For decades, HR leaders have relied on third-party assessment tools to help identify, promote and develop future leaders. From DiSC, Berkman and Hogan to Wiley PXT and many other assessment platforms, these tools promise to reveal potential, predict success and make leadership selection more objective and effective. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s happening.
In a two‑year research study that included interviews with more than 100 CEOs, CHROs and board members at public and private companies, I found that most of the widely used leadership assessments capture personality, not position-specific readiness. They describe how leaders see themselves, but provide no tangible insight into their potential to perform successfully under real-world conditions.
The result is that many organizations are hiring and promoting executives based on static traits rather than dynamic behavior. They’re measuring style, not substance, and often leave a significant amount of leadership potential untapped.
My research suggests that companies are best served by shifting recruitment focus from what candidates appear to be, to how well those individuals are likely to actually lead under pressure, within context, and in alignment with their organization’s culture.
Here are three ways to make that transition:
Shift from personality to performance
Most assessment tools measure personality traits including dominance, sociability or conscientiousness, and then extrapolate those tendencies to predict leadership success. Those predictions, however, often fall short when the individual takes on a complex role.
This occurs because personality is the starting point for evaluating potential, and leadership is situational. Success depends on how individuals behave when faced with competing priorities, ambiguous information and actual accountability.
A CHRO I interviewed summed up this dilemma: “Our top performer on paper didn’t last a year in the new role. She was confident and articulate, but she couldn’t make decisions under pressure.”
To make assessments predictive instead of descriptive, HR leaders need to evaluate behavior in context. That means using methods including simulations, business‑case exercises and structured behavioral interviews to measure how candidates are likely to respond to real challenges.
360‑degree feedback can also add depth by capturing how others have experienced a leader’s actions, not just how that leader describes them. The goal is to replace theoretical self‑portraits with evidence of actual performance and growth potential.
See also: Rethinking leadership (again): What CHROs need to know
Put organizational culture and context at the center
Leadership does not exist in isolation. What works well in one organization may completely fail in another. Too often, companies assume that leadership potential is universal—that a candidate deemed “high potential” by a generic assessment tool will thrive anywhere. But culture and context are powerful filters. A brilliant strategist who thrives in a high‑growth technology firm might struggle in a mature, process‑driven organization.
In my research, only three of 25 organizations reported that their assessment frameworks were explicitly aligned to company culture, values and strategic direction. The vast majority used standardized tools designed for general applications. That’s like fitting every employee with the same pair of shoes and wondering why some can’t walk straight.
If leadership is based on alignment, then assessments must measure fit—not conformity, but resonance. HR leaders can achieve this by first defining what successful leadership actually looks like inside their organization. They need to determine:
- What behaviors drive success here?
- Which leadership traits reflect our mission and values?
- How does our growth stage—start-up, scale‑up or legacy—shape the kind of leadership we need next?
Once this blueprint is well-defined, HR leaders need to adapt assessment tools to measure against that organizational profile. A great assessment tool doesn’t just describe individuals; it helps a company to understand whether those individuals can thrive in your system, with your people, pursuing your strategy.
Culture alignment isn’t a “soft” metric. It’s the glue that binds performance, engagement and trust together.
Watch for bias in visibility
Leadership selection isn’t only about who scores well on assessments. It’s also about who gets noticed. Across dozens of organizations I’ve studied, confidence and charisma consistently overshadow humility and discernment. The loudest voices in the room—the visible, outspoken, high‑energy self‑promoters—often advanced faster than peers who are quiet, steady performers who have built strong internal followership.
That visibility bias can be dangerous. It can reward confidence over competence, and often causes organizations to overlook a vast pool of high‑potential talent that doesn’t fit the extroverted mold.
Several CEOs I interviewed shared a similar realization: The people quietly delivering exceptional results were often overlooked in favor of more vocal colleagues. One CHRO admitted: “We kept rewarding those who told the best stories about their impact, not the ones actually creating great results.”
Humility, composure and discernment rarely make headlines, yet they are the qualities that drive retention and long‑term performance.
To mitigate visibility bias in leadership selection, HR leaders can:
- Apply multi‑rater assessments that include peers and direct reports, not just senior leaders.
- Conduct blind reviews of performance data before interviews or promotions.
- Create systems of nomination where employees can recommend peers who demonstrate exceptional leadership in action.
By deliberately elevating the quieter, data‑driven and purpose‑focused leaders, HR can build a more balanced and resilient talent pipeline.
How to audit your leadership assessment capability
If your organization’s current assessment approach isn’t delivering effective leaders, a quick internal audit can help to expose where it’s falling short, and how it can be improved. Here are three steps to follow:
Step 1: Evaluate predictiveness
Ask whether your leadership assessments correlate with on‑the‑job performance. Are the people who score highest succeeding? If not, consider supplementing your tools with behavioral data that includes performance under stress, adaptability, decision quality and the ability to inspire discretionary effort.
Step 2: Integrate culture and strategy
Revisit your organization’s purpose, mission, vision and values. Then, define the specific leadership behaviors that align with those standards, and incorporate them directly into your assessment criteria, so “fit” becomes measurable.
Step 3: De‑bias the process
Train assessors to recognize and interrupt bias. Replace informal discussions with structured scoring criteria. Rotate evaluation panels. Ensure that your assessment process measures leadership impact, not just visibility or executive polish.
When done correctly, these steps can transform assessments from one‑time events into institutional disciplines that help HR leaders identify hidden talent, build diverse talent pipelines and make leadership a measurable, repeatable capability.
The benefits of recalibrating leadership potential
Most leadership assessments are not inherently broken. They’re simply incomplete. They tell part of the story, but not the whole one. When HR leaders recalibrate how potential is defined and measured, the impact can be profound.
Succession planning becomes strategic, not reactive. Cultural alignment improves. Employee engagement rises because people see that promotions are earned through demonstrated leadership, not charisma or politics.
In today’s environment, where the pace of change outstrips traditional models of leadership development, predictive assessment isn’t optional. It’s essential.
Leadership potential can no longer be measured by personality alone. It must be grounded in behavior, context and authenticity, which are the real determinants of whether someone will inspire, execute and sustain performance when it matters most.
As an HR executive, the challenge is to evolve systems so that they stop rewarding the wrong traits and start uncovering the right ones. This transformation doesn’t require abandoning what’s already being used. It requires sharpening and aligning every tool and conversation to address the realities of how leaders actually perform.
When that happens, assessments stop being a checkbox exercise and start becoming what they were always meant to be: a window and pathway into leadership that lasts.
