The “Mutual Lying Session”
Why Your Executive Interviews Might Be Falling Short
Let's be candid about executive interviews: for many organizations, they are, quite frankly, "mutual lying sessions." The frustration for both parties is that they walk away with a "good feeling" that frequently has almost no correlation with future job performance. The candidate, highly coached and adept at impression management, is curating their credentials and carefully concealing their weaknesses. Simultaneously, the hiring manager is enthusiastically selling the company's "amazing culture" and painting a rosy picture, while subtly downplaying the internal fires, the unspoken challenges, and the everyday realities of the role.
This isn't about malicious intent; it's about human nature and the inherent flaws in unstructured interview processes. Both sides are motivated to present their best possible face, leading to a superficial exchange that prioritizes charm over truth, and optimism over predictive insight.
The Problem: Beyond the "Gut Feeling"
The pain point for organizations is making a multi-million-dollar decision based on a "gut feeling" derived from an interaction designed to obscure reality rather than reveal it. This reliance on subjective impressions leads to costly mis-hires and prolonged vacancies.
Here’s why the "gut feeling" interview often fails at the executive level:
The Halo Effect: Charisma vs. Competence. A charismatic, articulate candidate is often perceived as highly competent, even if their actual skills, problem-solving abilities, or cultural fit are lacking. The glow of a positive first impression can blind interviewers to deeper inconsistencies, leading to hires based on personality rather than proven capability.
Impression Management: The Art of the "Right Answer." Executives are, by definition, high-level communicators and masterful presenters. They know exactly how to give the "right" answer to challenging questions, how to spin past failures into learning opportunities, and how to align their responses with the perceived desires of the interviewer. This sophisticated impression management makes it incredibly difficult to discern genuine strengths and weaknesses in an unstructured setting.
Low Predictive Validity: The Science is Clear. Decades of industrial-organizational psychology research consistently show that unstructured interviews are among the weakest predictors of future job success. They are prone to bias, inconsistent questioning, and over-reliance on subjective judgment. While interviews are necessary for cultural alignment, they are insufficient as the primary vetting tool for executive-level roles.
The Lesson: Hiring a Leader, Not a Performer
The ultimate lesson is that if you rely solely on the interview, you aren't hiring a leader—you’re hiring a performer. You're selecting someone based on their ability to shine in a highly artificial, controlled environment, rather than their proven capacity to navigate real-world complexities and drive tangible results.
A truly effective executive vetting process moves beyond the "mutual lying session" by incorporating objective, data-driven assessments. This includes:
Behavioral Interviews: Structured questions focused on past actions and specific situations, revealing how they actually behaved, not just what they say they would do.
Psychometric Assessments: Tools that objectively measure cognitive abilities, personality traits, and leadership styles.
Deep Reference Checks: As discussed previously, moving beyond the candidate's fan club to uncover a 360-degree view.
At Morgan Taylor Executive Search, we understand the limitations of traditional interviews. Our transparent recruiting process prioritizes rigorous, multi-faceted vetting that combines qualitative insights with quantitative data. We aim to pierce through the "performance" to reveal the true leader, ensuring your hiring decisions are based on objective evidence, not just a fleeting "gut feeling."
