Assessments in Executive Hiring: A Catalyst for Excellence and Inclusivity
Debbie Morrison • November 5, 2023

The landscape of executive hiring is undergoing a significant shift. No longer do traditional methods of evaluating candidates based purely on past experience, credentials, gut feelings or networking prowess solely determine the suitability of an executive. The modern-day executive's role is complex, multifaceted, and constantly evolving. In an era when companies are striving to break past traditional norms, the role of objective assessments in executive hiring has become pivotal. Why? Let's delve deep.


A Shift Beyond Technical Prowess

For years, hiring for executive roles focused on technical acumen, years of experience, and proven track records. While these are undeniably crucial, one cannot ignore the underlying facts that drive an executive's actions: their personality traits, cultural fit, and alignment with a company's core values.


While a resume can tell you about past roles and achievements, psychometric assessments, as highlighted in the context provided, give insights into adaptability, motivations, and potential cultural synergies or clashes. They go beyond what candidates have done to predict what they might do in unfamiliar terrains or challenging scenarios.


The case for assessments goes beyond measuring technical skills.
A study by Harvard Business Review found that 80% of employee turnover can be attributed to bad hiring decisions, many of which are the result of cultural misalignment. Assessments help identify these potential pitfalls early in the process.


The Nuances of Executive Assessments

Beyond the general psychometric tests, executive assessments delve deep into personality profiling and cultural fit. Instruments such as the DiSC, 16 PF, FIBRO-B, and Myers Briggs Type Indicator have revolutionised the way we view potential hires. These aren’t the generic personality tests that were popular in past decades. They are intricate tools that spotlight behavioural tendencies, leadership styles, decision-making processes, and more.


There's a broad spectrum of tools available for executive assessments, ranging from cognitive ability tests to in-depth personality profiling.

Other popular assessments include:

  • Hogan Assessments: These offer insights into a person's character, reputation, and business-related motives.
  • Gallup StrengthsFinder: Concentrates on an individual's top talents, offering organisations a deep dive into what makes their executives 'tick'.


However, the magic happens when these theoretical measurements from assessments are paired with live interviews by experts who can interpret and provide context to the data. This amalgamation of data-driven insights and human intuition offers a holistic view of the candidate, enabling better decisions regarding cultural alignment, onboarding strategies, and potential development areas.


Guiding the Boardroom

Boards play a crucial role in the hiring process. Their involvement ensures that executive hires align with the company's larger vision and mission. But when should they consider including executive assessments in the process?


Simply put, always. Whether you’re hiring for an existing position or a new role such as Chief Sustainability Officer or Chief Digital Transformation Officer, the need for comprehensive insights remains consistent. Objective assessments ensure that even if the role didn't exist a decade ago, the board has the tools to predict how a candidate will shape and grow with the role.


Boards and Executive Assessments: The Perfect Collaboration

For boards, the responsibility lies in identifying the right type of executive assessment. Start by getting clear on the company's core values and the specific attributes that would complement those values. 


The ideal time for boards to think about including executive assessments? The moment succession planning or expansion comes into play. Being proactive, rather than reactive, ensures that the hiring process remains thorough, consistent, and poised to identify the best candidates for the role.


The Double-Edged Sword

Now, there's no denying the depth that executive assessments add to the hiring process. But, a pressing question arises: Can these assessments deter potential talent? The answer is, unfortunately, yes. Some high-calibre candidates might view assessments as impersonal or redundant, especially if they're already well-established in their fields.


To counteract this, boards need to communicate the value and rationale behind these assessments clearly. Transparency is key. If a candidate understands that the intent is to ensure a mutual fit – benefiting both the employee and the employer – they're more likely to participate willingly. Refusal might also indicate a candidate’s resistance to adaptability or new methodologies – vital insights for the board.


It speaks volumes about both the employer and the candidate. For employers, it showcases a commitment to not just hiring the right skill set, but also the right mindset. For candidates, the willingness to undergo such assessments shows adaptability, openness, and a commitment to aligning with a company's ethos.


