Disengagement isn’t new, just silenced. And in executive teams, it looks different. It looks like polite agreement in strategy meetings. It looks like leaders shielding their teams from unrealistic demands, instead of confronting the system causing them. It looks like performance metrics still being met… while people emotionally check out. The issue isn’t always capability. It’s safety. Psychological, political, and professional. Many senior leaders don’t raise concerns, not because the problem isn’t real, but because they don’t believe they’ll be heard, supported, or protected if they do. And this is where the failure begins. The Leadership Lie No One Talks About We talk a lot about leadership capability. About experience, commercial acumen, execution strength. But we don’t talk enough about context. Every leadership hire walks into a culture they didn’t create. They inherit unwritten rules, quiet alliances, and legacy power structures. If those dynamics are broken, or if trust is fractured at the top, no amount of capability will compensate. According to a 2022 Deloitte mid-market survey, 64% of executives said culture was their top strategic priority. But only 27% said they actually measured it in a meaningful way. We say culture matters. But we rarely structure around it. And so new leaders walk in with pressure to perform, but little real insight into what the role will cost them emotionally, politically, or personally. We Don’t Hire for Trust. And It Shows. In executive search, the conversation is often dominated by pedigree and “fit.” But fit is often a euphemism for sameness. And sameness doesn't build trust, it maintains comfort. We rarely ask: Does this leader know how to build trust vertically and horizontally? Can they operate in a low-trust environment without becoming complicit? Will they challenge inherited silence, or unconsciously uphold it? Instead, we hire for confidence and clarity, traits that often mask what’s broken, rather than reveal it. And when those hires fail? We call it a mismatch. Or we cite the usual: “lack of alignment,” “wasn’t the right time,” “they didn’t land well with the team.” But the truth is often uglier: They were never set up to succeed. And no one told them until it was too late. The Cultural Infrastructure Is Missing One of the most damaging myths in leadership hiring is that great leaders will “make it work.” That if they’re tough enough, experienced enough, skilled enough, they’ll overcome any organisational dysfunction. But high-performance isn’t just personal. It’s systemic. It requires psychological safety. A clear mandate. The backing to make hard decisions. The freedom to speak the truth before it becomes a PR problem. When that infrastructure isn’t there, when the real power dynamics are unspoken, good leaders stop speaking too. And the silence spreads. What Trust Breakdown Really Looks Like Often, the signs of a trust breakdown don’t show up in dramatic ways. They surface subtly in patterns of underperformance that are easy to misread or excuse. You start to notice project delays, but no one flags the root cause. Teams keep things moving, quietly compensating for the bottlenecks rather than surfacing them. Not because they’re careless, but because they’ve learned that early honesty doesn’t always earn support. New leaders hesitate to make bold calls. Not because they lack conviction, but because the last time they did, they were left exposed. Board reports look flawless. Metrics track nicely. But spend five minutes on the floor, and the energy tells a different story. These are not resource issues. They’re relationship issues. And the data backs it. According to Gallup’s 2023 State of the Global Workplace report , just 23% of employees worldwide are actively engaged. Worse, around 60% are “quiet quitting.” That’s not just disengagement. It’s people doing only what’s safe, only what’s required, because trust has quietly eroded. Gallup also found that managers account for 70% of the variance in team engagement, a staggering figure that reinforces just how pivotal leadership trust is. When people don’t feel psychologically safe, they shut down. Not dramatically. Quietly. Invisibly. What’s breaking isn’t the org chart. It’s the ability to speak plainly and be heard. And by the time it’s visible? The damage is already done, and someone calls for a restructure. “Low engagement is estimated to cost the global economy $8.8 trillion, 9% of global GDP.” Gallup, State of the Global Workplace 2023 So What’s the Real Takeaway? If you’re seeing performance issues, before you jump to headcount, ask a different question: Do the leaders in this business feel safe enough to tell the truth? Because if they don’t, the data you’re reading isn’t real. And if they do, but you’re not acting on it, then they’ll stop telling you. Leadership doesn’t fail in obvious ways anymore. It fails in the gap between what people know and what they’re allowed to say. And the price of that silence? Missed opportunity. Reputational damage. Cultural decay. Sometimes, the problem isn’t who you hired. It’s what you’ve made it unsafe to say.

