When we say a candidate is a good fit, what do we actually mean?
It is a question I ask often in my work in executive search, and one I think matters more than ever. Diversity, equity and inclusion have become contentious topics across North America. Some organizations are reconsidering their commitments, others are changing their language, and many are questioning whether their efforts have made a difference.
Amid this debate, we risk overlooking something fundamental. The value of diversity has never simply been about who organizations hire. It is about whether they are genuinely prepared to recognize and benefit from the different experiences and ways of thinking people bring.
That takes more than good intentions or well-written policies. It takes inclusive leadership and, above all, the willingness to question our own judgments.
The comfort of familiarity
One of the more challenging dynamics I encounter is affinity bias: our natural tendency to gravitate towards people who share our backgrounds, experiences or ways of thinking.
There is real comfort in hiring someone we know, someone we have worked with before, or someone whose leadership style feels familiar. That familiarity creates confidence, and sometimes that confidence is entirely justified.
Familiarity is not the same as suitability. The challenge is distinguishing confidence grounded in evidence from confidence grounded in familiarity.
Fairness matters deeply to me, which is why I sometimes find these situations difficult to navigate. My responsibility is to help clients make well-informed leadership decisions while ensuring every candidate receives a fair, objective and rigorous assessment. Occasionally that means pointing out inconsistencies in how candidates are being assessed, or gently asking decision-makers why they feel more comfortable with one candidate than another.
It is not always an easy conversation, but it is an important one.
Cultural fit or cultural contribution?
Cultural fit matters. Organizations understandably want leaders who share their values, understand their operating environment and can build effective relationships.
Fit can also become subjective. Does a candidate demonstrate the values and behaviours needed to succeed, or do they simply remind us of leaders we have worked with before? There is an important difference.
Organizations that consistently hire people who think, communicate and lead in familiar ways can inadvertently limit the perspectives available to them. So it is worth asking not only whether candidates fit the existing culture, but what they might contribute to its evolution.
Sometimes the leader who brings the greatest value is not the one who feels most familiar, but the one who introduces new perspectives and helps the organization grow. That said, being different does not automatically make someone a better leader. The same standards of capability, experience and judgment must apply to everyone.
Diversity and merit are not opposites
A common concern in the DEI debate is whether these efforts compromise merit. In executive search, fairness and merit should be inseparable. Our job is to identify the strongest candidate based on the capabilities, experience, leadership qualities and values the role requires.
In practice, that means a few things, such as:
- Agreeing on assessment criteria before reviewing candidates, so the criteria shape the decision rather than the other way around.
- Using structured interviews and appropriate assessment tools, so every candidate is measured against the same standard.
- Having panel members record their ratings independently before discussion, so the first or most senior voice does not set the tone.
- Asking “what evidence supports that?” whenever a judgment about fit, potential or presence comes up.
It also means taking time to understand why someone may have followed a different career path. Personal circumstances, opportunities and experiences shape careers in very different ways. A less conventional path does not necessarily reflect a lack of capability or potential.
Unconscious bias can influence any of us, however strongly we believe in fairness. What matters is not whether we have biases, but whether we recognize them and are willing to challenge them. The purpose of a rigorous process is not to eliminate human judgment, but to ensure that judgment is informed, considered and open to challenge.
We set out how this works across a full search in what boards should expect from a senior leadership search.
Being in the room is not the same as being heard
Diversity can strengthen decision-making by encouraging teams to test assumptions, consider alternatives and approach complex problems from different angles. But these benefits are not automatic.
A leadership team may include people with very different backgrounds and still make decisions that reflect only a few dominant voices. Being invited into the room is not the same as being heard. Being heard is not the same as having the opportunity to influence the outcome.
This is where inclusive leadership becomes essential. Inclusive leaders create environments where people feel comfortable contributing, asking questions and respectfully disagreeing. They recognize that people communicate differently and make sure important perspectives are not overlooked.
Inclusion does not mean consensus or giving every opinion equal weight. Leaders must still exercise judgment and make difficult decisions. The difference is that those decisions are made after genuinely considering relevant perspectives, including those that run against the prevailing view.
The real test is how we respond to challenge
It is relatively easy to value diversity when people agree with us. The real test comes when someone questions our thinking or approaches a problem differently. Do we become curious or defensive? Do we seek to understand, or look for reasons to dismiss?
Inclusive leadership requires the courage to question established thinking and the humility to accept that our own perspective may be incomplete. It also means paying attention to whose voices carry influence, whose ideas are valued, and who receives opportunities to develop and advance. The same biases that affect hiring can quietly shape leadership development and succession planning.
Ultimately, inclusive leadership is not measured by the diversity of a workforce or the commitments in a policy. It is reflected in the decisions leaders make and the behaviours they model. Are we willing to rethink what a successful leader looks like? Can we tell genuine capability from familiarity? Do we welcome the perspectives that challenge us most?
These are not always comfortable questions, and there are rarely simple answers. In my own work, I continue to learn that good judgment and fairness go hand in hand, and that the assumptions most worth examining are often my own.
Diversity creates the opportunity for different perspectives to emerge. Inclusive leadership determines whether those perspectives make a difference.
At WMC, our commitment is to bring this thinking to every search, assessment and coaching engagement, helping organizations make leadership decisions grounded in evidence, fairness and genuine openness to what each candidate brings.
