Executive Talent Assessment and Selection: A Literature Review

Stephen J. Zaccaro
George Mason University
October 20, 2008

2
Executive Talent Assessment and Selection: A Literature Review

Overview of Contents
Introduction: The Need for Better Executive Talent Acquisition
Definition of Executive Position Requirements
Delineation of Requisite Executive Attributes
Recruitment of Position Candidates
Assessment and Evaluation of Executive Candidates
Making Executive Selection Decisions
Conclusion: Implications and Recommendations

This paper describes research on the steps and procedures of executive talent acquisition.
I will review and summarize studies in the scholarly literature as well as research reports and
assessment tools and products currently used by a range of companies that specialize in
executive selection. I will specifically examine five components of executive talent acquisition:
defining executive position requirements, delineating desired candidate attributes, recruiting
executive candidates, assessing and evaluating candidates, and deciding on the final choice for
an executive position. The failure rate for top executives is inordinately high the cause resides
primarily in the failure of companies do follow appropriate and best practices for each of these
components. For example, good selection practices require that all contributors to the selection
decision have a shared understanding of what the new executive will be required to do once in
position. Yet, many executive selection committees do not chose do have formal discussions

3
around these requirements. Or, if they do, they focus on how former position holders acted, and
define future position requirements in the same way, or opposite to those in the past. There is
rarely attention paid to how the position might change as the organization changes. As another
example, executive selection companies often use ways of gathering information about
candidates that are among the least effective in terms of predicting who might best perform in the
executive role. Thus, the executive talent acquisition process, as practiced by many companies,
is likely to be seriously flawed in at least one if not more of the aforementioned components. In
this paper, I summarize what we know about each of these components, including some
recommendations for future research and practice.
Introduction: The Need for Better Executive Talent Acquisition
Why place a strong (and costly, if done correctly) emphasis on executive talent
management: Because executive leaders represent vital contributors to organizational success.
While people believe this observation intuitively, researchers using utility analyses have
confirmed such contributions in empirical terms. For example, Weiner and Mahoney (1981)
reported that executive succession in 193 organizations over a 19 year period accounted for
approximately 44% and 47% in profit margins and stock process, respectively. Barrick, Day,
Lord, and Alexander (1991) calculated the financial impact of executive leadership in 132
organizations over a 15-year period; they found that organizations with high performing
executives accrued an average of $25 million in value during the typical tenure of such
executives. More recently, Hogan and Kaiser (2005) citing research by Joyce, Nohria, and
Roberson (2003) noted that CEOs account for about 14% of the variance in firm performance
[while] industry sector accounts for 19% of that variance). Collins (2001) in his study of 11
companies who exhibited 15 years of below average growth (for their business sector) followed

4
by 15 years of above average growth found that the first step in the process of going from good
to great was the hiring of the right top executives.
So, in the words of Hambrick & Mason (1994, p. 194), top executives matter. Yet
despite this importance, the incidence of CEO and executive failures suggest that organizations
are not tending closely enough to the selection of effective executives. Failure rates among
senior executives have persisted at high levels. DeVries (1993) noted that achieving a 50%
success rate in hiring for these positionsmay be as good as it gets (p. 3). Indeed, regarding
CEOs, failure rates appear to be have been increasing exponentially over the last 10 years.
Bennis and OToole (2000), describing this phenomenon as CEO churning, summarized from
business research that CEOs appointed after 1985 [were] three times more likely to be fired
than CEOs who were appointed before that date (p. 171). Booz, Allen and Hamilton, a company
that has been documenting trends in CEO departures among 2,500 of the largest public
companies in the world since 1995, has noted that the rate of CEO turnovers from all causes
(forced dismissals, retirement, mergers) increased significantly between 1995 and 2002, from 6%
to about 10-11% (Lucier, Schuyt, & Spiegel, 2003). After 2003, this rate jumped to about 14
-15%, with forced dismissals of CEOs jumped from about 1% in the 1990s to 4.2% in 2007
(Karlsson, Nelison, & Webster, 2008). Executives at all top levels of organizations are also
failing earlier after being promoted, with reported failure rates in the first year and half in
position ranging from 16-40% (Crowley, 2004; Liberman, 2001; Lucier, et al., 2003).
Given the utility of successful executives for organizational effectiveness, such failure
rates can be disastrous; accordingly, their reduction needs to be a top priority for todays
organization. Indeed, recent surveys have noted increased concern by CEOs and boards of
directors on succession planning. One survey of public-company CEOs indicated that they

5
ranked CEO succession as second in importance to their boards of directors, behind overall
corporate performance, but ahead of strategic planning and corporate governance (Biggs, 2004).
A survey of top executives by the Society of Human Research Management found that 75% of
them cited succession planning as their most significant challenge for the future, while over two
thirds cited recruiting, selecting and retaining talented employees as among the next most
important challenges (Society of Human Research Management, 2007).
Progress in this area needs to begin with a better understanding of those factors that
account for CEO selection failures. Researchers and business scholars have offered several
potential reasons for these failures. One explanation pertains to the often procrastinating
tendencies of current executives when thinking about future CEO succession. In the soaring
temporal exigencies that characterize the typical operating environment for todays
organizations, few executives and boards of directors put consideration of their future
replacements high among their immediate priorities (Muller, 2004). Thus, the work of thinking
through the needs and processes of executive selection becomes relegated as a secondary or
tertiary issue. Also, executive succession means the uncomfortable feeling of confronting ones
own career mortality (Swain & Turpin, 2005). Thus, CEOs, the individuals generally most
responsible for putting into motion executive succession processes, are not likely to be highly
motivated to approach the topic. Boards of directors can mitigate this reluctance by initiating
their own processes. However, if the board is composed mostly of internal executives placed
into position by the CEO, or strongly loyal to him or her, they may share the CEOs reluctance to
consider succession plans.
Perhaps the most significant and likely reason for the failure of CEO selection and
succession processes refers to fact that most executive do not posses, or use, the knowledge and

6
skills needed to accomplish successful executive selection (DeVries, 1993; Hogan & Kaiser,
2008; Lawler & Feingold, 1997; Sessa & Taylor, 2000a). Drucker (1985, p. 22) noted that by
and large, executive make poor promotion and staffing decisions. By all accounts, their batting
average is no better than .333.In no other area of management would we put up with such
miserable performance. Strategic decision-making typically relies upon a careful collection of
problem related data and facts, thorough analysis of the data, with the specification of solution
alternatives, and a scrupulous and orderly weighing of the costs and benefits of each alternative
(Pearce & Robinson, 1995; Wortman, 1982). While executive values and personality can dispose
decisions in particular directions (Child, 1972; Hambrick & Mason, 1994; Peterson, Smith,
Martorana, & Owens, 2003), for the most part strategic decision making reflects a systemic,
data-driven process and analysis. And, given their early career success and lofty position, it is
likely a process at which most top executives excel (Sessa & Taylor, 2000a). However, when the
time comes to make what is the most important strategic decision for top executives (Lorsch &
Khurana, 1999), they apply ad hoc, intuitive procedures that are not designed to produce the best
outcomes. Also, the kinds of qualities that define exemplary leadership skills may not be easily
accessed by the kinds of quantitative business data favored by top executives (Bennis & OToole,
2000). To reduce failure in executive hires, search teams need to employ more effectively the
processes and tools associated with successful personnel selection.
Effective selection actually reflects the integration of multiple processes ranging from the
specification of position and applicant requirements to recruitment and screening of applicants to
the selection of winning applicants and their eventual entry to their position (Dunnette, 1966;
Guion, 1976; Wanous, 1992). Each component of personnel selection requires a set of orderly
procedures grounded in careful analysis and best practices. For executive selection, these

7
procedures take on added dimensions the complex nature of the executive position, the
difficulty in assessing leadership qualities (Bennis & OToole, 2000), and the collective nature
of executive selection decisions introduce several layers of complexity to traditional selection
practices. Also, changes in organizations and in their operating environments can drive changes
in selection procedures (Cascio & Foglio, in press), especially at the executive level.
Accordingly, given the importance of executives to organizational performance, special care
needs to be devoted to the process and components of executive selection.
The Components of Executive Selection
The selection of top executives is at once both similar to and qualitatively different from
more traditional personnel selection processes. The similarity resides in the procedures of
defining job or position requirements, specifying candidate attributes, applying validated
assessment procedures and making hiring decisions (Sessa, Kaiser, Taylor, and Campbell, 1998).
The differences lie in the particular demands and challenges to these procedures posed by the
unique nature of executive level leadership. For example, Hollenbeck (1994) noted that
selecting CEOs is unlike other selections in the organization: Different people are involved;
there are many more variables, and they are more complex and constantly shifting; the process
ordinarily takes place over a long time; and it will draw more attention than any other event in
the organization (p. 4). Thus, while the surface processes are the same as other forms of
personnel selection, how these are implemented, the variables that define their success, and the
best practices for each specific process are quite different.
In this review, I focus primarily on five processes or components of executive talent
assessment and acquisition these are shown in Figure 1. These components reflect an

Definition of Position Requirements

Specifying what potential executives will
likely need to accomplish in the short and
long term in the targeted positions

Delineation of Desired Candidate Attributes

Specifying what would be the attributes and
qualifications of the ideal candidate

Recruitment of Potential Applicants

Building a pool of applicants from within
and/or outside of the organization

Assessment and Evaluation of Candidates

Determining the candidates standing on the
targeted attributes defined in step 2

Selection of Desired Candidate

Using decision processes and metrics to
determine the best candidate for the targeted
position

Figure 1. Components of Executive Talent Assessment and Acquisition

9
integration, although with a slightly different emphasis, of those suggested by other researchers
and practitioners (e.g., London & Sessa, 1999; Hoffman, Schniederjans, & Sebora, 2004; Parise,
2003; Sessa, et al., 1998; Sessa & Taylor, 2000a, 2000b). The first process refers to defining
position requirements. This process reflects the specification of what the potential executive
needs to accomplish in the targeted position; it involves defining the expected performance
imperatives for the executive. Zaccaro and Klimoksi (2001) described seven general imperatives
for organizational executives: cognitive, social, personal, political, financial, technological, and
staffing. These imperatives [derive] from factors or forces that co-exist in the context or
operating environment of a senior leader (p. 26). Accordingly, executive selection procedures
need to start with a careful consideration of what these imperatives are likely to be for incoming
executives, and how they define future position requirements.
After the specification of position requirements, the second execution processes refers to
delineating desired candidate attributes. This delineation should follow from an understanding
of how particular executive qualities will help the organization meet anticipated (and
unanticipated) strategic challenges. However, members of executive selection boards and
staffing directors typically proceed by either looking for characteristics similar to their own
(Zajac & Westphal, 1996), using ones from prior searches, or by relying on gut instincts and
intuition (Howard, Erker, & Bruce, 2007). The result is often the selection of executives that fit
past performance models, or those that are mismatched to existing and emerging performance
imperatives.
Once desired executive attributes are defined, the third process, recruitment of
candidates, begins. Candidates can come from inside and outside of the organization. More
research has perhaps been completed on this aspect of executive selection than most others.

10
However, conclusions about best practices on executive recruitment remain muddy. While the
traditional recruitment literature stresses the superiority of candidates who are familiar with the
organization (Wanous, 1992), most executive search committees seem to prefer outside
candidates, at least under several typical circumstances (Sessa et al., 1998).
After a pool of candidates has accumulated, the assessment and evaluation of candidates
occurs with the application of a range of assessment tools and procedures. This process is
perhaps the other most researched component of executive selection. A variety of tools and tests
have been suggested in the leadership literature (Howard, 2001, 2007; London, Smither, &
Diamante, 2007). However, whether (a) the tools accurately assess the executive attributes they
are intended to assess (i.e., construct validity), and whether (b) the tools sufficiently predict
future success in executive positions (i.e., criterion-related validity) remain somewhat
contentious issues in this literature. Further, a number of scholars have noted the tendency of
executive selection committees to eschew these tools in favor of reliance on word-of-mouth
references, and unstructured interviews that loosely, if at all, reflect targeted attributes (DeVries,
1993).
The data from candidate assessments are used in the fifth executive acquisition process,
the actual selection of the desired candidate. An important consideration in this process is how
the data are integrated and combined into a final choice. This decision typically involves
multiple stakeholders, with several of them having different perspectives and agendas.
Accordingly, each stakeholder can be disposed to a different candidate. Thus, the selection of a
final choice for an executive position often reflects an intricate combination of assessment
conclusions with strategic, political, and personal posturings of multiple decision constituencies.

