In executive hiring, few words are used as often and understood as vaguely as fit. It signals alignment, confidence and reduced uncertainty. Yet in practice, 'fit' often reflects familiarity more than suitability, and this is where leadership appointments go wrong. The issue is not the concept itself, but the way it is typically defined.
Why 'fit' becomes a shortcut in executive hiring
When boards or owners say they want a candidate who ‘fits’, they often mean someone who resembles leadership profiles that have worked before. It is an understandable instinct. Research in behavioural science shows that the human brain is wired to favour the familiar when information is complex or uncertain (Kahneman, 2011).
But leadership effectiveness does not depend on familiarity. It depends on context.
Even highly competent leaders perform differently across environments because conditions — ownership expectations, organisational maturity, culture, pace and pressure — shape what is required. When ‘fit’ is left undefined, it becomes a source of hidden risk in leadership decisions, often reinforcing familiarity rather than suitability.
A broader view of leadership suitability
The relevant question is not whether a leader fits the current culture, but whether their judgment and behaviour reflect the leadership fit required by the conditions the organisation must navigate next.
A more accurate approach is to anchor 'fit' in four dimensions:
- Strategic context: What phase is the organisation in, and what must change?
- Conditions for leadership: What constraints, expectations and pressures will shape performance?
- Role clarity: What is the real work the leader must deliver, not just the job title?
- Behavioural requirements: Which leadership behaviours create traction here, not in general?
This moves the conversation from similarity to suitability, and from preference to evidence.
