Most evaluation frameworks stop at competence. They assess what someone can do (functional skills, relevant experience, domain knowledge) but never examine who they are. In deal terms, that's like validating the financials but never evaluating the management team.

Competence and character require fundamentally different evidence. Leadership diligence has to account for both. 

We use a Candidate Criteria and Role Benchmark (CCRB) to define what matters in the role and keep evaluation anchored to those decisions as candidates are introduced. It forces trade-offs to be addressed early and prevents risk tolerance from shifting once strong candidates enter the process. 

Diligencing Competence

Competence is the more straightforward side of the evaluation: verifiable, comparable, and defensible. The question is whether someone's specific capabilities match what this role actually demands at this company, at this stage.

Measuring on a Spectrum

For hard skills, candidates are categorized as Bullseye, Compatible, or Adaptable based on how closely they match the functional requirements.

• A Bullseye candidate requires minimal mitigation on functional capability. The fundamentals are sound. 

• A Compatible candidate represents a known shortfall with a feasible mitigation plan. The risk is acceptable if the right support structures are committed. 

• An Adaptable candidate represents forward-looking capability that can be built, provided the foundation is solid and the investment in development is made.

This categorization strengthens the diligence because it surfaces conversations about where functional shortfalls exist, who can bridge them, and what risks are being accepted. It provides clarity on which gaps are acceptable and which ones are not. 

Diligencing Character

Character is harder to evaluate, which is exactly why most hiring processes skip it. But it's often the factor that determines whether a leadership hire is successful long-term.

Unlike competence shortfalls, character risk doesn't stay contained to one person's performance. A leader who operates with integrity sets a standard. A leader who cuts corners signals that results matter more than process. These patterns cascade through the entire organization. The real question isn't just "Can this person do the job?" It's "What will the organization look like after this person has been here for 18 months?"

Traditional interviews are terrible at surfacing this. Someone can interview like a top operator but not lead like one. Without independent data, the difference usually only becomes visible after the hire is made. 

Benchmarking a Range 

For soft skills, we use a combination of behavioral, motivational, and habit assessments. Each tool is designed to surface how someone actually operates, not how they present in an interview.

The key is when and how these assessments are used.

Before the search begins, we assess the role itself. We define the behavioral patterns, motivational drivers, and leadership habits the role requires given the company’s stage, ownership structure, and value creation plan. This becomes the benchmark.

Finalist candidates then complete these assessments. We compare their actual operating patterns against what the role demands, not against a generic leadership profile or personal preferences in the room.

These assessments are intentionally non-transparent, which limits impression management and surfaces consistent patterns in how someone makes decisions and leads under pressure. We look for patterns, not scores, and treat conflicts between data and experience as signals to probe further, not automatic disqualifiers.