11
Fully successful executive selection rests on the effective enactment of each and all of
these processes. As various reviews of the executive talent acquisition literature (Cascio &
Foglio, in press; DeVries, 1993; Hollenbeck, 1994; Howard, 2001; 2007; Sessa & Taylor, 2000a)
attest, however, a substantial gap exists between current and best practices in each of these five
areas. The reminder of this paper summarizes research on these processes with the intent of
identifying prescriptions for more effective executive selection.
Definition of Position Requirements
The starting point for executive selection is a process of stakeholders, especially the
current top executives, selection committees, and boards of directors, developing a shared
understanding of what organizational imperatives need to be addressed in filling a particular
executive position (Sebora & Kesner, 1996; Sessa, et al., 1999). The following factors can
determine executive performance requirements:

The fundamental or generic nature of all executive work;

Changing phases in the growth or progress of the hiring organization

Current contextual challenges facing the organization

The strategic direction of the organization intended by current top executives and the
board of directors (Sessa, et al., 1998)

The reality of current executive selection is that few organizations conduct the kind of a priori
comprehensive position analysis that includes all of these factors. In a study of over two dozen
instances of forced CEO dismissals, RHR International (2002a) found that in many cases the
company had not put sufficient time and resources to define what was to be required of a new
CEO. Sessa and Taylor (2000a p. 45) also observed that todays executives show little
inclination to analyze organizational needs and position requirements before filing an open

12
executive position. This lack of patience or attention to such an analysis becomes even more
acute when an executive vacancy is a sudden or unanticipated one (Khurana, 2001). In these
circumstances, Khurana (2001) notes that market and financial pressures outside of the company,
and the uncertainty that grows within the company from a high level executive opening, can
create a significant press to fill a position as quickly as possible.
The problem that results from an insufficient position analysis and specification of
executive performance requirements is an increased probability of hiring the wrong executive,
with greater turmoil down the road. Indeed, Sessa et al. (1998; see also Sessa & Taylor, 2000a)
found from interviews with 494 executives that those who reported successful executive
selection outcomes in their company were more likely to engage in the processes of defining
organizational needs, position requirements, and desired candidate attributes than those who
reported unsuccessful outcomes. Thus, even in pressing circumstances, selection stakeholders
need to complete an organizational and position analysis that reflects the four aforementioned
factors. A better practice, however, is to attend to such factors on a continuing basis so that the
organization is more prepared for any sudden executive vacancy.
The Nature of Executive Work
Defining executive position requirements begins with an understanding of how executive
leadership differs fundamentally from leadership at other organizational levels. Several models
have carefully delineated qualitative shifts across levels of organizational leadership. For
example, Katz and Kahn (1978) noted that at lower organizational levels, leaders are concerned
with administering and managing within existing policies and structures. Their performance
requirements consist largely of translating organizational goals provided by their superiors into
more immediate (i.e., daily to a 1 year time frame) tasks, plans, and responsibilities (Jacobs &

13
Jacques, 1987). They also need to address the obstacles to progress at this level using existing
organizational mechanism and contingencies (Zaccaro, 2001).
At middle organizational levels, Katz and Kahn (1978) argued that leaders are required to
extrapolate and put into operational terms new structures and policies derived by top
organizational leaders. Their time span of work stretches from 1-5 years (Jacobs & Jaques,
1987). Middle managers are also likely to be leading multiple organizational units, meaning they
are now managing other lower-level managers (Bentz, 1987; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding,
Fleishman, & Reiter-Palmon, 1993). Accordingly, their performance requirements include
operational planning, and the coordination and integration of actions across multiple functional
units.
At the executive level, leaders need to adopt a more long term (5-20 year), strategic
perspective (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987). According to Katz and Kahn (1978), such a perspective
means they are likely to mostly involved in originating policy and structure to be implemented
across organizational systems. These leaders also spend more of their time as boundary
spanners, representing their organizations to outside stakeholders and constituencies (Zaccaro,
2001). They also need to balance multiple leader roles more so than at managers at lower
organizational levels (e.g., mentor versus director, facilitator versus producer, innovator versus
coordinator, broker versus monitor; Hooijberg , 1996; Hooijberg & Quinn, 1992; Quinn, 1984)
Accordingly, their performance requirements entail long range strategic planning and
implementation., boundary management, and providing vision and motivation to the entire
organization (Zaccaro, 2001). Figure 2 summarizes the elements of executive work that are
common across most organizations. These elements serve as the baseline for defining the
position requirements of most executive jobs.

14
Empirical support for differences in position requirements across organizational levels
has been provided by a number of researchers (Alexander, 1979; Mahoney, Jerdee, & Carroll,
1965; Page & Tornow, 1987; Paolillo, 1981; Pavett & Lau, 1982). Baehr (1992) examined job
functions of 1358 managers and found different clusters of functions at each organizational level.
Lower level managers were primarily engaged in team-building, supervising, handling
emergencies, and managing and developing personnel. Middle level managers focused mostly on
coordinating interdepartmental activities, communicating, improving work practices, and
engaging in more complex judgment and decision making. Executives were involved primarily
in setting organization-wide objectives, communicating, promoting external relations, handling
external contacts, and coordinating activities across multiple departments.

Figure 2
Common Elements of Executive Work in Most Organizations

Conducting long range strategic assessment and planning

Communicating a vision or plan for organizational progress and growth
Managing relationships with external stakeholders
Implementing organization-wide structural and policy changes
Fostering a climate the motivates high performance across the organization

15
The baseline elements of executive work become minimum threshold for specifying what
should be expected of prospective executives. Thus, executive position requirements should
include the activities indicated in Figure 2. Indeed, similar kinds of requirements are reflected,
for example, in the core qualification for senior government executives derived by the Office of
Personnel Management (Jordan & Shraeder, 2003; Office of Personnel Management, 1998).
These include leading change, leading people, driving for strategic results, working with
financial and business information recourses, and building coalition and professional networks,
and communicating with multiple constituencies. Likewise, from their experiences in assessing
and developing executives, Development Dimensions International identified nine generic
executive strategic role requirements navigator, strategist, entrepreneur, mobilizer, talent
advocate, captivator, global thinker, change driver, and enterprise guardian (Appelbaum & Paese,
2003).
Success in defining executive position requirements means that at a minimal level the
executive search team needs to consider these responsibilities of executive leaders. However,
these qualities of executive work are still insufficient for fully describing what a company may
require in a particular CEO or executive position. Most executive selection boards and
committees likely take most of these requirements for granted. Achieving a better fit between
eventual hires and position requirements requires an analysis of the environmental pressures,
challenge and internal dynamics that are unique to the hiring organization (Sessa, et al., 1998).
Organizational Cycles
One of the most important of these challenges reflects where the organization is in its
growth or change cycle. Organizations that are concerned with maintaining the status quo in
terms of their strategic position will need one type of executive. Others that focus on rapid

16
growth, or turning around a poor-performing company, will have different performance
requirements for potential executives. Accordingly, in their interviews with 494 top executives,
Sessa et al., (1998) found that executives considered needs such as sustain the organization,
developmental position, growth of the organization, turn around, start-up,
cultural/structural change, and restructuring as important to take into account in their
definition of executive job requirements. Several of these factors reflect the prior and continuing
performance level of the firm. For example, in companies that have been experiencing lower
performance and profitability (i.e., presenting a turn around circumstance to an incoming
CEO), executive selection committees may conclude that innovative strategic thinking is crucial
in a new executive; accordingly, they are more likely to seek and select an outside candidate
with fresh ideas, or an inside executive who has not been with the company too long (Barker,
Patterson, & Mueller, 2001; Datta & Guthrie, 1994; Guthrie & Datta, 1997). Alternatively, when
firms are doing well, and therefore wish to maintain current strengths and their existing strategic
focus (i.e., a sustain the organization circumstance), executive selection committees may place
more importance on potential new executives having high familiarity with company structure,
operations, and plans; they may also place a greater emphasis on strategic implementation than
strategic innovation. Accordingly, heir apparents to the existing CEO (i.e., relay
successions; Vancil, 1987) may be more favored indeed, Zhang and Rajagopalan (2004) found
significant support for just such relationships between firm prior performance and incidents of
relay successions.
Along these lines, Ocasio and Kim (1999) found that companies with a recent history of
frequent mergers and divestures (i.e., restructuring or strategic change circumstances) were
less likely to seek new executives from production or marketing backgrounds relative to

17
backgrounds in finance and operations. Likewise, if organizations were experiencing lower
performance levels, then their executive selection committees were more likely to be searching
for executives with operations background. Other studies have shown that firm size influences
selection decisions, such that smaller companies are more likely to choose outside candidates
(Lauterbach, Vu, & Weisber, 1999; Guthrie & Datta, 1997). Smaller companies are more likely
to be concerned with expansion (i.e., growth circumstances) and therefore may be looking for
different types of human capital than exists among their current group of executives
(Giambatista, Rowe, & Rias, 2005). These studies point to the importance of internal
organizational characteristics relative to strategic goals in determining requirements for new
executive positions. Accordingly, needs assessments conducted at the beginning of the executive
selection process should focus on such characteristics as the hiring organizations size, structure,
climate, values, needs, strategic goals, prior performance trajectories and financial positions
(Sessa et al., 1998).
Contextual Challenges
The aforementioned factors are internal to the organization. External or contextual
contingencies also influence the work that is likely to be required of newly selected executives
(Sessa, et al., 1998). For example, high strategic variance or instability in a hiring organizations
industry sector coupled with high dynamism in the strategic environment increases the need for
new executives to display greater strategic flexibility and adaptability (Kwaitkowski, 2003).
Executives may have to engage in more environmental scanning and networking in such
environments. These kinds of work imperatives increase the likelihood of needing executives
who have fresh perspectives and very large professional networks, with experiences in multiple
contexts. Such executives are more likely to come from outside of firm and even outside of the

18
industry. Indeed, Zhang and Rajagoplan (2003) found that when firms were located in industry
sectors with strong strategic homogeneity or when such firms possessed strategic goals that
conformed to the industry central tendencies, new executives were more likely to come from
intraindustry origins. Accordingly, the obverse of this finding would suggest that greater
strategic heterogeneity would increase the premium on strategic innovation and adaptability, and
therefore favor executive candidates from outside the firms industry sector.
The global strategic positioning of an organization also poses contextual influences that
influence executive work. Todays executives are working increasingly across international and
multicultural boundaries (Ireland & Hitt, 1999; Suutari, 2002). Accordingly, London and Sessa
(1999) argued that the organizational needs assessment and specifications of executive work
requirements should consider potential global demands on the executives to be hired. They
argued that companies can operate at three levels of globalization (see also Bartlett & Ghoshal,
1989) (a) dealing with constituencies and stakeholders from different cultures but from a strong
or dominant corporate base within one culture; units in other cultures are directed from the
perspective of the corporations home culture (b) developing connections among decentralized
corporate units, each reflecting local cultures and business customs; (c) developing a
transnational culture within the corporation that integrates and supersedes local cultures. These
levels reflect increasing global complexity within the organization. Likewise, London and Sessa
argued that greater cultural complexity and diversity raises the cultural demands for top
executives. Cultural complexity and demands contribute greater cognitive and social executive
work requirements (e.g., multicultural understanding; cultural intelligence; Earley & Ang, 2003)
for such executives, and accordingly deserve unique consideration in the specification of their
position requirements.