The Role of Executive Search Firms

Executive search firms can be invaluable allies in this journey. Acting as intermediaries, their role goes beyond headhunting; they educate potential hires about the company's vision and why assessments are an integral part of the hiring process. They can help communicate the importance and benefits of these assessments to candidates, ensuring understanding and willingness. Their expertise ensures that assessments are presented not as hurdles, but as tools for mutual discovery. Moreover, these firms can assist in customising assessment strategies for specific roles, industries, or company cultures, ensuring relevance and precision.



They can also provide feedback, helping candidates understand areas of strength and potential growth, turning a hiring exercise into a developmental opportunity. 




Recent Data That Speaks Volumes


Let's turn our attention to some compelling numbers:

  • A recent study by the Harvard Business Review found that companies that employed rigorous, objective methods for selecting executives enjoyed a staggering 213% increase in market capitalization over a two-year period post-hire, compared to their counterparts. This isn’t mere coincidence; it’s testament to the power of informed, data-driven hiring practices.
  • According to a McKinsey report, companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 21% more likely to outperform on profitability. But how does one ensure genuine diversity? Through unbiased, objective assessments.
  • A study from SHRM reveals that the average cost of a bad hiring decision can equal 30% of the individual’s first-year potential earnings. With executive salaries being sizable, the financial implications of a hiring misjudgment can be significant. Assessments can reduce this risk considerably.


The Way Forward

In an age of information, relying purely on intuition or past accolades is not just risky; it’s a missed opportunity. 


Objective assessments in executive hiring are more than just a trend; they're a reflection of the evolving corporate ecosystem. When used judiciously and transparently, they can unlock unparalleled insights, ensuring that your next executive hire is not just good, but truly great..By focusing on personality profiling and cultural fit, companies not only ensure they're bringing in the right skills but also the right perspectives, values, and visions. 


As the business landscape evolves, so too should our hiring methodologies. Embrace assessments, and let data guide the way to better, more inclusive hiring decisions.

