FAIL
The Hidden Reasons
Why Executive Hires
Fail Within
a Year
Published
June 2026
Focus
Senior Leadership · GCC
When a senior hire doesn’t work out, the post-mortem almost always blames the person. The truth is less comfortable: most executive hiring failures are decided long before the offer letter — in the brief, the process, and the first ninety days.
The Setup
A board approves a new Chief Operating Officer. References are glowing. The interviews were sharp. Eleven months later the same board is quietly discussing an exit. Nobody is quite sure what went wrong — the candidate was clearly capable, the credentials were real, and the chemistry in the room had been good.
This is the pattern we see repeatedly. The executive who fails within a year is rarely incompetent. They are usually the wrong fit for a context nobody fully defined, hired through a process that tested the wrong things, and then left to sink or swim in an onboarding vacuum. The failure is real — but its causes are upstream of the person, and they are largely preventable.
~40%
Of newly hired executives are widely cited as failing within 18 months — verify against a primary source before quoting
90 days
2–3x
Why Executive Hires Actually Fail
The convenient explanation is a hiring mistake — the wrong person slipped through. That’s true less often than people think. What actually breaks down is a set of conditions that surround the hire, most of which the hiring organisation controls.
First: the role was never properly defined. Many senior searches begin with a title and a salary band, not a clear statement of the two or three outcomes the person must deliver in year one. When the brief is vague, every candidate looks plausible — and the organisation ends up selecting on presence and pedigree rather than on fit for the actual work. The hire fails not because they couldn’t do a job, but because nobody agreed on which job it was.
Second: the selection tested the wrong things. Interviews reward articulacy, confidence, and the ability to tell a clean career story. None of those reliably predict performance in a specific seat. The competencies that determine whether an executive succeeds — judgement under ambiguity, the ability to build trust quickly with an existing team, resilience when the first plan fails — are difficult to surface in a panel and are routinely skipped in favour of a comfortable conversation.
The executive who fails within a year is rarely the wrong person in absolute terms. They are the right person dropped into a role nobody defined, judged on traits that don’t predict the work, and then left alone to figure it out.
Sahar Al-Rashidi · Gilbert Lennard Dubai
Third: culture and stakeholder fit were treated as soft considerations. A leader can be technically excellent and still fail because their operating style collides with how decisions actually get made in the organisation. This is especially acute in the GCC, where an executive relocating from London or New York may carry assumptions about pace, hierarchy, and consensus that don’t translate. The mismatch rarely shows in interviews. It shows in month four, when the new leader keeps pushing on a door the organisation has quietly decided to keep shut.
Fourth: onboarding was an afterthought. The energy in a senior hire goes into closing the offer. Once the contract is signed, attention moves on. The executive arrives to no structured first ninety days, no early wins mapped out, and no honest briefing on the politics they’re walking into. The most expensive failures we see are people who were set up to succeed on paper and then abandoned in practice.
When hires don't work out, competence is rarely the cause
Coachability (won't accept feedback)
Low emotional intelligence
Lack of motivation / drive
Wrong temperament for the role
Technical incompetence
26%
23%
17%
15%
11%
The Leadership Hiring Mistakes Behind the Pattern
Hiring for the résumé, not the mandate
Pedigree is reassuring. A candidate from a recognised firm, with the right logos and the right schools, feels like a safe choice — and that feeling does a lot of quiet work in the room. But a track record built in one context doesn’t automatically transfer to another. The leader who scaled a function inside a large, resourced organisation may struggle in a leaner business that needs them to build rather than manage. The mandate, not the master narrative, is what should drive the decision.
- What are the two or three outcomes this person must deliver in the first year?
- What has caused previous people in or around this role to struggle?
- Who are the stakeholders this person must win over — and what do they actually value?
- What does the operating culture reward, and what does it quietly punish?
- What will the first ninety days look like, concretely, before the offer is made?
Confusing interview performance with on-the-job performance
Senior candidates are, almost by definition, good at interviews — they have done many of them and have a polished account of every decision they’ve made. Relying on that performance is one of the most common leadership hiring mistakes. Structured work-sample exercises, scenario discussions tied to the real mandate, and deep reference work with people who saw the candidate operate under pressure tell you far more than another conversation about strengths and weaknesses.
Treating references as a formality
Reference calls are often run at the end, as a box to tick, with questions designed to confirm a decision already made. A reference conversation that genuinely probes — how did this person handle their worst quarter, what would their last team change about them, where do they need support — frequently surfaces the exact friction point that later becomes the reason for failure. The information is usually available. It just isn’t asked for.
Fixing Executive Retention at the Top
Retention at senior level is decided early. By the time an executive is openly disengaged, the window to fix it has usually closed. The interventions that matter happen in the first quarter — and they are structural, not motivational.
The strongest organisations treat the first ninety days as a designed experience, not a sink-or-swim test. The new leader arrives to a clear set of early priorities, a map of the relationships they need to build, and an honest account of where the bodies are buried. They are given a genuine sponsor inside the organisation — someone whose job is to make sure the hire succeeds, not just to have approved it.
Just as important is candour during the search itself. A candidate who is sold an idealised version of the role will discover the gap quickly, and the gap erodes trust before any work has even begun. Telling a senior candidate the truth about the challenges — the under-resourced team, the sceptical board member, the legacy system nobody wants to touch — is not a risk to the hire. It is the foundation of retention. The executives who stay are the ones who knew what they were signing up for.
Default behaviour vs. what actually retains senior hires
|
Stage
|
What most organisations do
|
What actually works
|
|---|---|---|
|
The brief |
Open with a title and a salary band |
Define two or three year-one outcomes before searching |
|
Selection |
Reward articulacy and a clean career story |
Test judgement, fit, and resilience against the real mandate |
|
Culture fit |
Treat it as a soft, end-of-process consideration |
Map operating style to how decisions truly get made |
|
References |
A formality run to confirm the decision |
Probe the worst quarter, blind spots, and support needs |
|
First 90 days |
Sink-or-swim once the contract is signed |
A designed plan, early wins, and a real internal sponsor |
Retention isn’t won with a counter-offer in month eleven. It’s won in the brief, in an honest search, and in a first ninety days that someone actually designed.
Gilbert Lennard · Market Observation, 2026
The GCC dimension
In the Gulf, executive retention carries an extra layer. A senior hire who relocates a family to Dubai or Riyadh has made a far larger bet than someone changing jobs in their home market. If the role disappoints, the cost of leaving is high and the resentment is sharper. That raises the stakes on getting the brief, the honesty, and the onboarding right — and it rewards organisations that take relocation, integration, and family settlement as seriously as they take the offer package. The leaders who leave within a year in this region often cite the role; what tipped them was rarely the work alone.
What Good Looks Like
The organisations that hold on to their senior hires are not luckier in the people they choose. They are more disciplined in how they choose and integrate them. They define the mandate before they open the search. They build a process that tests the work rather than the performance. They are honest with candidates about what the role actually involves. And they treat the first ninety days as the most important part of the hire, not the part that happens after the real work — the recruiting — is done.
None of this is exotic. It is, in a sense, obvious. But it is consistently skipped under the pressure to fill a seat, and the cost of skipping it is a leader quietly exiting eleven months later while everyone wonders what went wrong.
The failure was never really about the person. It almost never is.
S
Sahar Al-Rashidi
Partner · Dubai
More Insights
Keep reading.
Onboarding · Leadership
The First 90 Days: Designing an Onboarding That Actually Retains Senior Leaders
Sahar · 7 min read