19
Organizational Strategy
The analysis of both internal and external influences on executive performance
requirements alludes to the importance of organizational strategy. Indeed, many scholars and
experts in executive selection argue for the primacy of strategy in defining such requirements
(Gupta, 1984, 1986, 1992; Guthrie & Datta, 1997; 1998). RHR International (1998) asserted that
[succession planning] is about creating a fit between what the company must do strategically
and the person who can best implement that strategy (www.rhrinternational.com/files/EI/155.htm). Sessa et al. (1998) noted from their interviews with 494 executives who had engaged in
CEO and top executive selection that strategy was the top factor in defining position
requirements.
This focus fits with the increasing emphasis on strategic staffing in the selection literature
(Bechet, 2008; Gupta, 1992; Snow & Snell, 1993). Snow and Snell argued for three different
models of staffing. One reflects the traditional selection approach which seeks to match the
person with relatively stable job or position requirements (e.g., job-driven competency modeling;
Howard, 2001). Sessa et al. noted that such approaches are characteristic of leader selection
processes at lower organizational levels where they are geared toward hiring employees whose
knowledge, skills, abilities, and characteristics provide the greatest fit with requirements of
specific jobs, without taking the organizational needs into account (p. 5).
Snow and Snells (1993) two other models emphasize strategy as a critical driver of
strategy. One approach specifies staffing and selection as a reaction to intended strategy. Thus,
executive selection becomes part of the process of strategic implementation. Such an approach
should fit organizations with mostly set strategies operating in relatively stable contexts. Most
executive selection committees that use existing or emergent strategy to define position

20
requirements adopt this perspective. Howard (2001) labels this approach as strategy-driven
competency modeling, where position requirements (and therefore position competencies)
reflected organizational life cycles, broad role expectations, or the companys cultural values.
Summers (1997) describes the steps in completing a strategic skills analysis that helps define
position requirements as a function of anticipated long range changes in targeted jobs. These and
similar approaches help guide HR talent acquisition processes in tandem with established or
anticipated organizational strategies. Alternatively, in line with Snow and Snells third model,
some circumstances call for staffing or selection as part of a strategic formation process, in
which executives are hired based on expectations that they will develop appropriate strategies for
the company based on what may be rapidly shifting environmental contingencies. Such
executive selection can be the most complex as selection committees do not operate from a firm
strategic frame of reference regarding where the potential executive might take the company.
Instead, they would focus on a candidate CEOs strengths in developing what could be at the
time a mostly unknown strategy for the company.
Summary
I began this section with the observation that while defining what will be expected of new
executives is an important first step in executive selection, few companies conduct the kinds of
analyses necessary to uncover these expectations. I have suggested that several elements
influence executive work expectations, and a good executive position analysis should focus on
all of these. Figure 3 reflects these elements. The position analysis begins with agreement on
the typical elements of executive work most companies assume such elements (see Figure 2).
These common elements, however, become filtered through considerations of where the
organization is in its growth phase, what current challenges exist in the organizations operating

21
environment, and what strategic goals have been adopted by the organization. These
considerations inform the final definition of executive performance requirements.
When the analyses suggested by the elements in Figure 3 are conducted properly, they provide a
road map for the rest of the selection process. Position requirements serve as the basis for
defining requisite executive competencies, which in turn suggest the assessment strategies that
are best able to uncover them. The data from these assessments provide the basis for subsequent
hiring decisions. Thus, if executive selection stakeholders fail to derive and agreed on a shared
understanding of executive position requirements, the result will likely mean a derailed effort in
the subsequent steps of the executive hiring process.
Delineation of Requisite Executive Attributes
Categories of Executive Attributes
The premise that the nature of leadership varies across organizational levels
means that unique attributes define success at the executive level versus at lower leadership
levels. Katz (1955) identified three sets of managerial skills: technical, human (interpersonal)
and conceptual. He argued that relative to one another, technical skills was of highest
importance to managerial effectiveness at the lowest level of organizations, interpersonal skills
were constant in importance across levels, and conceptual skills were highest in importance at
the executive level. While agreeing that technical skills decrease and conceptual skills increase
in importance at higher organizational levels, Zaccaro (2001) argued that increases in social
complexity at executive ranks means that interpersonal skills also become more important at this
level, an assertion echoed by others (Bennis & OToole, 2000; Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997;
Sessa & Taylor, 2000a).

22

Common Elements of Executive Work

Phase in
Organizational
Growth

Current
Contextual
Challenges

Anticipated
Organizational
Strategy

Expected Executive Performance Requirements

Figure 3. Influences on the Definition of Performance Requirements for New Executives

A recent empirical investigation by Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson (2007) described

somewhat different and more precise categories of these skills and examined how they changed
across levels. Cognitive skills referred to basic information utilization and problem solving
skills, critical thinking skills, and skills in communication and reading comprehension.
Interpersonal skills referred to social awareness and judgment skills, persuasion and negotiation
skills, and skills in coordinating others. Business skills referred to business acumen and skills in
managing financial, material, and personnel resources. Finally strategic skills refer to skills in

23
systems-level perceptiveness and understanding, visioning, complex problem solving, and to
skill in developing complex cognitive representations of strategic environments. Mumford et al
asked 1023 managers at three organizational levels to rate the importance of each set of skills for
work at their level. They found that strategic and business skills demonstrated the sharpest
increases by organizational level, followed by interpersonal and cognitive skills, respectively.
Thus, at the executive ranks, while basic cognitive and interpersonal skills continue to contribute
to overall success, business acumen and strategic skills become proportionally more important.
Changes in Desired Executive Attributes
A number of other researchers have described the executive competencies and attributes
that guide many executive searches. Comparisons of the most recent lists with those from about
10 years ago indicate some interesting changes. For example, Sessa et al (1999) noted from their
interviews with hundreds of top executives attending programs at the Center for Creative
Leadership that at that time the top five requirements sought in executive candidates were, in
order, specific functional background, managerial skills, interpersonal skills, communication
skills, and technical knowledge. The bottom five were flexible/adaptable, creative/innovative/
original, intelligent/fast learner, fits with culture, and strategic planning skills. In 2007, based on
a survey of over 1100 managers about what leadership skills would be important over the next
five years the Center for Creative Leadership found that the following were top leadership skills:
collaboration, change leadership, building effective teams, influence without authority, and
driving innovation (Martin, 2007). Adaptability, which was at the bottom of Sessa et als list,
was 8th on the 2007 list. A similar survey of 412 executives conducted for Development
Dimensions International (2008) found that top leadership qualities anticipated over the next five
years were the abilities to motivate a team, work across cultures, facilitate change, develop

24
talent and make tough decisions. Technical expertise, interpersonal skills, and an ability to
bring in the numbers were at the bottom of the list, the opposite of what Sessa, et al reported
10 years earlier.
These surveys over a 10-year span suggest a significant shift in the kinds of attributes
considered most important in future executives. These attributes emphasize more skills in
managing in a dynamic, fast-paced environment that extends across national boundaries. They
also indicate more complex social capacities as emerging key attributes. Sessa and Taylor
(2000a) referred to similar kinds of capacities as reflecting the ability to develop and maintain
high quality relationships across organizational stakeholders. These relationships become crucial
for such tasks as motivating systems, building effective teams and multi-level collaborative
relationships. Sessa and Taylor argued that relationship skills differ from interpersonal skills in
that the latter can produce more superficial and broader personal connections; relationship skills
result in deeper and longer-lasting connections. Deeper connections are more important for
fostering the kinds of organization-wide support needed in a fast paced and changing
environment subordinates are more likely to follow your lead in such circumstances when the
connection between you and them is a close one. Indeed, Sessa and Taylor found in their
research that it was relationship skills, rather than performance skills, that distinguished
successful from unsuccessful executives. Bennis and OToole (2000, p. 172) described similar
sets of skills as the ability to move the human heart. Sessa and Taylor also point to the
difficultly in assessing such skills, noting that, while interpersonal skills will likely produce
effective interviews in executive selection contexts, relationships skills are harder to judge at
first glance and during superficial meetings (for example, interviews) with executives (p. 24).

25
Research on executive performance requirements has also emphasized the need for
executives to balance multiple roles as part of their responsibilities (Hooijberg & Quinn, 1992;
Quinn, 1984). Hooijberg and Schneider (2001) labeled the ability to accomplish such balance,
behavioral complexity, and described it as an important executive skill. This skill, according to
Hooijberg and Schneider, has two components, behavioral repertoire and behavioral
differentiation. Behavioral repertoire refers to portfolio of leadership roles a leader can perform
(p. 108). Several studies have shown that executives with a wide repertoire are more effective as
leaders than executives with more narrow repertoires (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995;
Quinn, Spreitzer, & Hart, 1992). Their companies also exhibit higher performance (Hart &
Quinn, 1993).
According to Hooijberg and Schneider, behavioral differentiation refers to the leaders
ability to perform roles in their repertoire differently depending upon organizational
circumstances. This skill is similar to the components of social intelligence that reflect
behavioral flexibilitiy (Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford, 1991). In addition, Kaplan and
Kaiser (2003) describe the related skill of versatile leadership, or the ability to balance strengths
in forceful versus enabling leadership and strategic versus operational leadership. These skills
have also been linked to executive effectiveness (Hooijberg & Schneider, 2001: Kaplan &
Kaiser, 2003).
Boal and Hoojiberg (2000) extended these ideas by arguing that such attributes as
behavioral complexity and social intelligence contribute to three central executive skills
absorptive capacity, capacity to change, and managerial wisdom. Absorptive capacity refers to
the capacity to recognize new information, assimilate it, and apply it toward new ends (p. 517).
Managerial wisdom, according to Boal and Hooijberg, reflects abilities to perceive and

26
understand variation in the environment and in social relationships, as well as the capacity to
take the right action at a critical moment (p. 518). These factors, along with the capacity to
change, define executive effectiveness within the strategic dynamism that characterizes todays
operating environment for most organizations (Ireland & Hitt, 1999). Accordingly, they need to
be considered more centrally in todays executive searches.
The ability to learn, which represents a key component of the executive skill set defined
by Boal and Hooijberg (2000), would likely become most important in executive staffing models
that seek candidates who would be tasked with forming new strategies (i.e., Snow and Snells
third model), rather than implementing existing strategies. Spreitzer, McCall, and Mahoney
1997) argued that while most executive searches rely on the kinds of end-state competencies
summarized by many treatments of executive leadership (e.g., see Zaccaro, 2001 for a review of
such competencies), the ability to learn from experience should demonstrate added value in
predicting success by international executives. They argued that if executive searches limited
their desired candidate attributes to end state competencies, they risk choosing people who fit
todays model of executive success rather than the unknown model of tomorrow (p. 6).
However, if such competencies were complemented with high levels of learning-oriented
attributes (e.g., cross-culturally adventurous, seeks opportunities to learn, seeks feedback, is
flexible), in other words with absorptive and adaptive capacity, then such searches are more
likely to select candidates who could be effective in dynamic and uncertain environments. In
support of this argument, Spreitzer et al. developed an instrument to assess both end-state
competencies and the ability to learn from experience (Prospector see below), and examined
its associations with supervisor ratings of a managers executive potential; they reported that
several end state competencies and attributes related to ones ability to learn differentiated

27
between managers with high potential and those who were solid performers but not likely to
advance (Spreitzer, et. al., 1997, p. 19)).

The Attributes of the Global Executive

Part of the genesis of Spreitzer et als (1997) work was to examine predictors of
international executive potential. Indeed, they found that several of the end state and ability-tolearn competencies significantly predicted supervisor ratings of a managers ability to deal with
international issues. Due to the increasingly globality of executive work, attributes that reflect
cross-cultural skills are becoming more prominent qualifiers in executive searches.
Development Dimensions Internationals recent survey of 412 executives indicated that works
well across cultures was rated as the second most important leadership quality for the next 5
years (DDI, 2008). In reviewing research on selecting international executives, London and
Sessa (1999) emphasized intercultural sensitivity as a key executive competency. They defined
this sensitivity has having nine dimensions (p. 10) (1) comfort with other cultures, (2)
positively evaluating other cultures, (3) understanding cultural differences, (4) degree of empathy
for people in other cultures, (5) valuing cultural differences, (6) open-mindedness, (7) sharing
cultural differences with others, (8) degree to within feedback is sought about how one is
received in other cultures, and (9) level of adaptability. Research by Earley and Ang (2003)
extends this notion into the broader concept of cultural intelligence.
These contributions suggest that closer and more systematic attention needs to be paid to
global leadership attributes in defining candidate attributes in the executive search process.
Unfortunately, executive searches for global assignments are usually conducted under strong
time constraints, with a primary focus on internal candidates who have demonstrated success in

28
cultural projects while at their base in their home country little consideration is given to their
skill in managing within foreign cultures (Black, Greghersen, Mendenhall, and Stroh, 1999).
Indeed, Hurn (2006) noted that it is still rare for companies to judge their potential managers
ability to be effective overseas against any clearly-defined criteria (p. 281). For executive talent
acquisition to be more successful in the future, search and selection committees will have to
become more cognizant of such abilities and factor them into their assessment and decisions
making processes.
Summary
This section described a number of specific points about the attributes executive selection
committees could target in their search. First, four categories of attributes have been identified
as important for organizational leadership. These are shown in Figure 4. Second, while many
attributes are important for effective leadership, at the executive level, business acumen and
strategic skills become proportionately more important. Third, what are considered to be crucial
executive attributes have changed over the last decade. Today, companies are citing
adaptability, cross-cultural and global management skills, talent development skills, team and
relationship building, and capacity to change as desired attributes for future executives.
Accordingly, these kinds of qualities need to drive the assessment of executive candidates. That
is, the measures used to examine candidates need to target these attributes. However, as shown
in a later section of this report, most assessment tools fail to focus specifically on these attributes.