By John Elliott June 26, 2025
You don’t hear about it on the nightly news. There’s no breaking story. No panic. No protests. Just rows of vegetables being pulled out of the ground with no plan to replant. Just farmers who no longer believe there’s a future for them here. Just quiet decisions — to sell, to walk away, to stop. And if you ask around the industry, they’ll tell you the same thing: It’s not just one bad season. It’s a slow death by a thousand margins. 1 in 3 growers are preparing to leaveIn September 2024, AUSVEG released a national sentiment report with a statistic that should have set off alarms in every capital city: 34% of Australian vegetable growers were considering exiting the industry in the next 12 months. Another one-third said they’d leave if offered a fair price for their farm. Source: AUSVEG Industry Sentiment Report 2024 (PDF) These aren’t abstract hypotheticals. These are real decisions, already in motion. For many, it’s not about profitability anymore, it’s about survival. This isn’t burnout. It’s entrapment. Behind the numbers are people whose entire identity is tied to a profession that no longer feeds them. Many are asset-rich but cash-poor. They own the land. But the land owns them back. Selling means walking away from decades of history. Staying means bleeding capital, month by month, in a system where working harder delivers less. Every year, input costs rise, fuel, fertiliser, compliance. But the farmgate price doesn’t move. Or worse, it drops. Retail World Magazine reports that even though national vegetable production increased 3% in 2023–24, the total farmgate value fell by $140 million. Growers produced more and earned less. That’s not a market. That’s a trap. What no one wants to say aloud The truth is this: many growers are only staying because they can’t leave. If you’re deep in debt, if your farm is tied to multi-generational ownership, if you’ve invested everything in equipment, infrastructure, or land access, walking away isn’t easy. It’s a last resort. So instead, you stay. You cut your hours. Delay maintenance. Avoid upgrades. Cancel the next round of planting. You wait for something to shift, interest rates, weather, prices and you pretend that waiting is strategy. According to the latest fruitnet.com survey, over 50% of vegetable growers say they’re financially worse off than a year ago. And nearly 40% expect conditions to deteriorate further. This isn’t about optimism or resilience. It’s about dignity and the quiet erosion of it. Supermarkets won’t save them, and they never planned to In the current model, supermarket pricing doesn’t reflect real-world farm economics. Retailers demand year-round consistency, aesthetic perfection, and lower prices. They don’t absorb rising input costs, they externalise them. They offer promotions funded not by their marketing budgets, but by the growers’ margins. Farmers take the risk. Retailers take the profit. And because the power imbalance is so deeply entrenched, there’s no real negotiation, just quiet coercion dressed up as "category planning." Let’s talk about what’s actually broken This isn’t just a market failure. It’s a policy failure. Australia’s horticulture system has been built on: Decades of deregulated wholesale markets Lack of collective bargaining power for growers Retailer consolidation that has created a virtual duopoly Export-focused incentives that bypass smaller domestic producers There’s no meaningful floor price for key produce lines. No national enforcement of fair dealing. No public database that links supermarket shelf price to farmgate return. Which means growers, like James, can be driven into loss-making supply contracts without ever seeing the true economics of their product downstream. But the real silence? It’s from consumers. Here’s what no one wants to admit: We say we care about “buying local.” We say we value the farmer’s role. We share those viral posts about strawberries going unsold or milk prices being unfair. And then we complain about a $4 lettuce. We opt for the cheapest bag of carrots. We walk past the "imperfect" produce bin. We frown at the cost of organic and click “Add to Cart” on whatever’s half price. We’re not just bystanders. We’re part of the equation. What happens when the growers go? At first, very little. Supermarkets will find substitutes. Importers will fill gaps. Large agribusinesses will expand into spaces vacated by smaller players. Prices will stay low, until they don’t. But over time, we’ll notice: Produce that travels further and lasts less. Fewer independent growers at farmer’s markets. Entire regions losing their growing identity. National food security becoming a campaign promise instead of a reality. And when the climate throws something serious at us, drought, flood, global supply shock, we’ll realise how little resilience we’ve preserved. So what do we do? We start by telling the truth. Australia is not food secure. Not if 1 in 3 growers are planning to exit. The market isn’t working. Not when prices rise at the shelf and fall at the farmgate. The solution isn’t scale. It’s fairness, visibility, and rebalancing power. That means: Mandating cost-reflective contracts between retailers and suppliers Enabling collective bargaining rights for growers Building transparent data systems linking production costs to consumer prices Introducing transition finance for smaller producers navigating reform and climate pressure And holding supermarkets publicly accountable for margin extraction But more than anything, it means recognising what we’re losing, before it's gone. Final word If you ate a vegetable today, it likely came from someone who’s considered giving up in the past year. Not because they don’t care. But because caring doesn’t pay. This isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about sovereignty, over what we eat, how we grow it, and who gets to stay in the system.  Because the next time you see rows of green stretching to the horizon, you might want to ask: How many of these fields are already planning their last harvest?
By John Elliott June 20, 2025
If you're leading an FMCG or food manufacturing business right now, you're probably still talking about growth. Your board might be chasing headcount approvals. Your marketing team’s pitching a new brand campaign. Your category team’s assuming spend will bounce. But your customer? They’ve already moved on. Quietly. Like they always do. The illusion of resilience FMCG has always felt protected, “essential” by nature. People still eat, wash, shop. It’s easy to assume downturns pass around us, not through us. But this isn’t 2020. Recessions in 2025 won’t look like lockdowns. They’ll look like volume drops that no promo can fix. Shrinking margins on products that no longer carry their premium. Quiet shelf deletions you weren’t warned about. The data’s already there. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, consumer spending is slowing in real terms , even as inflation eases. The Reserve Bank confirmed in May: household consumption remains subdued amid weak real income growth . And over 80% of Australians have cut back on discretionary food spending , according to Finder. They’re still shopping, just not like they used to. A managing director at a national food manufacturer told me recently: “We won a new product listing in April. By July, it was marked for deletion. The velocity wasn’t there, but neither was the shopper. We’d forecasted like 2022 never ended. Rookie mistake.” That one stuck with me. Because I’ve heard it before, just in different words.