Why "messy" leaders are the future
Originally published by Entrepreneur here.
For leaders, 2020 was a troublesome year. The global health crisis brought swift (and sometimes painful) changes to the way we work and live. This meant leaders had to help employees manage historically high levels of stress and respond to challenges more quickly than they ever thought possible.
To better understand what organizations needed from their leaders, my company interviewed dozens of top decision-makers about how they responded to the economic crisis and determined their organization’s future approach. Interestingly, that research demonstrated that many previously successful leaders were struggling. In fact, 2020 acted seemingly like an accelerator; traits that were found only in the minority of leaders were seen more broadly — and arguably became essential to thriving in our new normal.
But why? The answer is simple: 2020 demanded that leaders be empathetic, engage in hot-button issues, look outside their company to society at large, relinquish processes, trust their employees and respond to changes in a moment's notice. Before March 2020, leaders with these traits made up a minority of leaders. And though more traditionally-minded leaders often struggle to embody these qualities, they’re now a requirement for future success.
Last year brought an entire host of issues to their boiling points, with racial injustice, economic inequality and a mental health crisis among them. This has created a demand for more inclusive cultures, greater diversity in buying choices and a shift toward a workforce that’s increasingly global and virtual-first.
The future will bring even more unpredictable change at a breakneck pace, so leaders must prepare to face vexing challenges in the coming years. Here's why the following traits — which can be seen as endemic in “messy” leaders — could also bring success.
1. They prioritize compassion over old-school professionalism
According to a Gallup poll, reports of daily worry among full-time workers increased from 37 percent in 2019 to 60 percent in 2020.
The old “we only talk business here” leadership approach might work during stable times. But when employees are struggling emotionally and perhaps financially, it comes across as out of touch and cold. Our team of researchers found that leaders who struggled to cope during the lockdown and 2020’s racial-justice reckoning were those with a tendency to use professionalism as a shield to avoid difficult but necessary conversations. Regardless, we’ve reached a point where organizations can no longer sidestep sensitive topics such as race and mental health. Employees are demanding to have these conversations, and many leaders feel exposed.
By contrast, the leaders who fared well were those with the courage to talk about emotional (and even controversial) topics, thereby engaging their employees on a decidedly personal level. They reached into the void because it was important to their people. They understood that change starts with broaching tough subjects.
To mirror these messy leaders’ traits, key players should consider how to reach out to support their employees and their communities. They should prioritize compassion over professionalism and get comfortable engaging in personal conversations without any agenda other than deepening their own understanding. They might find it difficult to initiate these talks with many employees still working from home. Instead of waiting for chance interactions, however, they might find that these conversations need to happen during specific meetings rather than between them.
2020 was also the year in which leaders felt accountable for societal impact in a way they’d never felt before. Before 2020, it was possible to work within a relatively loose set of ethical aspirations, but leaders generally worked off the assumption that decisions should be made primarily through a commercial lens. Last year demanded that leaders deeply understand how their business decisions impact the world at large.
We saw this in action in the varying ways businesses responded to the pandemic: For instance, Wisconsin craft distilleries made news when they converted part of their production lines toward making hand sanitizer. Many of these companies offered hand sanitizer for free at a time when their businesses were struggling, but they already had such strong ties to their local communities that they understood the importance of taking positive action anyway.
Related: Emotional Intelligence is the Secret to Leadership in Times of Crisis
2. They focus less on processes and more on outcomes
One of the common characteristics of leaders who struggled to find their footing in 2020 was an overreliance on processes that slow down change. When the crisis hit, these leaders looked to the past for cues about the future, and they attempted to “manage” the change the way they always had.
This approach was problematic for two reasons: First, most of us had never seen widespread lockdowns triggered by a pandemic, so the past didn’t offer any helpful models for predicting the future. Second, traditional change management assumes that change is a linear process with a clear beginning, middle and end, but CEOs are increasingly being forced to lead in an environment where change is constant.
The leaders who have thrived in the unpredictable environment created by this global health crisis are those who were already change-ready. These are the “messy” leaders who care more about outcomes than processes, allowing them to respond rapidly to changing conditions.