29

Cognitive Attributes
Intelligence
Basic Problem Solving Skills
Critical Thinking skills
Creative Thinking skills
Ability to Learn
Absorptive capacity

Business Attributes
Business Acumen
Finance management skills
Organization management skills
Global networking skills

Social Attributes
Communication skills
Social awareness skills
Social judgment skills
Persuasion and negotiation skills
Collaboration skills
Team building skills
Relationship building skills
Behavioral complexity
Multicultural awareness and sensitivity

Strategic Attributes
Systems level awareness skills
Visioning skills
Complex problem solving skills
Ability to map operating environment
Organizational change skills
Innovation skills
Adaptability
Talent management skills

Figure 4. Categories of Executive Attributes

(Note: Category labels were adapted from Mumford, et al., 2007).

30
Recruitment of Position Candidates
The specification of candidate attributes triggers the next processes in executive selection
the recruitment of potential candidates and the use of assessment procedures to gather
information about candidates. This section focuses on recruitment while the next examines
assessment practices.
Preferences for Internal versus External Candidates
Research and practice on executive recruitment has centered primarily on the
circumstances, advantages/disadvantages, and consequences of seeking candidates from within
or outside of the organization. A number of studies and reviews indicate that most companies
generally look outside of the firm to fill around 20-40% of executive vacancies (Byham, 2003;
RHR International, 2005; references), although this number can be as high as 70 to 93% in
companies from the private nonprofit sector, or in small (< 1000 employees) companies (Sessa et
al., 1998). Internal successions can be divided in those in which there was or was not an heir
apparent A succession from a CEO to an obvious heir apparent is called a relay succession
(Vancil, 1987; Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2004). External successions can also be divided into those
in which the new CEO origins reside inside versus outside the hiring firms industry (e.g., Zhang
& Rajagopalan, 2003).
Research has uncovered several reasons for selecting internal versus external candidates
(Giambatista, Rowe, & Riaz, 2005). These reasons include:

High firm performance prior to executive hiring: When companies are doing well and an
executive position opens, selection committees are likely to be less willing to risk any
significant changes that might result from hiring an external candidate. Lower firm
performance suggests a stronger need for significant shake-up and favors an external

31
candidate. Accordingly, Datta and Guthrie (1994) found that when organizations evidenced
lower profitability and growth prior to an executive opening, they were more likely to hire
external CEOs, a finding also reported Lauterbach, et al. (1999). Zhang and Rajagopalan
(2004) also found that heir apparent candidates were more likely to be selected when prior
firm performance was high.

Number of strong internal candidates: A large number of internal candidates, particular

those who also serve on the board of directors (e.g., executive vice presidents) suggest that
the organization has a deep bench and perhaps a strong senior management development
program. Both conditions should increase the probability of hiring internal candidates.
Zhang and Rajagopalan (2003) reported support for this premise in their study of 220 CEO
successions.

Number of non-CEO inside directors and stockholders: When inside executives have
considerable power over organizational decisions by virtue of serving on boards of directors
or having significant stock ownership, they are in a stronger position to challenge current
CEOs and position themselves or other internal candidates as successors. Along this line,
Shen and Cannella (2002a) found that higher numbers of both non-CEO board members and
non-CEO executive ownership was more likely to result in CEO dismissals followed by an
internal succession.

Firm size: A smaller firm is less likely to have a large number of qualified candidates and
therefore is more likely to look for an external candidate. Studies by Sessa et al., (1998),
Lauterbach, et al (1999) and Barker et al. (2001) provide empirical support for this argument.

32
Source of Recruitment and Subsequent Organizational Performance
The decision of an executive selection committee about where to look for executive
candidates is premised presumably on the belief by the selectors that the origin of a particular
chosen executive will improve the firms performance, particularly when choosing an external
candidate. But research on this question suggests at best a mixed picture, and more often the
result of hiring externally is often lower performance. Sessa et al. (1998) noted that executives
were more likely to prefer recruiting external candidates (57%) versus internal candidates;
however, internal candidates were consistently reported by the executives in their sample as
having subsequently higher success rates in their new positions than external candidates, even
when the reasons for succession seemed to favor external candidates. For example, in companies
dealing with a start up circumstance, internal candidates were still more successful than external
candidate. This same finding occurred for those companies charting new directions, dealing with
cultural or strategic change, or when they needed to develop their people all circumstances
which have been suggested as favoring external hires (Howard, 2001).
Shen and Cannella (2002b) found in a study of 228 succession events in publicly traded
corporations, that outsider succession resulted in lower post-succession performance; this effect
was even worse when such succession was accompanied by high levels of executive turnover.
Zhang and Rajagolpalan (2004) found that internal successions in 200 firms, particularly relay
successions, were associated with higher subsequent performance. A study by Booz Allen
Hamilton found that while the numbers of external hires increased significantly between 1995
and 2003, 55% of outsider CEOs in North America, and 70% of outsider CEOs in Europe were
forced to resign for performance related reasons in 2003 (Karaevli, 2007, p. 682, citing Lucier,
Schuyt, & Handa, 2003). Finally, Collinss (2001) study of 11 companies who exhibited 15

33
years of below average growth (for their business sector) followed by 15 years of above average
growth found that of 42 CEOs across these good-to-great companies, only 2 (about 5%) were
outsiders. Of the companies that were direct comparisons to these in terms of firm
characteristics and opportunities, but did not grow at similar rates to similar levels, 20 of 65
CEOs (about 31%) were outsiders.
Countering these findings, though, a recent study by Karaevli (2007) articulated some
circumstances in which external executive successions resulted in better performance; outside
CEOs were more likely to result in higher post-succession performance when (a) the firms
operated in environments that were more conducive to organizational growth, (b) pre-succession
performance was particularly low, (c) strategic changes were not made swiftly, or when (d)
outside CEOs were accompanied by large changes in the executive team.
Reviews of the executive succession literature have argued that organizations should
recruit from both external and internal sources (e.g., Howard, 2001). However, based on the
findings summarized here, as well as on other similar data, Byham (2003; Byham & Benthal,
2000) has argued that companies should look more to internal candidates in hiring executives,
and put more investments in building their pool of internal candidates. This means focusing more
on leader development and succession management programs. While companies have begun to
increase their leadership investment, the trend is still very recent RHR International (2005)
found that 88% of the companies they surveyed had been formally engaged in the development
of future leaders for only a period of 3 years or less.
This review is not intended to argue for exclusively internal succession. Karaevli (2007)
noted instances where external CEO successions improved firm performance. Even when
making the case of internal promotions Byham and Bernthal (2000) asserted that there might

34
be times that external candidates would be more appropriate for filling open positions. For
example, rapid expansion, the need for fresh perspectives, and the acquisition of new skill set can
all be addressed by external hiring decisions? (p. 2). Howard (2001) also agrees that firms in
trouble may benefit from external successors. However, recruitment of external candidates needs
to improve in order to reduce the likelihood of subsequent failure. Sessa and Taylor (2000a)
argued that different sources and kinds of information are available for external versus internal
candidates, such that external candidates usually yield proportionately more positive information,
while internal candidates provide data that is more balanced between positive and negative
information. Zhang (2008) studied early dismissals of newly appointed CEOs, arguing that the
information asymmetry existing between internal and external CEOs, (where boards have more
information on internal CEOs) causes boards to make worse decisions about external CEO
candidates. She found that indeed across 204 CEO successions in 184 firms, external candidates
were much more likely to be dismissed after a short time than internal CEOs.
This asymmetry of data about internal versus external candidates comes in part from the
sources of recruitment for each type of candidate. Howard (2001) summarized several studies
that show external candidates are being recruited by executive search firms using strategies such
as cold calls, publicly available directories, old contacts, and web-based searches. Many
companies are advertising for executives directly on the Internet (Barner, 2000). However,
research on recruitment sources for most job openings suggests that these external sources for
potential applicants are demonstrably inferior to the kinds of sources that attract candidates with
higher knowledge about the hiring company (Zottoli & Wanous, 2000). In a summary of this
research, Zottoli and Wanous found that internal sources such as in-house postings, referrals by
employees, and rehiring of former employees resulted in less turnover and higher performance

35
by the eventually hired candidates than external sources such as employment agencies,
advertisements, job fairs and campus visitations. While few studies have specifically extended
this research to executive recruitment, the research cited earlier on the general superiority in
performance from internal CEO successors and the quicker forced dismissals of external CEOs
suggest that the differences in source yields found in studies of general job recruitment may
extend to executive recruitment.
Summary
Figure 5 provides a summary of the circumstances that lead companies to favor
recruitment of executive position candidates from inside versus outside of the organization. In
essence, when companies are doing well, do not want to make significant strategic shifts and/or
have a deep bench of strong executive candidates, they are more likely to favor internal
candidates. When companies are not doing well, do not have bench strength, and/or feel the
need to change their strategic focus, they are more likely to pursue candidates outside of the
company. Research on executive performance after succession suggests that companies may ne
favoring external succession more than is warranted by the data executives promoted from
within the company tend to show better subsequent performance than those executives hired
from outside.
These findings point to the importance of companies implementing a strong executive
succession program (Byham, 2003; Byham & Benthal, 2000). Studies by researcher and
practitioners in the field of executive development and selection suggest the following best
practices in executive succession management (readers are referred to the following sources for
additional details: Byham, Concelman, Consentino, & Wellins, 2007; Lockwood, 2006;

36

Circumstances that Lead

Executive Selection Committees
to favor Internal Candidates
High organizational performance
before succession
Number of inside executives on board
of directors
Strong executive and leadership
succession program in place
Larger companies
Desire to maintain current strategic
direction

Circumstances that Lead

Executive Selection Committees
to favor External Candidates
Low or stagnant profitability and
organizational performance before
succession
Weak bench; lack of a systematic
leader succession program
Rapid organizational growth
Small firms
Need for new strategic perspectives
and skill sets
Desire to chart a new direction

Figure 5. Circumstances that Lead Executive Selection Committees to favor Internal or

External Candidates
Markos, 2002; McCall, 1998; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004; Giber, Carter, & Goldsmith, 2000;
RHR International, 2005; Smilansky, 2006; Weik, 2005; Wellins, Smith, Paese, & Erker, 2006):
Have senior and top company executives demonstrate a strong commitment to
executive succession planning and development, as noted in high percentages of
dedicated resources and budgets
Focus on the strategic goals of the company and on key business drivers, defined as
those priorities that leaders must focus on in order to successfully integrate the
strategic and cultural priorities of their organization (Byham, et. al., 2007, p. 4)

37
Use strong assessment practices to (a) provide early identification of best candidates
for executive development, (b) measure leadership progress through the program, and
(c) index gains at program completion
Use executive coaches and mentors as learning partners in executive development
Make use of job rotation and developmental or stretch assignments for high
potential managers
Build accountability for developing potential executives in to succession management
system
Integrate executive development and internal succession planning into other human
resource management systems
Assessment and Evaluation of Executive Candidates
Once a pool of candidates has been gathered, executive selection committees have the
task of gathering information and evaluating each of the candidates. There exists in the
academic and popular domains a large number of assessment tools for use in executive selection.
These range from assessments of cognitive skills and other psychological variables, to work
samples and assessment centers, to interviewing. The quality and utility of these tests rests on
ultimately on two basic validity questions (1) do they accurately measure the executive
attributes they are intended to measure, and (2) do they successfully predict who will mostly
likely succeed in the executive position being filled. The first question reflects content validity;
the second reflects predictive or criterion-related validity (Messick, 1995). The types of
available tests cover a wide spectrum. Howard (2007) placed leader selection tests on a
continuum ranging from those that provide inferences about likely leadership behavior, to those
that ask for descriptions of past behaviors, to those that seek demonstrations of leadership skills.

