AI is changing executive search. There is no question about it.
We can identify more potential candidates, gather information faster, and explore talent pools that might have taken considerably more time to uncover just a few years ago.
I see tremendous value in that.
But after decades of working with executives and organizations, I keep coming back to one question:
Are we getting better at identifying the right leaders, or are we simply getting faster at finding people who look qualified?
Because those are two very different things.
A Résumé Is Not a Leader
One of the things I've learned throughout my career is that an impressive résumé doesn't necessarily tell you whether someone will be an effective leader.
A résumé can tell me where someone has worked, the positions they've held, and the results they've achieved.
What it often cannot tell me is how those results happened.
Did this executive bring people along or leave a trail of broken relationships? How did they make decisions when the information was incomplete? What happened when they disagreed with the CEO? Did they build a stronger leadership team, or did the organization succeed in spite of how they led?
These are the questions that interest me.
And they become even more important when we're talking about executive leadership.
At that level, organizations aren't simply hiring someone to perform a function. They're entrusting someone with decisions that will influence the business, its people, and its future.
The most qualified person on paper isn't always the right person for the organization.
That's where executive search requires more than information.
It requires understanding.
Where AI Is Making a Difference
I don't believe we should resist technology simply because it changes how we've always done things.
AI has some exciting applications in executive search.
It can help us identify candidates in adjacent industries who might otherwise be overlooked. It can make market research more efficient, organize complex information, and help us apply consistent criteria throughout parts of the search process.
It can also make some of the administrative work easier, giving search professionals more time to focus on the conversations and relationships that matter.
Those are meaningful improvements.
And when AI is thoughtfully designed and appropriately governed, it may help challenge certain human assumptions.
But we need to be careful here.
Technology is not automatically objective. AI systems can reflect biases in their underlying data, the criteria used to evaluate candidates, or the decisions made by the people operating them.
The answer isn't to assume human judgment is always better, either. People have biases. We make assumptions. We can be overly impressed by credentials, charisma, or a familiar career path.
The opportunity is to use technology to strengthen our judgment, not to stop exercising it.
What Are We Really Trying to Assess?
When a company hires an executive, it is making a decision about much more than someone's previous experience.
We're trying to understand how that person will lead in a particular environment, with a particular team, at a particular moment in the organization's life.
Consider two executives with similar backgrounds.
Both have led large teams. Both have delivered strong financial results. Both have impressive credentials.
But one may thrive in a business that needs operational discipline and stability, while the other may be particularly effective in a company undergoing significant transformation.
One may be skilled at building consensus. The other may be more comfortable making difficult decisions quickly.
Neither is necessarily the better leader.
The question is which leader is better equipped for what the organization needs next.
That requires us to understand the business as deeply as we understand the candidate.
What is the company trying to accomplish? What challenges are coming? What kind of leadership team already exists? What capabilities are missing? What behaviors will strengthen the culture, and which might create unnecessary friction?
I prefer to think about culture contribution and strategic alignment, rather than simply whether someone fits an existing mold.
Great leadership hires should strengthen an organization, not just resemble the people already sitting around the table.
Why I Believe in Multiple Assessments
I'm a fan of assessments. In fact, I believe there is real value in looking at executive candidates through multiple lenses.
But I don't believe any single assessment should determine whether someone gets hired.
Personality and leadership-style assessments can help us understand how someone approaches relationships, communication, motivation, and pressure.
Cognitive and problem-solving assessments can provide information about reasoning and how someone approaches complexity.
Structured behavioral interviews allow us to explore actual decisions. Not just what someone accomplished, but how they thought through the situation, what trade-offs they considered, and what they learned.
Business cases and simulations can reveal how a candidate approaches a realistic challenge.
And thoughtful references can help us understand how that person's leadership has been experienced by others.
Each provides a different piece of information.
The value comes from considering those pieces together, using methods that are appropriate for the role and supported by sound evidence.
Sometimes the evidence reinforces what we initially believed. Sometimes it raises questions we need to explore further.
That's a good thing.
Assessments should inform judgment, not replace it.
The same is true of AI.
If a tool tells us a candidate is an excellent match, I want to understand why. What information supports that conclusion? What is missing? What assumptions were built into the evaluation?
And most importantly, what do we still need to learn about the person?
The Human Side of Executive Search
There is another part of this conversation that I don't want us to overlook.
Executive search is built on relationships.
It's about understanding what an organization needs, earning the confidence of the people making the decision, and getting to know the executives who may be entrusted with leading it.
Some of the most revealing conversations aren't about accomplishments at all.
They're about a difficult decision someone wishes they'd handled differently.
A team they struggled to lead.
A moment when they had to change their mind.
Or a time when doing the right thing came at a personal or professional cost.
Those conversations help us understand how someone thinks, what matters to them, and how they might respond when the next difficult situation arrives.
Of course, no interview or assessment can perfectly predict future leadership performance. Experienced search consultants can get things wrong, too.
That's why good judgment requires curiosity, evidence, humility, and a willingness to keep asking questions.
And that's also why I believe the relationship between technology and human expertise matters so much.
We should welcome tools that help us see more clearly.
We should be equally committed to recognizing what those tools cannot establish on their own.
The Question Leaders Should Be Asking
If you're a CEO, board member, or executive responsible for an important leadership hire, I would encourage you to look beyond how quickly your search partner can produce a list of qualified candidates.
Ask how they're evaluating those candidates.
How do they determine what success in the role will actually require?
How do they assess judgment, influence, and leadership under pressure?
What evidence supports their recommendations?
How do they challenge assumptions, including their own?
And how are they using AI responsibly while protecting the quality of the decision?
Those questions tell you a great deal about the search process.
Because the goal isn't simply to fill an executive position.
It's to help an organization make a decision it can stand behind.
Better Technology. Better Questions. Better Decisions.
I believe AI will continue to make executive search faster, broader, and more informed.
I'm excited about that.
But I don't want us to confuse having more information with having a better understanding of people.
The future of executive search shouldn't be a choice between technology and human expertise. The best approach brings them together.
Let AI help us widen our perspective, discover possibilities, and organize evidence.
Then bring the experience, relationships, disciplined assessment, and human judgment necessary to make sense of what we've found.
Because ultimately, the questions that matter most are still deeply human.
Can this person lead?
Will they make sound decisions when it matters?
Will they earn the trust of the people around them?
And will they help this organization become what it needs to become?
AI can help us find more people. Our responsibility is to understand who we're putting in a position to lead.
Up Next Month:
The Gratitude We Leave Behind
What if the greatest expression of gratitude isn't what we say, but what we give back?
This November, I'm exploring how gratitude becomes something far more powerful when we turn it into action. How do we honor the people who have invested in us? And how can we use what we've been given to create opportunities for others?
Because gratitude that stays in our hearts changes us. Gratitude that becomes generosity changes others.
Join me next month as we explore what it means to leave gratitude behind in the lives of others.