Success in the selection of managers or key profiles in the organization is a combination of difficult balances. There is no magic formula, but there are mechanisms to minimize the risks. 

And these mechanisms translate into the design of a process aimed at clearing up unknowns (which are many), reducing risks (which are also many, and some, not very controllable) and providing the best possible experience regardless of the final result. 
 

Using our accumulated experience and observation, we have tried to summarize the top eight mistakes that we frequently detect in executive selection and evaluation processes: 
 

1. Overestimating the importance of previous experience. While past experience is very important, overvaluing past successes does not guarantee future success. We recommend focusing the assessment on the learning agility of the candidate in question. 
 

2. Not correctly defining the position, and the specific functions that the person will perform. On many occasions, due to the rush or pressure to find a person quickly, we tend to forget the basic starting point. It is essential to define precisely and exhaustively the functions that the person will perform. And then it's crucial to correctly determine what personality behaviors are associated (and will therefore need to be assessed in the process)
 

3. Ignoring the company culture and work environment of the profile in question. There are many excellent professionals who, however, would fail in a particular organization and context. For example, if it is a company that is highly oriented to process and hierarchy, the process should be aimed at measuring the person's ability to adapt to that environment. 

4. Unstructured and "standard" interviews. It is very common for the interviews to be exactly the same (same questions) regardless of the profile to be evaluated. In addition, these are open-ended, imprecise questions that invite vague answers. The quality of the questions will determine the quality of the answers. Therefore, it is the interviewer's obligation to prepare well and ask timely questions. 
 

5. Lack of (mental) "presence" during the evaluation. It's not just about asking good questions. It's about being present during the interview and actively listening. It's very common for hiring managers to be unconsciously thinking about their next meeting during the interview. The consequence of this lack of presence is none other than to miss some signals (positive or negative) that should be considered when making one decision or another. 

6. Make decisions based exclusively on "feeling". It is surprising, but very common even in large companies to hire exclusively because of the feeling that has been generated during the interviews. Without being an exact science, a good evaluation process requires incorporating robust tools to evaluate aspects such as personality behaviors, cognitive ability, or agility. 

7. Ignoring the ability to foster innovation and change. Currently, these are the behaviors that companies are most demanding from their leaders. However, incomprehensibly, it is something that is often ignored throughout the process.

8. Not giving enough importance to values, integrity, and ethics. The evaluation is often focused, almost exclusively, on the technical part, and at most, some aspects of personality are evaluated. But what about the intrinsic motivations, values, and ethics of the profiles evaluated? Incorporating it as a part of the process, and contrasting it with previous references and other mechanisms, should be a good practice to always incorporate.

According to a recent study by Mckinsey, hiring the best talent available for a specific position can multiply productivity by up to 8 times. Now, let's imagine for a moment the impact it can have, for example, at the level of the Management Committee. A Management Committee composed of the best professionals can be up to 8 times more productive than a Management Committee composed of the wrong people. 

If we translate the above into EBITDA, it is clear that it is worth constantly reviewing the selection processes and minimizing the associated risks as much as possible.