38
Tests that provide inferences of behavior include cognitive ability tests, personality inventories,
and leadership potential inventories. Leader behavior descriptions include resumes, biographical
data, and career achievement records. Assessment centers and work simulations represent
examples of leader behavior demonstration strategies.
Each of these strategies has its own strengths and weaknesses the most appropriate
assessment strategy is to use a combination of methods designed to minimize the weaknesses of
each (Howard, 2007). Unfortunately, most executive selection committees rely too heavily on a
few methods, usually interviews and records of past performance (Fernandez-Araoz, 1999;
Sessa, et al., 1998). Indeed, for the most part, by their actions such committees have ignored
general findings in research on assessment for selection purposes. For example, in their
interviews with executives, Sessa et al (1998) found that 87% of them mentioned using
interviews to select executives, followed by resumes (73%), and references (69%). Only 36%
reported using tests and other instruments. However, research has shown that the validity of
interviews to predict executive success can vary widely depending upon several factors including
whether the interview protocol is structured or unstructured, interviewers are trained or
untrained, or the interview focuses on situational, job-related, or psychological content
(McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Mauer, 1994). Executive search committees typically use
forms of interviews that tend to yield lower validities (Ryan & Tippins, 2004). Regarding other
common candidate evaluation tools, Howard (2001) noted that (a) resumes can be untrustworthy
as assessment tools because of inflation, and (b) references provide limited valuable information,
and indeed often misleading information as former employees praise generously and criticize
sparingly(p. 326), especially to avoid legal repercussions. Thus the three top methods identified
by Sessa et al. for measuring executives often end up being the most unreliable as sources of

39
information. This observation adds weight to the recommendation that executive search
committees use multiple assessment strategies, including those that provide inferences about
behavior, past performance records, and demonstrations of behavior. Further, the gathering and
evaluation of data should be accomplished by multiple assessors and raters. The result is often
more reliable judgments (McDaniel et al., (1994). The disadvantage of using multiple methods
and strategies is the higher cost (in time and money) of the executive selection process; but such
costs need to be balanced against the costs of a failed executive (Cascio, 1994).
The value of using combing assessment strategies lies in raising overall accuracy
(Howard, 2007). I will briefly cover each of the prominent assessment strategies use in
executive selection, with a summary of their strengths and limitations. Readers are referred to the
various sources and citations for more details.
Psychological Inventories and Cognitive Tests
Administering measures of psychological attributes to job candidates has been a staple of
personnel selection for over a century (Landy, Shanmkster, & Kohler, 1994; Vinchur, 2007).
Indeed, the first large scale use of cognitive tests in selection was intended for the purpose of
identifying officer (i.e., leadership) potential in World War I (Salas, DeRouin, & Gade, 2007). In
this brief review, I cover assessments of cognitive ability, personality, integrity, and leadership
potential.
Cognitive ability tests. Intelligence and cognitive capacity has been strongly linked to
effective leadership (Keeney & Marchioro, 1998; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). Models of
multilevel organizational leadership argue that such capacities become more important as
predictors of effectiveness at higher leadership ranks (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987; Zaccaro, 2001.
Some cognitive ability and critical thinking tests widely used in personnel and leader assessment

40
include the Wonderlic (Wonderlic, 1984), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Wechsler,
1997), and the Watson-Glaser Critical Appraisal (Watson & Glaser, 1994). Such tests have
demonstrated some of the highest validities among various personnel assessment procedures for
predicting job performance (Bertua, Anderson, & Salgado, 2005; Ryan & Tippins, 2004;
Schmidt, 2002; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Salgado, Anderson, Moscoso, Bertua, and Fruyt,
2003). Further, their validity for predicting complex jobs with higher cognitive loads, such as
leadership, is stronger than for less cognitively demanding jobs (Howard, 2001 2007).
Cognitive tests do pose two significant limitations for their use in executive selection.
First, they are prone to adverse impact and therefore to legal challenge (Howard, 2007). Adverse
impact occurs when different demographic groups yield significantly different average scores on
a selection test, resulting in significantly different hiring percentages and rates (Hough, Oswald
& Ployhart, 2001; Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 1978). Hough et al.
(2001) found such impact due to age and ethnic/cultural difference s on general cognitive ability
tests. Research also suggests that this potential limitation of cognitive ability tests for selection
may not be easily overcome by combining them with other selection strategies (Howard, 2007;
Sackett & Ellington, 1997).
A second limitation is the likelihood of range restriction in general mental ability in
candidate pools for high executive positions most candidates at the executive ranks are likely
to have high and comparable levels of intelligence (Howard, 2007). Tests of higher order
cognitive skills, such as conceptual capacity (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987; Jacobs & McGee, 2001), or
the ability to build complex cognitive maps or frames of reference, which may show greater
discrimination among executives, may prove to more promising. One such measure, the Career
Path Appreciate technique, which is an assessment procedure combining tests with extended

41
interview, was given by Stamp (1988) to managers and used to predict their eventual attained
organizational rank predictive validities ranged from .70-.92.
Within the last 15 years, proponents have argued for more specific or specialized forms
of intelligence as particularly important for executive work. One such form, emotional
intelligence, has gained high visibility on the popular management literature (Caruso & Salovey,
2004; Goleman, 1995). Emotionally intelligent managers are better able to identify and
understand their own and others emotional cues; they can also use and manage emotion
effectively as they lead in the workplace (Caruso, Mayer, & Salovey, 2002; Caruso & Salovey,
2004). Work completed by the Center for Creative Leadership has shown how the failure to
recognize and manage emotions in the work place can effectively derail the career trajectory of
rising executives (McCall & Lombardo, 1983).
According to McEnrue and Groves (2006), the most prominent measures of emotional
intelligence include the Emotional Competency Index (ECI-2; Sala, 2002), the Enotional
Quotient Inventory (EQ-I; Bar-On, 1997), the Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ;
Dulewicz & Higgs, 1999), and the Meyer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT;Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002, 2003). They reported that all four measures exhibit
moderate levels of validity in predicting performance, although the number of predictive studies
is limited. Also, McEnrue and Groves concluded that the MSCEIT has moderate levels of
content validity and high levels of construct validity; the other three measures were described as
low on both forms of such validity with the exception of the EIQ, which exhibited moderate
validity levels. The MSCEIT was summarized as being lower than the other tests on face
validity. Regarding measures of emotional intelligence, Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (2004)
reported predictive validities of only about .23 with various measures of performance. These

42
and other examinations of psychometric quality of emotional intelligence tests lead Sackett and
Lievens (2008) to conclude that we are still far from being at the point of rendering a decision
as to the incremental validity of EI for selection purposes (p. 428).
Personality. Research on leadership and personality has focused primarily on the Big
Five constructs, or the five factor model (FFM) openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,
agreeableness, and emotional stability (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Hogan and Kaiser (2008)
asserted that personality drives leadership style that who you are determines how you lead,
and argued that ignoring personality in the selection of senior executives would be foolhardy
(p. 24). Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) determined from a meta-analysis that all of the
Big 5 traits except agreeableness were significantly associated with leader effectiveness.
Schmidt and Hunter (1998) reported a validity coefficient of .31 for conscientiousness and job
performance.
While a large number of personality inventories have been used in leader assessment, two
of the most prominent include the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1975, 1984)
and the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 1995, 2007). Gough (1984) created
the Managerial Potential Scale (MPS) from the larger CPI. Young, Arthur, and Finch (2000)
found that the MPS significantly predicted performance ratings among 566 middle to upper level
managers in various Fortune 500 companies. Anderson (2007) found correlations of .41 and .45
between the CPI and ratings of performance in sales executives and accounting managers,
respectively. Hogan and Hogan (2007) reported significant validities for four of the HPI scales
in predicting the performance of managers and executives.
Hogan and Hogan (1995; 2001) also argued that personality flaws that can derail leaders
should also be assessed when determining leader effectiveness (see also Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).

43
Accordingly, Hogan and Hogan (1995) developed the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) to
assess personality correlates of potential managerial incompetence. While studies linking these
attributes to poor executive performance are relatively limited compared to those on the FFM,
some research has indicated support for using the HDS along with the HPI in executive
assessment and selection (Fleming. 2004; Hass & Lemming, 2008; Hogan & Kaiser, 2008; Najar,
Holland, Van Landuyt, 2004).
Research on the dark side of leadership (Hogan & Hogan, 2001) corresponds with a
significant recent increase in the use of integrity tests by organizations in assessments of
managers and executives (Bernthal & Erker, 2005; Howard, 2007). In light of the scandals at
Enron and other major corporations, the use of such tests would seem appropriate. Some
research studies have provided support for the validity and potential use of such tests for
selection. Ones and Viswesvaran (2001; see also Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt, 1993)
reported criterion-related validities of .41 and .28 between integrity tests and supervisor ratings
and production records, respectively. However, a recent legal ruling has raised some questions
about the use of integrity tests (Heller, 2005), possibly portending some limitations on their use.
Leadership potential. A number of inventories measure sets of leadership styles, skills
and strengths, either as part of 360 degree assessments, or as solely self-administered tests.
Examples of these tests include the Leader Career Battery (Development Dimensions
International, 2007), Prospector (Spreitzer, et al., 1997; distributed by Center for Creative
Leadership), the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; 1995), the
Leadership Versatility Index (LVI; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2008), and a number of 360-degree
instruments from the Center for Creative Leadership (Executive Dimensions, Benchmarks,
Prospector, 360 By Design, Campbell Leadership Inventory, and Skillscope). These measures

44
assess the strengths rising leaders can potentially bring to new or higher level executive
positions. The 360-degree or multirater versions of these scales request ratings, not only from
the leader, but also from that persons supervisors/superiors, peers, and subordinates.
Research on the use of leadership potential measures in executive selection is mixed.
Howard (2007) asserted that tests of the leadership styles of initiating structure and consideration
had no established validity presumably for selection purposes (p. 24). She noted somewhat
stronger, but still weak validities for measures of transformational leadership. These kinds of
measures have been used more appropriately in leadership research or as part of leader
development programs (London, et al., 2007). Alternatively, Development Dimensions
International (2007) reported research showing that high scores on the Leader Career Battery has
been linked to high performance in leadership positions. Kouzes and Posner (1995) reported that
the LPI was strongly linked to observer ratings of leader effectiveness; they also listed a range of
other studies supporting its utility and validity (see their appendix). However, Zagorsek, Stough,
and Jacklic (2006) found that the LPI was more reliable and precise for those individuals with
lower or moderate levels of leadership ability, but not as reliable for high performers. They
concluded that the LPI appears to be a moderately reliable instrument, better suited for leader
development than for leader identification, selection or promotion purposes (p. 190). The
Prospector contains measures of both end state competencies and learning competencies.
Spreitzer et al. (1997) found that both sets of competencies were associated with supervisor
ratings of current performance. They also successfully discriminated managers who were defined
as high potential executives and those who were solid performers, but not seen as having
executive potential. The LVI, designed to measure the degree to which managers can balance
opposing roles, has also demonstrated strong concurrent validity Kaiser, Lindberg, and Craig

45
(2007) reported the measures of versatility derived from the LVI were correlated between .52 and
.64 with ratings of overall effectiveness. Taken together, these studies suggest that, while these
assessment tools are promising, more research is necessary to uncover their utility for executive
selection.
Howard (2007) argued against the use of multi-rater instruments for leader selection. The
gathering of ratings from subordinates and peers when the result could be used for promotion or
selection could greatly impair the integrity of the instrument (Greguras, Robie, Schleicher, and
Goff, 2003). However, such tools can be highly effective when used properly as development
tools (London, et al., 2007) in a succession management program.
Resumes, references and prior performance rec0ords
When evaluating executive candidates, most companies use resumes and references as
assessments of past achievements and performance. Indeed, these, along with interviews, are
typically the most common tools in selection (Bernthal & Erker, 2005; Sessa, et al., 1998).
Indeed, the achievement of a single major triumph in a candidates past is often the only basis for
deciding to hire a CEO, even though the circumstances of that success may not exist in the
current firm, and that triumph may mask other significant leadership flaws. The limitations of
resumes and references are well-known. Resumes can be inflated with past successes hyped a bit
and past failures minimized (Fernandez-Araoz, 1999). References may also provide limited
valuable information, primarily because they are almost uniformly positive (Fernandez-Araoz,
1999). Also, greater threats of litigation from candidates have reduced any willingness on the
part of referees to give less than positive information (Howard, 2001).
Biographical data instruments that ask carefully constructed questions to elicit
quantitative measure of past achievements and behavior can provide better records of prior

46
leadership performance (Stokes & Cooper, 2001). For example, such assessments may ask
executive candidates to indicate how many performance awards they have won in their career,
what kinds of assignments (particularly developmental assignments) they have completed, and
what unit financial goals (e.g., unit profitability, staying within budget, etc) they have met. The
best practices of these measures query candidates about past events in their career in ways that
are objective, verifiable, and focused on external, controllable events (Mael, 1991). Schmidt
and Hunter reported a validity coefficient 0.35 for the use of biographical information in
predicting performance. Research has also demonstrated incremental validity for such
instruments when combined with interviews (Dalessio & Silverhart, 1994) and with cognitive
ability tests (Mount, Witt, & Barrick, 2000).
Leadership work samples, simulations, and assessment centers.
Assessment tools that call for candidates to demonstrate levels of attained leadership
proficiency can be valuable additions to an executive selection battery. Called work sample
measures, these assessments yield among the highest criterion related validity coefficients in
predicting performance among all of the selection tools summarized by Schmidt and Hunter
(1998). Work sample measures include situational judgment tests, simulations, and assessment
centers.
Situation judgment tests have risen in popularity as performance predictors over the last
15 to 20 years (Weekley & Ployhart, 2006). These tests involve the presentation to candidates of
sample situations and problems they might encountered in a work environment, along with some
possible answers. Candidates are then asked to provide any one (or more) of the following types
of responses choose the best answer, choose the best and worse answer, or rank-order the
answer from best to worst (Weekley & Ployhart, 2006). Such tests have exhibited several

