In Uncertain Times, Companies Still Hire for the Past

We are operating in a time of structural uncertainty.

Geopolitical tensions, shifting markets, and evolving business models are redefining how companies expand and operate internationally.

And yet, when it comes to leadership selection, many organizations still rely on the same criteria they have always used.

In my work within international executive search, I often see a recurring pattern.

When faced with uncertainty, companies tend to “play safe”.

They prioritize candidates with familiar backgrounds, linear careers, and strong references from trusted networks.

On the surface, this approach is understandable.

But in practice, it often leads to a critical mismatch.

Because the context has changed — and the parameters used to evaluate leadership have not.

One of the most underestimated aspects of this process is how reference checks are interpreted.

References are typically collected from individuals who have worked with the candidate in previous environments — often environments that were more stable, more predictable, and structurally different from today’s reality.

This creates a subtle bias.

Positive references confirm past performance f— but they do not necessarily predict how a leader will perform in a fundamentally different context.

As a result, candidates who have built their careers in less conventional, more complex or less “structured” environments are sometimes overlooked.

Not because they lack capability, but because they are harder to evaluate through traditional lenses.

In several assignments, I have seen highly adaptable candidates being set aside in favor of more “reassuring” profiles — only to see those same profiles struggle once placed in complex international roles.

And yet, these are often the profiles who demonstrate:

• adaptability in unfamiliar situations

• the ability to operate without predefined structures

• a more flexible approach to decision-making

• resilience grounded in real experience

In contrast, candidates who have consistently performed well in stable, highly structured environments may appear more reassuring — but are not always the most effective when facing ambiguity and rapid change.

This is where a shift in perspective becomes critical.

In uncertain times, selecting leaders based on past alignment alone is no longer sufficient.

It requires a broader, more open evaluation approach — one that considers not only what candidates have done, but how they have operated when conditions were less predictable.

Some of the most suitable leaders today are not necessarily the most obvious ones.

But they are often the ones better equipped to navigate what comes next.