What a board asks before
it approves a hire.
A board approving a senior appointment is testing three things: that the process was rigorous enough to trust, that this candidate is demonstrably the strongest available rather than the most available, and that the risks in the appointment have been identified and priced. Most approval difficulties trace back to one of the three going unanswered.
What the board is actually testing
Board questions at the approval stage sound like scepticism about the candidate. They are usually scepticism about the process, and that distinction changes how you prepare.
A board rarely knows the functional detail well enough to second-guess the assessment. What it can judge is whether the search was thorough, whether the comparison was real, and whether anyone has thought about what happens if this goes wrong. Prepare for those three and the functional questions handle themselves.
The questions, and what each one is reaching for
Eight questions account for most of what gets asked. They arrive in roughly this order.
- How large was the field? Reaching for whether the market was genuinely worked or a convenient few were reviewed.
- Who else was on the shortlist, and why this one? The real question is whether a comparison happened at all.
- What are this person’s weaknesses? A candidate presented as gap-free is a candidate who was sold rather than assessed.
- Why are they leaving their current role? Reaching for whether the move is towards this opportunity or away from a problem that travels.
- What did the references actually say? Specifically whether they were taken by the firm or supplied by the candidate.
- How does the package compare to the market? Both directions matter: underpaying risks the offer, overpaying distorts the level beneath.
- What happens in the first ninety days? Reaching for whether anyone has thought past the appointment itself.
- What is the risk, and what is the plan if it falls short? The question most often unprepared for, and the one that determines how the meeting ends.
Preparing the pack
A good approval pack is short and answers the eight questions before they are asked. Four pages is usually enough.
- The brief as agreed, with the criteria set before the search opened. This is what makes the comparison legible.
- The funnel in numbers. Approached, engaged, assessed, shortlisted. It answers the field question in one line.
- The shortlist with assessments, including the runners-up and why they placed second. A board is reassured by a real comparison and unsettled by a single name.
- The recommended candidate’s risks, named by you before anyone else names them, with what will be done about each.
- The package against benchmark, with the source of the benchmark.
- The first ninety days, in outline, with who owns the onboarding.
Naming the weaknesses yourself
The instinct at approval stage is to present the strongest possible case. It is the wrong instinct, and experienced boards read it immediately.
Every senior candidate has gaps. Presenting one as gap-free signals either a shallow assessment or an advocate who has ceased evaluating. Naming two or three real limitations, with what will be done about each, converts the conversation from interrogation to planning.
This holds for search firms too, and we get it wrong under time pressure. A shortlist that reads as four strong candidates carrying zero reservations is easier to send and less useful to receive than one that says plainly where each person would struggle.
When there is an internal candidate
An internal candidate changes the approval conversation more than any other factor, and handling it badly costs the organisation twice.
- Where an internal candidate was assessed on the same criteria as the external field, say so explicitly and show the comparison. It is the single most effective thing you can bring to the meeting.
- Where they were considered informally and set aside, expect the board to ask, and have a substantive answer about development rather than a procedural one.
- Where the internal candidate is the recommendation, the field question becomes sharper rather than softer. A board wants to know the external market was genuinely tested.
Plan what happens to the unsuccessful internal candidate before the meeting. Boards ask, and the honest answer is frequently that they will leave within a year unless something changes.
What the chair reads first
Approval is usually decided before the meeting, in the conversation between the chair and whoever is sponsoring the appointment. The pack matters, and that conversation matters more.
Three things are worth settling with the chair in advance, because each one is harder to handle live.
- The risk you are least comfortable with. Raise it yourself, early and privately. A chair who hears it first in the meeting has to test it publicly, which turns a manageable reservation into a debate.
- Where the package sits. Any figure above the band the board expects needs its rationale established beforehand. Discovering it in the room shifts the discussion from the person to the money.
- The unsuccessful internal candidate. Whether they know, what they have been told, and what happens next. Boards ask, and a vague answer reads as a retention problem the board is about to inherit.
Done well, the meeting becomes a confirmation of a decision already understood. Done badly, it becomes the first time three directors hear something that concerns them, with the candidate waiting on a response.
Building the board calendar into the search
The most avoidable loss in senior hiring is a strong candidate who accepts elsewhere while waiting for a board date. It happens because approval is treated as a step at the end rather than a fixed point the search runs towards.
- Fix the approval date at the brief. Work backwards from it to set when the shortlist has to land, and tell the search firm that date rather than a vague target.
- Establish what can be done between meetings. Many boards will approve by written resolution or delegate to a nominations committee for roles below a threshold. Knowing this in advance can remove a month.
- Warn the board early. A chair who knows an appointment is coming can make room. One who receives a pack four days before the meeting will defer it.
A shortlist that arrives three days after a board meeting waits the full cycle. Candidates at this level are usually in more than one process, and a month of silence reads as a decision.
What approval is actually granting
Approval is permission to make an offer, and the appointment remains undone until the person is in the seat and performing. The distance between those two points is where senior hires most often come apart.
- The offer has to be accepted, against a counter-offer that will arrive.
- The notice period has to be served, during which the candidate stays in contact with the employer they are leaving.
- The first ninety days have to work, which depends on an onboarding plan agreed before the start date rather than after it.
Marquee stays in contact through the notice period for this reason. Nine in ten offers taken to candidates are accepted, and the ones that fall over usually do so in the gap between acceptance and the first day.
Frequently asked questions
Evidence that the process was rigorous, that a real comparison happened, and that the risks have been identified. Boards rarely have the functional depth to second-guess an assessment. They can judge whether the market was worked and whether anyone has thought about what happens if the appointment falls short.
The recommendation, plus enough of the field to show a real comparison took place. A written shortlist of four to six with assessments, and two or three met in person, is the usual shape. A single name presented for approval invites the question you least want.
At chief executive and functional head level, usually yes. Meeting two or three finalists gives the board its own evidence, which makes approval faster and the subsequent support stronger. It also lengthens the process, so schedule it early.
Doubt about the process rather than about the person. A thin field, an absent comparison, or an assessment that reads as advocacy will sink a strong candidate. Presenting the weaknesses yourself removes most of that risk.
Between one and six weeks, driven almost entirely by the meeting calendar. Build the board date into the search timetable at the brief. A shortlist that lands three days after a board meeting waits a month, and strong candidates take other offers inside that window.
The agreed brief, the funnel in numbers, the shortlist with assessments, the risks, the benchmarked package and the first ninety days. Four pages is usually enough. The pack should answer the obvious questions before they are asked rather than supplying material to interrogate.
Sometimes, and it is worth deciding deliberately rather than by default. A consultant who can answer directly on the field and the assessment shortens the discussion. A consultant who reads as a salesperson in the room lengthens it considerably.