47
advantages for selection. They have yielded criterion-related validities approaching those for
cognitive tests (McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion, and Braverman, 2001). They show
incremental validity over cognitive ability and personality measures (McDaniel, Hartman,
Whetzel, & Grubb, 2007; Weekley & Ployhart, 2005). They result in less adverse impact than
cognitive ability tests (Hough, et al., 2001). They exhibit good face validity, thereby increasing
applicant receptiveness and providing a possible realistic job preview (Weekley & Ployhart,
2006). One disadvantage of situation judgment tests is their higher development costs compared
to some other selection tools. However, the administration costs of SJTs are lower than those of
all other forms of work sample assessment tools, and of interviews (Ryan & Tippins, 2004).
Assessment centers and simulations are similar to SJTs in that they can provide to
candidates a wide range of leadership situations and problem solving exercises. However, such
exercises are typically much more dynamic, interactive, and engaging. Since their introduction
at AT&T by Bray and his colleagues (Bray, 1982; Bray, Campbell, and Grant, 1977; Howard &
Bray, 1988), they have sparked a considerable amount of research and some spirited debate (e.g.,
Lance, 2008, along with responses by several assessment center researchers). Thornton and
Byham, (1982; see also Finkle, 1976)) provided a framework for assessment centers in which
groups of candidates are presented with a variety of tasks, simulations and measures to assess
multiple performance dimensions. These can include in-basket tests, financial or business data
analysis, leaderless group discussions, interview simulations, role-plays, and several
psychological inventories. The batteries of exercises are observed by multiple raters who
provide judgments on each of the targeted performance dimensions. Then, assessors come
together to integrate ratings and provide an overall assessment score.

48
Assessment centers have demonstrated strong predictive validity coefficients (Arthur,
Day, Hardison, & Edens, 2003; , Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson, 1987). Further, they
have demonstrated incremental validity over cognitive ability tests in a sample of executive-level
candidates (Krause, Kerstring, Heggestad, & Thornton, 2006). In the pioneering research at
AT&T, scores from the assessment centers predicted levels of managerial advancement 20 years
in the future. Ritchie (1994) used similar assessment center scores to accurately predict senior
management potential. Much of the debate on assessment centers has centered on why rather
than whether they work, and in particular what they purport to measure (Klimoski & Brickner,
1987; Lance, 2008). A discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this paper readers are
referred to the indicated citations. Work samples and assessment centers both carry high
development and administration costs, comparable only to interviews among selection tools
(Ryan & Tippins, 2004). This may account for why only 8% of the executives in Sessa et als
(1998) study mentioned using assessment centers as tools in their executive selection systems.
Interviews
The mostly widely used executive selection tool has been, and continues to be the
candidate interview (Sessa, et al., 1998). Two types of interviews have been used in personnel
selection unstructured and structured. In unstructured interviews the format and types of
questions asked are left open to the interviewer, and can vary across candidates. In structured
interviews, interviewers ask candidates tightly constructed questions that focus on particular
situations, behaviors, critical incidents or types of problems. One type of structured interview,
called the situational interview, examines how respondents would behavior in particular
hypothetical situations (Latham & Saari, 1984). Another type, labeled the job-related interview,
asks about job-related behaviors candidates have displayed in the past, without tying them to

49
particular situations (McDaniel, et al., 1994). A variation, or combinations of these approaches,
called the behavioral interview, queries interviewees about how they behaved in the past in
particular situations (Crowley, 2004; McDaniel, et al., 1994).
Structured interviews tend to assess candidates job knowledge, while less structured
interviews tend to assess personality and general cognitive ability; both can assess job experience
and social skills (Salgado & Moscoso, 2002). Research has demonstrated that structured
interviews have much higher validity for the prediction of performance than unstructured
interviews (McDaniel et al., 1994; Ryan & Tippins, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Also,
structured interviews carry less risk for legal challenge (Howard, 2007). Surprisingly, though,
HR managers prefer to use unstructured interviews much more often than structured ones (Van
der Zee, Bakker, & Bakker, 2002). Indeed, Clifford (2006) observed:
A typical interview unstructured, rambling, unfocused tells the interviewer
almost nothing about job candidates, other than how they seem during a couple of
meetings in a conference room. But what are these people like late at night and
under pressure? What motivates them? How smart are they? Have they handled
tough projects? Do they prefer working along or are they better with a team?
Regular interviews assess barely any of this, and are in fact miserable predictors
of success (from www.inc.com/magazine/20060801/hiring.html).
Van der Zee, et al. (2002) summarized several reasons for the preference of HR managers
to use unstructured interviews as selection tools. First, managers may not aware of, or accept,
findings on the superiority of structured interviews. Second, managers may perceive structured
interviews as sacrificing the kinds of autonomy and spontaneity they prefer in interviews. Third,
structured interviews are often perceived less favorably by applicants, and therefore their use

50
may inhibit recruitment. Fourth, structured interviews may be perceived unfavorably within the
organization leading to social pressure against their use. Finally, structured interviews are likely
to be more costly in time and money than unstructured interviews. Van der Zee et al. also noted
from a surveys of a sample of HR personnel that structured interviews were perceived as less
useful for recruiting and attracting candidates; however, as they note, research has shown that
structured interviews actually increase the likelihood of candidates accepting a job offer (Taylor
& Bergman, 1987).
Summary
This review indicates that a plethora of assessment tools are available for executive
search committees to use when evaluating candidates. Research suggests that some measures are
more useful than others, although all measures possess some limitations. Work sample tests,
situation judgment tests and other tools that require demonstrations of leadership exhibit high
face validity and criterion-related validity. However, these also have the highest development
costs, and, except for SJTs, the highest administration costs (Ryan & Tippens, 2004). Cognitive
ability tests have strong criterion validity for general job performance, but such tests likely have
significant range restriction at the executive level, and therefore are likely to exhibit less validity
when used to predict executive performance. They are also more likely to result in adverse
impact. Other measures of psychological attributes exhibit positive but lower validities than
these tools. References and resumes can be highly inaccurate and unreliable. Interviews that are
unstructured also pose significant problems, although their structured counterparts can be quite
useful.
Much of the cited research focused on the use of assessment tool to evaluate position
candidates. However, these tools can also be used as part of comprehensive leader development

51
program designed to expand the pool of executive candidates within a company. I noted earlier
in this paper that to be successful, such pools need to focus heavily on leadership development
efforts (Byham, 2003; Development Dimensions International, 2008). Measures of personality
and other individual attributes can be administered within the context of such programs to help
rising leaders understand how their attributes are influencing their approaches to leadership.
They can use this understanding to learn ways of countering potential personal derailers. In fact,
such a strategy is promoted by Hogan Assessment Systems as part of the Hogan Development
Survey that assesses personality correlates of managerial incompetence this survey couples
scores with suggestions for development that can offset personality-driven maladroit behaviors
(Hogan & Hogan, 1995). Succession programs can also make extension use of multi-rater
assessments of leadership performance to aid leader development. Thus, measures that provide
inferences about leadership behavior might better facilitate executive selection through the
indirect means of producing larger recruitment pools within companies.
Measures that provide data about past performance may be useful as an initial screen of
recruits, particularly for leadership positions at lower and middle organizational levels, where
candidate pools may be larger than at the executive level (cf. Howard, 2007). The limitations of
these tools, though, suggest that executive selection committees need to constrain their use.
Carefully constructed biographical data instruments may provide an improvement over reumes
and references; accordingly, they can be part of the initiating screening of executive candidates.
Work sample procedures, particularly situational judgment tests, can be used after initial
screening to further differentiate candidates in terms of their executive competencies. Reviews
of research on the utility for executive selection of interviewing suggest that this approach be
retained and used by search committees, but only if they employ carefully constructed protocols

52
that are highly structured. This is especially crucial given that less formal interviews are more
susceptible to legal challenge (London, et al., 2007).
Thus, best practices in the use of executive assessment tools in selection suggest that
selectors use a combination of different tools, and give particular thought to where in the
sequence of executive recruitment and evaluation their use would be most beneficial. Many
observers have commented on the disregard executives have for the use of such tools simply
put, executive search committees and senior HR executives are ignoring critical implications of
many research studies on executive selection and assessment (Ryan & Tippins, 2004).
Accordingly, when companies are concerned about increasing executive talent and minimizing
executive hiring mistakes, more attention and resources must be given to enhancing the quality
of assessment programs.
Making Executive Selection Decisions
Compared to other topics covered here, relatively less research has been devoted to the
actual decision processes used by boards of directors and other top executives when choosing
who among the final candidates should be offered the position. Some themes can be discerned,
however, from the few studies that have been completed. One refers to the tendency of selection
decision makers not to utilize fully the information necessary to make their choices. Part of this
problem may result from the delegation or outsourcing of much of the executive search and
assessment process (Khurana, 2001). In such outsourcing, outside firms may take on the major
responsibilities of defining position requirements and candidate attributes, candidate recruitment,
and initial evaluation of all candidates. Then a small group of finalists are presented to the
decision makers for interviews. Such delegation or outsourcing is usually done because
executives are presumably too busy to participate fully in these processes (Fernandez-Araoz,

53
1999). However, the effect is that the final decision makers do not actually have access to all of
candidates they are depending upon others who do most of the work of selection to have the
same perceptions of position and attribute requirements that they would have, which is often not
the case (Fernandez-Araoz, 1999; Khurana, 2001).
Another theme pertains to how the final decision makers peruse the assessment data they
do have for a decision. Deal, Sessa, and Taylor (1999) completed one of the few research studies
to systematically examine how executives make selection decisions. Their sample consisted of
167 executives from the 3 top levels of participating organizations, including 167 CEOs. These
executives were presented with a full set of assessment materials for four candidates. The
profiles and data for the candidates were manipulated to so that they could be ordered in terms of
most to least effective. This ordering was based on several factors, such as an organizational
assessment, job analysis, and the opinions of 3 subject matter experts. Thus, there was a
correct answer against which executive decisions could be compared. After reading all of the
materials, executives were asked to provide recommendations. The researchers were able to
measure how executives reviewed each of the applicants portfolios, and how much time was
spent on each part of each portfolio.
Deal, Sessa, and Taylor (1999) found that executives tended to review each candidates
portfolio in entirety before moving on to another candidate, rather than systematically comparing
similar parts of each candidates portfolio. Also, executives tended to spend proportionately the
most time reviewing interview data, followed by search firm reports, and the opinions of others.
However, those executives that that did not make the correct choice tended to spend
disproportionately more time on interview data than those that did choose the best fitting
applicant for the position. The latter executives tended to focus more on search firm reports and

54
HR information. Finally, executives tended to spend more time reviewing the materials of
candidates they later ranked higher. All of the candidates were considered outstanding, even
though one was a better fit. Therefore, there was no obvious reason to linger more on one
candidate over another. Deal et al. argued that executives were perhaps deciding early in the
process which of the candidates they liked better, and then continuing to review files to confirm
their decision. Thus, this study demonstrated the propensity of executives to favor assessment
information that tended to produce erroneous choices, and to spend some decision time justifying
an early decision rather than fully and equally reviewing all choices. More research of this kind
is needed to further understand process of executive selection decisions.
Another theme that is noted more for its absence in the executive selection literature
refers to the degree to which executives use compensatory versus multiple hurtle system of
reviewing and selecting candidates (Howard, 2007). Compensatory systems are those in which
relative lower scores on some desired competencies are mitigated by relatively higher scores on
other competencies, provided candidates exceed a minimal acceptance threshold on each targeted
attribute. In multiple hurdle models, candidates have to reach appropriate performance levels on
each competency before receiving further consideration. Such a system can be used to create a
final pool of acceptable candidates, from which a selection is made (Howard, 2007). However,
even with a final pool, a selector may favor certain cutoffs on certain attributes, which would
influence his or her rankings of candidates. When board members are involved in CEO or top
executive selection, they will bring often their biases and agendas derived from their
constituencies and interests. These agendas can influence the weights they put on different
applicant qualities. Thus, for some selectors, an applicant may be considered below an
acceptable threshold on a key attribute, and therefore excluded in a multiple hurdle decision

