First impression, second reality

We often encounter candidates in organizations who have impressed with a flawless resume and a compelling vision, only to turn, a few months after being hired, into a boss under whom people begin to quit and become dissatisfied.

We cannot call this experience bad luck, it represents a systemic flaw in the way we typically evaluate candidates for leadership positions. That is why the way we evaluate candidates—especially for management positions—requires careful consideration, objectivity, and valid assessment tools.

Why are we so easily fooled?

The traditional interview rewards precisely the traits that people with toxic tendencies possess in abundance: displayed self-confidence, fluent speech, and the ability to control the narrative about their own achievements. Charisma and technical competence are evident in a thirty-minute conversation. The way someone treats a subordinate who makes a mistake, how they react to critical feedback, or how they share credit for the team’s success are not visible at all, because the interview never creates those conditions.

From a psychological perspective, this means we systematically select based on appearances, not behavior. And the organizational consequence is costly: a toxic leader not only undermines the performance of their immediate team but also leaves a trail of chronic anxiety, burnout, or diminished trust in leadership.

Four Signs to Consider

Although no single sign is definitive proof, a few recurring patterns are worth actively watching for during the hiring process:

• The omniscient narrator

The candidate talks about the team’s successes almost exclusively in the first person singular. When asked directly about past failures or conflicts, the response becomes vague or shifts responsibility to others.

• An asymmetrical relationship with authority

Notice the tone used when talking about superiors versus the tone used when talking about subordinates.

• Reaction to uncomfortable questions

A well-adjusted candidate can acknowledge a past mistake with nuance and reflection. A potentially toxic candidate either rejects the premise of the question or offers a “textbook” answer, perfectly rehearsed, without any genuine hesitation.

• Feedback from independent sources

References chosen by the candidate themselves rarely tell the whole story. Informal conversations with former peers or direct reports—not just with superiors—tend to reveal patterns that a resume never shows.

What concrete steps can an organization take?

True prevention doesn’t mean “more intuition,” but rather a structured, repeatable process:

• Define in advance what interpersonal success means in that specific role—not in general terms, but specific to the team and the context.
• Develop behavioral questions, not hypothetical ones: “Tell me about a time when you had to give a colleague tough feedback” says much more than “How would you handle a conflict?”
• Make a note in advance of red-flag answers, so you don’t rationalize them in real time, under the influence of the person’s charisma.
• Follow up with additional questions—an honest person remains consistent, while someone reciting a prepared answer will begin to contradict themselves.
• Cross-check the evaluation with multiple interviewers and independent sources, not just the impression of a single person in the decision-making process.

The cost of ignoring

Companies that overlook these signals usually end up paying a double price: first, through the repeated departure of people from the affected teams, and second, through a more subtle loss—the gradual erosion of trust in leadership, which becomes apparent over time.

An interview process designed to bring to light authentic interpersonal behavior—which is often masked by subjective impressions—always costs less than fixing the consequences of a bad hire.