Who is seen as “the right candidate”?

The right candidate: selection processes and implicit norms

In the earlier articles in this series, the central point was that inclusion cannot be fully captured in KPIs, reports or business cases. It also became clear that inclusion is not merely a compliance issue, but touches on professional judgement, governance and the quality of decision-making.

This becomes particularly concrete in selection and appointment processes. These are the moments when it becomes visible who is seen as suitable, who naturally appears on a list, who is recognised as “a good fit”, and who remains out of view without this being explicitly intended.

Many organisations design their selection procedures carefully. Job profiles are drafted, search firms are engaged, and interviews are conducted on the basis of experience, competencies and suitability. At the same time, practice shows that candidates with similar backgrounds, networks and frames of reference often come forward.

This raises an important question: how objective are selection and appointment processes really?

Formal criteria and informal judgements

Selection processes usually rely on formal criteria. These may include board experience, sector-specific knowledge, strategic insight, independence, financial expertise or supervisory experience. These criteria are important. Governance and supervision require quality, diligence and responsibility.

But alongside these formal criteria, less visible factors often play a role. Candidates may be assessed on “cultural fit”, “click”, “chemistry” or “fit within the group”. These are understandable considerations. A supervisory board or executive board must be able to work together. There must be trust. And group dynamics matter.

At the same time, there is also a risk. Concepts such as “click”, “fit” or “suitability” are often closely linked to existing group norms and familiar frames of reference. As a result, differences in background, style, experience or communication may more quickly be perceived as deviant or less suitable. Not because someone is objectively unsuitable, but because they resemble less closely the existing image of what a suitable candidate looks like.

The power of the existing profile

A candidate profile often appears neutral. Yet a profile also contains implicit choices. Which experience is considered important? Which career path is seen as logical? Which style of conduct fits the image of leadership? And which networks are taken for granted?

In practice, this often creates a prototype of “the right candidate”. That prototype is rarely fully explicit, but it does influence the assessment. Candidates who closely resemble that prototype are more quickly recognised as suitable. Candidates who deviate from it more often have to explain why their experience is nevertheless relevant.

This can work subtly. A candidate is then not rejected because of background or diversity, but may be described as “not a natural match”, “difficult to imagine within the current composition”, “not entirely fitting within the dynamics” or “not yet ready for this role”. In this way, existing patterns can continue to repeat themselves unnoticed.

Networks as a gateway

Network structures also play an important role. Many appointments within executive boards and supervisory boards take place directly or indirectly through existing professional networks, previous collaborations or known references. That has advantages. Trust, speed and predictability are important, especially in roles where responsibility, confidentiality and board-level sensitivity play a major role.

But networks are never neutral. Those who have access to the right network come into view sooner. Those outside that network must make more effort to become visible. As a result, an organisation may have inclusive ambitions on paper, while the actual inflow of candidates remains limited in diversity.

The problem is then not that suitable candidates do not exist. The problem may also be that the search is taking place in too narrow a set of places. That is why it is important to look not only at the final appointment, but also at the route leading to it. Who compiles the longlist? Which networks are used? Which names keep recurring? Which candidates are discussed but not put forward? And who is not seen at all?

Misfit is not always objective

In selection processes, it is sometimes said that someone “does not fit”. That may be justified. Not every candidate fits every role, phase or organisation. But the judgement that someone is “not a fit” is not always objective.

It may also say something about the existing group, about the norms that prevail there, about the style that feels familiar, or about the type of experience that is taken for granted. This is precisely where inclusion touches on professional judgement.

Professional supervision requires more than asking whether a candidate fits the current composition. It also requires asking whether the current composition is looking broadly enough. Sometimes a candidate who does not seem obvious at first may be valuable precisely because they add a different perspective.

This does not mean that quality requirements should be relaxed. On the contrary. It requires sharper judgement. Not only: does this person fit the existing image? But above all: what quality, experience and perspectives does this board or organisation need?

From composition to process quality

Inclusion is therefore not only about the final composition of the executive board or supervisory board. It is also about the quality of the selection process.

An organisation may value diversity and still unintentionally select the same profiles again and again. Not because diversity is being rejected, but because the design of the process confirms existing patterns.

That is why supervision of inclusion requires attention to the design of selection processes, the formulation of candidate profiles, the composition of longlists and shortlists, the role of search firms and existing networks, the criteria used to assess suitability, and the implicit norms that may influence judgement.

In this way, selection is not a purely technical process, but a governance issue.

What does this mean for supervision?

For supervisory directors, the key question is not only whether the correct procedure has been followed. The question is also whether the process creates sufficient room for different perspectives.

That requires critical questions. Which definition of suitability are we using? Which experience do we naturally consider valuable? Which candidates come into view through our usual networks? Which candidates may remain out of view? When do we call someone “suitable” or “not suitable”? And how do we prevent familiarity from being confused with quality?

These questions reveal whether inclusion is genuinely part of governance and supervision. Because inclusion is not only about who is ultimately appointed. It is also about the way organisations look, weigh and decide.

A mirror for governance

Selection and appointment processes are therefore a mirror for the quality of governance. They show how organisations deal with difference, uncertainty and familiar patterns. They reveal which voices naturally gain access to decision-making and which perspectives have to make an extra effort to be taken seriously.

That is why inclusion in selection processes is not a side issue. It touches on the quality of governance and supervision itself. When an organisation continues to recognise the same profiles as “the right candidate”, the question is not only whether those candidates are suitable. The question is also whether the assessment framework is broad enough.

Professional judgement requires executives and supervisory directors to dare to ask that question.

Looking ahead

The next article will focus on what happens when regulation provides less direction.

Within the CSRD/ESRS framework, reporting requirements, indicators and assurance provide a degree of structure. But not every organisation falls within the full CSRD obligations. In addition, developments around proportionality, the Omnibus proposals and more voluntary frameworks such as the VSME create more room for organisations to make their own choices.

That is precisely when professional judgement becomes more important. Does inclusion remain part of good governance when formal standards become less directive? And how can the supervisory board oversee culture, decision-making and different perspectives when rules and KPIs do not prescribe everything?

That will be the subject of the next article in this series.

Next month: Supervision under uncertainty: what happens when regulation provides less direction?

Would you like to discuss inclusion, selection processes, governance and supervision further? Please contact us at info@dufinco.nl or call +31 (0)6 512 47 217.