Phase 1 – Reverse-engineering the Failure

Unlike traditional vetting done by talent and executive recruitment companies, where the role definition is expected to come from the client, our process began backwards:

1. We performed an analysis of the previous three CEOs’ communications, board reports, and exit data. We identified the common denominator: the board kept hiring “Caretakers” (Stability-focused) when the company ’s structural debt required a “Viking” (Restructuring-focused).
2. We redefined the role based on the actual requirements and needs of the customer to later hand it over to recruitment. We audited the finalists provided by the search firm – not to sell them, but to stress-test their psychological alignment with the new “Viking” persona.

Phase 2 – The Finalist Comparison

The search firm presented multiple candidates, among whom two seemed to be well-suited for the job. On paper, both were growth-orientated experts in manufacturing; they needed to be properly questioned using the right approach to stress-test them.

The Board initially leaned toward one because she felt “safer”. In order to avoid the initial bias, knowing the tendency from the past, we provided a Questioning Brief to expose the underlying value systems that the recruitment firm’s coaching had obscured.

Phase 3 – The Questioning

We instructed the board to ask both candidates a set of questions, which included the following.

Question 1

“In your first 90 days, you find a legacy department that is culturally beloved but operationally insolvent. Fixing it will lower the current morale. What is your solution to it? Describe it in your first email to the staff.”

Elena’s response focused on “Communication,” “Bridge-building,” and “Finding a middle ground” without dismantling the team. Low-risk, low-gain safe approach instead of solving the problem.

Marcus’s response focused on “Transparency regarding the threat to the company’s and others’ stability”,

“Immediate restructuring”, and “Protecting the viable team by cutting the 20%”. Immediately taking the risk to cut the losses.

Question 2:

“Describe a time you had to dismantle a technical team that personally liked and trusted you in order to save a failing product line. Don’t tell us the result – tell us what you said in that final meeting.”

Elena’s response focused on “Vision”, “Need”, and “Heavy decision” showing that she may actually avoid similar steps in the future. The narrative leans dangerously close to potential people-pleasing.

Marcus’s response focused on “Forward movement”, “Finding the solution for the team members, if possible”, and “Ensuring that all ideas of potential new products are welcome”, giving the team back agency and making them responsible for finding their own solutions. It revealed that Marcus can handle the emotional weight of restructuring much better than Elena and focuses on action-taking, which is exactly what the client needs.

Question 3:

“If the business survives and scales, ensuring people stay with their jobs, but the original company culture has to change as part of the process, do you view that as a leadership success or a failure?”

Elena’s response focused on “Necessity”, “Unfortunate situation” and “The market need”, showing that she views this kind of situation as beyond her control.

Marcus’s response focused on “Scaling”, explaining the strategy to them, and “Ensuring that the people grow with the company towards the new objectives”, showing the people that this is part of the process and they are supported in the growth. He showed much more control than Elena, which is crucial for the leadership style the client needs.