55
model they might be using to rank final candidates. Other selectors, coming from a different set
of interests and agendas, may perceive the candidate as above threshold on the same attribute.
When the selection decision must be made or endorsed by multiple stakeholders, such differing
perceptions can create considerable tension around the choice, and lead to the choosing of
candidates that meet the minimum standards for the most selectors, even when others having
more extraordinary qualities. Further research is needed to examine and explore these kinds of
decisions.
Post-Selection Processes: Negotiation, Entry and Socialization
The selection of the judged best candidate does not end the executive acquisition process.
While negotiating the terms for accepting the position, candidates can address several executive
performance imperatives such as staffing, personal, and political dynamics by carefully
negotiating the parameters of future responsibilities and relationships. After accepting the
position, both the new executive and organization begin a two-way socialization process the
organization is imparting expectations and cultural norms to the executive, while the new
executive is conveying the values and expectation he or she brings to the organization. This
process does not begin upon entry. The traditional recruitment literature describes the process of
providing realistic job previews to candidates throughout the recruitment and assessment
process (Wanous, 1992). These previews entail providing job candidates with accurate and
realistic portrayals of job conditions and expectations the results of such previews include more
accurate understanding of what a new job entails and what new position incumbents should
expect upon job entry (Phillips, 1998). At the executive level, this means conveying to
candidates the various performance imperatives (e.g., political, personal, staffing, etc) that cannot
be gleaned from public financial and organizational records (the high quality candidate should be

56
expected to have already examined such documents). Likewise, because the personal style,
values, and world-views of top executives becomes so instrumental to how they lead in the
organization, they in turn need to (a) provide accurate previews of their orientation to prospective
superior and peers during the selection process (Hambrick & Fukutomi, 1991; Hollenbeck,
1994), and (b) upon organizational entry, engage in a reverse socialization process, where they
inform their subordinates about their leadership tendencies and way of doing things.
There has been limited research on this aspect of executive selection. These processes
hold as much importance, however, for the success of executive talent management as the
aforementioned recruitment, assessment, and selection processes. RHR International (2002;
(www.rhrinternational.com) noted that organizations do little to increase the odds of a new
executives successful entry and integration into a new position. They completed a survey of
over 100 senior level manager and CEOs to determine what they viewed as steps to a successful
integration. The success of an individuals integration into a new position and organization was
defined by how much credibility the executive had, how closely aligned the executives revealed
plans were with organizational goals, the degree of mutual acceptance on the part of the
executive and other people within the organization, and the results achieved by the executive.
Such integration was found to be facilitated by (a) how clear roles and the bosss expectations
were for the incoming executive, (b) how quickly the executive formed helpful relationships with
stakeholders around the company (i.e., social capital; Brass, 2001), (c) how quickly the executive
learned the norms and values within his/her unit and within the company as a whole. RHR
International noted that organizations do not provide significant support for new executive
integration, and recommended a set of proactive strategies that executives can use to take
responsibility for their own integration (www.rhrinternational.com).

57
Conclusion
The recent literature on executive selection and assessment provides some practical
suggestions, but also some significant and lingering challenges. To summarize:
Failure rates among top executives and CEOs have continued to escalate over the last decade.
Companies cite succession planning, and the retention of effective executives as one of their
most important current and future challenges.
Those most responsible for executive hiring continue to ignore best practices identified in
research on personnel and executive selection.
Companies need to devote more attention to the definition of position requirements when
hiring top executives. Those responsible for executive selection do not paid sufficient time
or resources to determining what new executives might need to do in their position to
contribute to organizational success. Few search committees think through the strategic
position requirements and the performance imperatives that will drive a future executive hire.
The specification of position requirements by a search committee needs to reflect (a) the
unique nature of executive leadership; (b) where the organization is in its current growth or
performance cycle; (c) the strategic challenges and imperatives within the companys
industry; and (d) the global strategic positioning of the company.
The individuals or committees responsible for executive selection need to consider what
should be their most appropriate approach to staffing. Models that seek to match individuals
to positions that are relatively static in their performance requirements are not likely to be
successful at executive ranks the operating environment for executive leaders is too
dynamic to rely on fixed competencies. Instead, an executive search should consider
candidates on the basis of competencies suggested by emerging organizational strategy, or, in

58
the context of highly dynamic strategic environments, competencies linked to the executives
ability to learn, adapt, and respond to such conditions.
Companies have shifted in recent years in terms of the competencies they are seeking in top
executives more searches are emphasizing collaboration skills, global leadership skills,
talent management skills, and strategic change skills. This switch in emphasis is driven by
the need for greater strategic flexibility and by the increasing globality of leadership work.
Research shows that companies continue to be overly enamored of external candidates for
top executive positions; however, except under very specific conditions, most studies show
that internal candidates generally outperform external candidates after assuming an executive
position.
The effectiveness of internal succession programs depends almost entirely on the degree to
which the company invests in senior leader development and sustained talent management
programs.
Companies continue to adhere to relatively poor practices in the assessment of executive
candidates. Unstructured interviews continue to be the method of choice, despite their
relatively lower predictive validity.
Structured interviews, situational judgment tests, and leadership demonstration methods of
assessment have yielded the highest predictive validities of most assessment tools. Multirater assessments may serve more effectively as leader development tools in succession
management programs.
Limited research has focused on how those responsible for executive selection make final
choices on desired candidates. Research on decision making would suggest that a range of
biases may influence such decision.

59
Limited research has also been directed at identifying best practices in the socialization and
integration of newly hired executives. However, this part of the selection process may be as
instrumental in subsequent executive success as the other aforementioned steps.
This review provides a number of conclusions about executive talent assessment and selection.
Yet many questions remain unanswered. Progress in this area will accelerate when management
researchers, working symbiotically with HR practitioners and consultants (Zaccaro & Horn,
2005), being to focus their efforts collaboratively and more systematically on these questions.

60
References
Appelbaum, L., & Paese, M. (2003). What senior leaders do: The nine roles of strategic
leadership. Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International
(www.ddiworld.com).
Alexander, L. D. (1979). The effect level in the hierarchy and functional area have on the extent
Mintzbergs roles are required by managerial jobs. Proceedings, Academy of
Management, Atlanta, GA, 186-189.
Armstrong, M. (20060. Handbook of HR management practice. London: Kogan Page.
Arthur, W. Jr., Day, E. A., McNelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). A meta-cnalysis of rhe
criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 56,
125-154.
Baehr, M. E. (1992). Predicting success in higher level positions: A guide to the system for
testing and evaluation of potential. New York: Quorum.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical manual. Toronto: MultiHealth Systems.
Barner, R. (2000, May-June). Talent wars in the executive suite: Six trends shaping recruitment.
The Futurist, 35-41.
Barrick, M. R., Day, D. V., Lord, R. G., & Alexander, R. A. (1991). Assessing the utility of
executive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 9-22.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bennis, W., & OToole, J. (2000). Dont hire the wrong CEO. Harvard Business Review, MayJune, 171-176

61
Bentz, V. J. (1987). Explorations of scope and scale: The critical determinant of high-level
effectiveness (Tech. Rep. No. 31). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Bernthal, P., & Erker, S. (2005). Selection forecast 2004. Bridgeville, PA: Development
Dimensions International (www.ddiworld.com).
Biggs, E. L. (2004). CEO succession planning: An emerging challenge for boards of directors.
Academy of Management Executive, 18, 105-107.
Black, J. S., Gregersen, H. B., Mendenhall, M. E., & Stroh, L. K. (1999). Globalizing people
through international assignments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 515-549.
Brass, D. J. (2001). Social capital and organizational leadership. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. Klimoski
(Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance
imperatives confronting today's leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bray, D. W. (1982). The assessment center and the study of lives. American Psychologist, 37,
180-189.
Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business: A long term
AT&T study of managerial lives. New York: John Wiley.
Byham, W. C. (2003). Taking your succession management plan into the 21st century.
Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International (www.ddiworld.com).
Byham, W. C., & Bernthal, P. R. (2000). The case for internal promotions. Bridgeville, PA:
Development Dimensions International (www.ddiworld.com).
Byham, T. M., Concelman, J., Cosentino, C., & Wellins, R. (2007). Oprimizing your leadership
pipeline. Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International (www.ddiworld.com).

62
Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2002). Emotional intelligence and emotional
leadership. In R. Riggio, s. Murphy, & F. J.Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and
Leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cascio, W. F. (1994). Executive and managerial assessment: Assessment value for the money.
Consulting Psychology Journal, 46, 1061-1067.
Cascio, W. F., & Foglio, L. (in press). The business value of employee selection. IN J. L. Farr &
N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of Employee Selection. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Chan, D. (2005). Current directions in personnel selection research. Current Directions In
Psychological Science, 14, 220-223.
Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic
choice. Sociology, 6, 2-22.
Clifford, S. (2006, August). The new science of hiring. Inc. Magazine,
www.inc.com/magazine/20060801/hiring.html
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins.
Crowley, E. (2004, February). Making CEO selection work. Directorship, 13-15.
Datta, D. K., & Guthrie, J. (1994). Executive succession: Organizational antecedents of CEO
characteristics. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 569-577.
Deal, J. J., Sessa, V. I., & Taylor, J. J. (1999). Choosing executives: A research report on the
Peak Selection simulation. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

63
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a
theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6, 524540.
Development Dimensions International (2007). Leader career battery: A tool for identifying
leadership potential. Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International
(www.ddiworld.com).
Development Dimensions International (2008). Growing global executive talent: High priority,
limited progress. Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International
(www.ddiworld.com).
DeVries, D. L. (1993). Executive selection: A look at what we know and what we need to know.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative leadership.
Drucker, P. E. (1985, July-August). Getting things done: How to make people decisions.
Harvard Business Review, 22-26.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (1999b). Emotional intelligence questionnaire and users guide.
London: ASE/NFER Nelson.
Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Personnel selection and placement. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fernandez-Araoz, C. (1999, July-August). Hiring without firing. Harvard Business Review.
109-120.
Giambatista, R. C., Rowe, W. G., & Riaz, S. (2005). Nothing succeeds like succession: A
critical review of leader succession literature since 1994. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 963991.

64
Giber, D., Carter, L., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Linkage Inc.s best practices in leadership
development handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., & Goff, M. (2003). A field study of the effects of
rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56, 1-21.
Guion, R. M. (1976). Recruiting, selection, and job placement. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 777-828). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Gupta, A. K. (1984). Contingency linkages between strategy and general manager
characteristics: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 9, 399-412.
Gupta, A. K. (1986). Matching managers to strategies: Point and counterpoint. Human
Resource Management, 25, 215-234.
Gupta, A. K. (1992). Executive selection: A strategic perspective. Human Resource Planning,
15, 47-61.
Guthrie, J. P., & Datta, D. K. (1997). Contextual influences on executive selection: Firm
characteristics ands CEO experience. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 537-560.
Guthrie, J. P., & Datta, D. K. (1998). Corporate strategy, executive selection, and firm
performance. Human Resource Management, 37, 101-115.
Hambrick, D. C., & Fukutomi, G. D. S. (1991). The seasons of a CEOs tenure. Academy of
Management Review, 16, 719-742.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its
top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 195-206.

65
Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs, behavioral complexity, and
firm performance. Human Relations, 46, 543-574.
Heller, M. (2005). Court ruling that employers integrity test violated ADA couyld open door to
litigation. Workforce Management, 84, 74-77.
Hoffman, J. J., Schniederjans, & Sebora, T. C. (2002). A multi-objective approach to CEO
selection. INFOR, 42, 237-255.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan personality inventory manual (2nd edition). Tulsa, OK:
Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan personality inventory manual (3rd edition). Tulsa, OK:
Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General
Psychology, 9, 169-180.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Learning a lesson in executive selection. Leadership in
Action., 27, 22-24.
Hollenbeck, G. P. (1994). CEO selection: A street-smart review. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidirectional approach toward leadership: An extension of the
concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations, 49, 917-946.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). Behavioral complexity and the development
of the leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23, 375-408.

66
Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1992). Behavioral complexity and the development of effective
managers. In R. L. Phillips & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Strategic leadership: A
multiorganizational perspective. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Hoojiberg, R., & Schneider, M. (2001). Behavioral complexity and social intelligence: How
executive leaders use stakeholders to form a systems perspective. In S. J. Zaccaro & R.
Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the
performance imperatives confronting today's leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection, and
amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence, and
lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152-194.
Howard, A. (2001). Identifying, assessing, and selecting senior leaders. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J.
Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the
performance imperatives confronting todays leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Howard, A. (2007). Best practice in leader selection. In J. A. Conger & R. E. Riggio, (Eds.),
The practice of leadership: Developing the next generation of leaders. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing
times. New York: Guilford Press.
Howard, A., Erker, S., & Bruce, N. (2007). Slugging through the war for talent. Bridgeville, PA:
Development Dimensions International (www.ddiworld.com).
Hurn, B. J. (2006). The selection of international business managers: Part 1. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 38, 279-286.