The Energy’s Gone, But Everything Still Looks Fine

By John Elliott • May 27, 2025
Why Culture Decay in FMCG Is a Silent Threat to Performance It doesn’t start with resignations. It starts with something much quieter. A head of operations stops raising small problems in weekly meetings. A sales lead no longer defends a risky new SKU. A team member who used to push ideas now just delivers what they’re asked. Nothing breaks. Nothing explodes. It just... slows. And from the outside, everything still looks fine. The illusion of stability In food and beverage manufacturing, where teams run lean and pressure is constant, performance often becomes the proxy for culture. If products are shipping, if margins are intact, if reviews are clean, the assumption is: we're good. But that assumption is dangerous. According to Gallup's 2023 global workplace report, only 23% of employees worldwide are actively engaged, while a staggering 59% are "quiet quitting ", doing just enough to get by, with no emotional investment. And in Australia? Engagement has declined three years in a row. In a mid-market FMCG business, those numbers rarely show up on dashboards. But they show up in other ways: New ideas stall at the concept phase Team members stop challenging assumptions Execution becomes rigid instead of agile Everyone is "aligned" but no one is energised And by the time the board sees a drop in revenue, the belief that once drove the business is already gone. The emotional cost of cultural silence One thing we don’t talk about enough is what this does to leadership. When energy drains, leaders often become isolated. Not because they want to be, but because the organisation has lost the instinct to challenge, question, or stretch. I’ve seen CEOs second-guessing themselves in rooms full of agreement. Seen GMs miss red flags because nobody wanted to be "the problem". Seen founders mistake quiet delivery for deep buy-in. The emotional toll of unspoken disengagement is real. You’re surrounded by people doing their jobs. But no one’s really in it with you. And eventually, leaders stop stretching too. We train people to disengage without realising it Here’s the contradiction that most organisations won’t admit: We say we want initiative, but we reward obedience. The safest people get promoted The optimists get extra work The truth-tellers get labelled difficult So people learn to conserve energy. They learn not to challenge ideas that won’t land. They learn not to flag risks that won’t be heard. And over time, they stop showing up with their full selves. This isn't resistance. It's protection. And it becomes the default when innovation is punished, risk isn't buffered, and "alignment" becomes code for silence. Boards rarely see it in time Boards don’t ask about belief. They ask about performance. But belief is what drives performance. When culture begins to fade, it doesn't look like chaos. It looks like calm. It looks like compliance. But underneath, the organisation is hollowing out. By the time a board notices the energy is gone, it’s often because the financials have turned, and by then, the people who could've helped reverse the trend have already left. In a 2022 Deloitte study on mid-market leadership, 64% of executives said culture was their top priority, yet only 27% said they measured it with any rigour . If you don’t track it, you won’t protect it. And if you don’t protect it, don’t be surprised when it disappears. The real risk: you might not get it back Here’s what no one likes to admit: Not all cultures recover. You can try rebrands. You can run engagement campaigns. You can roll out leadership frameworks and off-sites and feedback platforms. But if belief has been neglected for too long, the quiet ones you depended on, the culture carriers, the stretchers, the informal leaders, they’re already checked out. Some have left. Some are still there physically but not emotionally. And some have started coaching others to play it safe. Once that happens, you're not rebuilding. You're replacing. So what do you do? Don’t listen for noise. Listen for absence. Absence of challenge. Absence of stretch. Absence of belief. Ask yourself: When was the last time someone in the business pushed back? Not rudely, but bravely? When did someone offer an idea that made others uncomfortable? When did a leader admit they were unsure and ask for help? Those are your indicators. Because healthy culture isn’t silent. It’s alive. It vibrates with tension, disagreement, contribution and care. If everything looks fine, but no one’s really leaning in? That’s your problem. And by the time it shows up in the numbers,t might already be too late.