67
Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the
21st Century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 13,
43-57.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.), Human
productivity enhancement. New York: Praeger.
Jacobs, T. O., & McGee, M. L. (2001). Competitive advantage: Conceptual imperatives for
executives. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational
leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jordan, M. H., & Schraeder, M (2003). Execuitve selection in a government agency: An
analysis of the Department of the Navys Senior Executive Service selection process.
Public Personnel Management, 32, 355-366.
Joyce, W. F., Nohia, N., & Roberson, B. (2003). What really works: The 4 + 2 formula for
sustained business success. New York: Harper Business.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
Kaiser, R. B., & Kaplan, B., (2008). Leadership, development, and the Leadership Versatility
Index 360. Greensboro, NC: Kaplan DeVries, Inc.
Kaiser, R. B., Lindberg, J. T., & Craig, S. B. (2007). Assessing the flexibility of managers: A
comparison of methods. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 40-55.
Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. (2003). Developing versatile leadership. Sloan Management
Review, 44, 19-26.

68
Karlsson, P, Neilson, G. L., & Webster, J. C. (2008). CEO succession 2007: The performance
paradox. strategy+business, 51, 1-12 (www.strategy-business.com/press/article).
Karaevli, A. (2007). Performance consequences of new CEO outsiderness: Moderating
influence of pre- and post-succession contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 681706.
Katz, R. L. (1955, January-February). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business
Review, 33-42.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Keeney, M. J., & Marchioro, C. A. (1998). A meta-analytic review of the traits associated with
leadership emergence: An extension of Lord, De Vader, and Alliger (1986). Paper
presented at the 13th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Dallas, TX. April 25, 1998.
Khurana, R. (2001). Finding the right CEO: Why boards often make poor choices. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 43, 91-95.
Klimoski, R. J., & Brickner, M. (1987). Why do assessment centers work: The puzzle of
assessment center validity. Personnel Psychology, 40, 243-260.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krause, D. E., Kersting, M. Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. III. (2006). Incremental
validity of assessment center ratings over cognitive ability tests: A study at the executive
management level. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 360-371.

69
Kwiatkowski, R. (2003). Trend in organizations and selection: An introduction. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 18, 382-394.
Lance, C. E. (2008). Why assessment centers do not work the way they are supposed to.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 84-97.
Landy, F. J., Shankster, L. J., & Kohler, S. S. (1994). Personnel selection and placement.
Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 261-296.
Lauterbach, B, Vu, J., & Weisberg, J. (1999). Internal vs. external successions and their effect on
firm performance. Human Relations, 52, 1485-1504.
Lawler, E. E. III., & Finegold, D. (1997, November 17, 1997). CEO selection: Why boards get
it wrong. Industry Week, 246, 90-92.
Liberman, V. (2001). Managers tool kit. Across the board (January, 2001).
Lockwood, N. R. (2006). Talent management: Driver for success. Alexandria, VA: Society for
Human Resource Management (www.shrm.org).
London, M. & Sessa, V. I. (1999). Selecting international executives: A suggested framework
and annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
London, M., Smither, J. W., & Diamante, T. (2007). Best practices in leader assessment. In J. A.
Conger & R. E. Riggio, (Eds.), The practice of leadership: Developing the next
generation of leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L., & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410.
Lorsch, J. W., & Khurana, R. (1999, May-June). Changing leaders: The boards role in CEO
succession. Harvard Business Review, 77, 96-105.

70
Lucier, C., Schuyl, R., & Spiegel, E. (2003). CEO succession 2002: Deliver or depart.
strategy+business, 31, (www.strategy-business.com/press/article).
Mael, F. A. (1991). A conceptual rationale for the domain and attributes of biodata items.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 763-792.
Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. I. (1965). The job(s) of management. Industrial
Relations, 4, 97-110.
Martin, A. (2007). Whats next: The 2007 changing nature of leadership survey. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Cretaive Leadership (www.ccl.org)
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). MSCEIT users manual. Toronto: Multi-Health
Systems.
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT
V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97105.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validations of inferences from
persons responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American
Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
McCall, M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next generation of leaders. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful
executives get derailed. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of leadership development. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

71
McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. III. (2007). Situational
judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 60, 63-91.
McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001).
Use of situational judgment test to predict job performance: A clarification of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 730-740.
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Mauer, S. D. (1994). The validity of
employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 599-616.
McEnrue, M.P., & Groves, K. (2006). Choosing among tests of emotional intelligence: What is
the evidence. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17, 9-42.
Mount, M. K., Witt, L. A., Barrick, M. R. (2000). Incremental validity of empirically keyed
biodata scales over GMA and the five factor personality constructs. Personnel
Psychology, 53, 299323
Muller, R. (2004). Time, narrative, and organizational culture: A corporate perspective. Journal
of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 3, 1-13.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Fleishman, E. A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1993).
Cognitive and temperament predictors of executive ability: Principles for developing
leadership capacity. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences.
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skills strataplex:
Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly, 18,
154-166.

72
Ocasio, W., & Kim. (1999). The circulation of corporate control: Selection of functional
backgrounds of new CEOs in large manufacturing firms: 1981-1982. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 532-562.
Office of Personnel Management (1998). Guide to senior executive service qualifications. (U.S.
OPM Publication # SES-98-09). Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Integrity tests and other criterion-focused occupational
personality scales (COPS) used in personnel selection. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 9, 31-39.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of
integrity test validation: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.
Page, R. C., & Tornow, W. W. (1987). Managerial job analysis: Are we further along? Presented
at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Atlanta, GA.
Paolillo, J. G. (1981). Managers' self-assessments of managerial roles: The influence of
hierarchical level. Journal of Management, 7, 43-52.
Pavett, C. M., & Lau, A. W. (1982). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and
functional specialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 170-177.
Pearce, J. A., II, & Robinson, R. B. (1995). Strategic management: Formulation,
implementation, and control. Chicago: Irwin.
Peterson, R. S, Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V. & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of chief
executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by

73
which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
795-808.
Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A
meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673-690.
Quinn, R. E. (1984). Applying the competing values approach to leadership: Towards an
integrative framework. In J. G. Hunt, D. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart
(Eds.), Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and
leadership. New York: Pergamon.
Quinn, R. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Hart, S. (1991). Challenging the assumptions of bipolarity:
Interpenetration and managerial effectiveness. In S. Srivastva & R. Fry (Eds.), Executive
continuity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
RHR International (1998). CEO Succession. Executive Insights (special issues),
www.rhrinternational.com/files/EI/15-5.htm.
RHR International (2002a). Understanding and minimizing CEO failure. Executive Insights, 19,
www.rhrinternational.com.
RHR International (2002b). Hitting the ground running: Accelerating executive integration.
Author: www.rhrinternational.com.
RHR International (2005). Filling the executive bench: How companies are growing future
leaders. Author: www.rhrinternational.com.
Ritchie, R. J. (1994). Using the assessment center method to predict senior management
potential. Consulting Psychology Journal., 46, 16-23.
Ryan, A. M., & Tippins, N. T. (2004). Attracting and selecting: What psychological research
tells us. Human Resource Management, 43, 305-318.

74
Sackett, P. R., & Ellingson, J. E. (1997). The effects of forming multi-predictor composites on
group differences and adverse impact. Personnel Psychology, 50, 707-721.
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 59,
419-450.
Sala, F. (2002). Emotional Competence Inventory technical manual. Philadelphia: HayGroup.
Salas, E., DeRouin, R. E. & Gade, P. A. (2007). The militarys contribution to our science and
practice: People, places, and findings. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in
industrial and organizational psychology. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Salgado, J. F, Anderson, N, Moscoso, S, Bertua, C, de Fruyt, F. (2003). International validity
generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities: A European community meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 56, 573605
Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2002). Comprehensive meta-analysis of the construct validity of
the employment interview. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
11, 299-324.
Schmidt, F. L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there
cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187-210.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel
psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-272.
Sebora, T.C., & Kesner, I. F. (1996). The CEO selection decision process: Bounded rationality
and decision component ordering. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5, 183194.

75
Sessa, V. I., Kaiser, R., Taylor, J. K., & Campbell, R. J. (1998). Executive selection: A research
report on what works and what doesnt. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Sessa, V. I., & Taylor, J. J (2000a). Executive selection: Strategies for success. Greensboro, NC:
Center for Creative Leadership.
Sessa, V. I., & Taylor, J. J (2000b). Choosing leader: More cooks make a better broth.
Consulting Psychology Journal, 52, 218-225.
Shen, W., & Cannella, A. A. (2002a). Power dynamics within the top management team and
their impacts on CEO dismissal followed by inside succession. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 1195-1206.
Shen, W., & Cannella, A. A. (2002b). Revisiting the performance consequences of CEO
succession: The impacts of successor type, postsucession senior executive turnover, and
departing CEO tenure. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 717-733.
Smilansky, J. (2006). Developing executive talent: Best practices from global leaders. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Snow, C. C., & Snell, S. A. (1992). Staffing as strategy. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Bomrna (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Society for Human Resource Management (2007). Strategic research on human capital
challenges. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management
(www.shrm.org/foundation).
Spreitzer, McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identification of international
executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6-29.

76
Stamp, G. P. (1988). Longitudinal research into methods of assessing managerial potential (ARI
Tech. Rep. DAJA45-86-c-0009). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Stokes, G. S., & Cooper, L. A. (2001). Content/construct approaches in life history form
development for selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 138151.
Summers, T. P. (1997). Strategic skills analysis for selection and development. Human
Resource Planning, 20, 14-19.
Suutari, V. (2002). Global leader development: An emerging research agenda. Career
Development International, 7, 218-233.
Swain, J., & Turpin, W. (2005). The new world of CEO succession. Ivey Business Journal
(September/October, 2005), 1-5.
Thornton, G. C., & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment centers and managerial performance.
New York: Academic Press.
Van der Zee, K. L., Bakker, A. B., & Bakker, P. (2002). Why are structured interviews so rarely
used in personnel selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 176-184.
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A predictive validity and
nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71-95.
Vancil, R. (1987). Passing the baton. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Vinchur, A. (2007). A history of psychology applied to employee selection. In L. L. Koppes
(Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology. Mahwah, N.
J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

77
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation, and
socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weik, P. M. (2005). Building the executive ranks: Current practices in developing future
business leaders. In R. B. Kaiser (Ed.), Filling the leadership pipeline. Greensboro, NC:
Center for Creative Leadership.
Weiner, N., & Mahoney, T. A. (1981). A model of corporate performance as a function of
environmental, organizational, and leadership influences. Academy of Management
Journal, 24, 453-470.
Wechsler, D. (1997). TheWechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, ThirdEdition (WAISIII)
administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Weekley, J. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (2006). An introduction to situational judgment testing. In J.
A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, Measurement,
and Applications (1-10). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associares.
Wellins, R. S., Smith, A. S., Paese, M. J., & Erker, S. (2006). Nine best practices for effective
talent management. Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International
(www.ddiworld.com).
Wonderlic, E. F. (1984). Wonderlic Personnel Test manual. Northfield, IL: Wonderlic and
Associates
Wortman, M. S. (1982). Strategic management and changing leader-follower roles. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 371-383.
Young, B. S., Arthur, W. Jr., & Finch, J. (2000). Predictors of managerial performance: More
than cognitive ability. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 53-72.

78
Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis
of success. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J., Thor, K., & Mumford, M. (1991). Leadership and social intelligence:
Linking social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness.
Leadership Quarterly, 2 (4), 317-342.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Horn, Z. N. J. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: Fostering an effective
symbiosis. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 769-806.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership. In S. J. Zaccaro
& R. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the
performance imperatives confronting today's leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zagorsek, H., Stough, S. J., & Jaklic, M. (2006). Analysis of the reliability of the leadership
practices inventory in the item response theory framework. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 14, 180-191.
Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996). Who shall succeed? How CEO/Board preferences and
power affect the choice of new CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 64-90.
Zhang, Y. (2008). Information asymmetry and the dismissal of newly appointed CEOs: An
empirical investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 859-872.
Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2003). Explaning new CEO origin: Firm versus industry
antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 327-338.
Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2004). When the known devil is better than an unknown god: An
empirical study of the antecedents and consequences of relay CEO successions.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 483-500.

79
Zottili, M. A., & Wanous, J. P (2000). Recruitment source resource: Current status and future
directions. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 353-382.