Case in point: The Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center was able to drastically ramp up its telehealth capabilities in a matter of weeks, even though its data models suggested it would take several years. In our own study, another leader told the story of moving 14,000 staff members out of a head office to work remotely. If the company had even contemplated such a change under normal conditions, it would’ve spent months in the assessment and implementation phases. Without time to spare, however, leaders set goals, trusted their staff and made the switch in just five days.
Now, CEOs are recognizing that the biggest barriers to boldness and speed aren’t technical limitations. Rather, preconceived mindsets about what’s possible, processes that slow things down and bottlenecks created by chains of command are the true limiting factors. To succeed in a future where the next crisis is always looming, leaders must accept change as a constant.
When they always expect that conditions could change, leaders can replace traditional forecasting processes with fast-cycle experimentation. Leaders should stop trying to plan and predict future scenarios. Instead, they should take the actions that are most appropriate in the moment and adjust their approach as data emerges.
Related: 5 Essential WFH Tools for the New Remote Employee
3. They embrace the power of not knowing
We found that leaders who struggled the most during the crisis were those who fell victim to “superhero syndrome,” or wanting to put on a brave face for their employees to project strength and expertise. Leaders who were well-respected in normal times found their people looking to them for guidance, but this only created bottlenecks and inhibited creativity. When the pace of change became too fast for them to lead from the front as they always had, many tried to compensate by working longer, unsustainable hours.
In contrast, the leaders who were able to weather the crisis best were those with the confidence to take themselves out of the driver’s seat and admit that they didn’t have all the answers. They were willing to let go of their attachment to driving outcomes — choosing, instead, to embody vulnerability, humility, and trust.
Letting go of the need to project strength and be all-knowing creates acceptance to working differently. It allows teams to take ownership of change and respond with greater speed. This doesn’t mean leaders should succumb to the impulse to fall apart. Rather, it means gathering all the smartest people in the room and asking, “How do you think we should handle this?” When leaders aren’t busy trying to hold the world on their shoulders, it frees them up to focus on the things that matter.
2020 permanently changed the business landscape, and consequent responses will likely impact how organizations deal with every pitfall in 2021 and onward. The world will stay messy, meaning leaders must learn to lead in a messy way. They must shift from a wait-and-see mindset to a test-and-learn approach to business. Those who always expect change, lean into the unknown, and take a distinctly human approach will be perfectly positioned for whatever the future might bring.
Related content
Last night I started reading a book by Irvin Yalom, a psychiatrist who has written several novels that I’ve loved. But right now I’m reading something different—a book of short lessons he’s learned from many years of working with patients.
Early in his career, Yalom was inspired by something he read. The gist of it was that all people have a natural tendency to want to grow and become fulfilled—just an acorn will grow up to become an oak—as long as there are no obstacles in the way. So the job of the psychotherapist was to eliminate the obstacles to growth.
This was a eureka moment for Yalom. At the time, he was treating a young widow. Suffering through grief for a long while, she wanted help because she had a “failed heart”—an inability ever to love again.
Yalom had felt overwhelmed. How could he possibly change someone’s inability to love? But now he looked at it differently. He could dedicate himself to identifying and eliminating the obstacles that kept her from loving.
So they worked on that—her feelings of disloyalty to her late husband, her sense that she was somehow responsible for his death, and the fear of loss that falling in love again would mean. Eventually they eliminated all of the obstacles. Then her natural ability to love—and grow—returned. She remarried.
Reading this story made me think of the responsibility of leaders toward the people they need to develop—and for the growth and learning that leaders themselves require to be the best that they can be.
Many leadership development challenges seem overwhelming—even impossible. The leaders that we coach usually have a list of areas where they want to get better, but how? How do you “build better relationships with your peers and direct reports”? How are you supposed to “get out of the weeds and demonstrate enterprise-wide thinking” or “build executive presence”? All of these goals are as abstract as they are huge.
So the best approach is to not focus on the huge and fuzzy goal. What we try to do is to break these goals down into concrete actions through working on real-time business problems. To put it simply, though, we do just as Yalom does: We identify the obstacles and work toward knocking them off, one at a time.
Leadership development is not usually a quick fix. You’re not going to develop executive presence through a half-day workshop or a one-time meeting. If you’re interested in meaningful, lasting growth—whether for yourself or for those who work for you—it’s a commitment.
But don’t ever forget that we’re all capable of growth throughout life and our careers. The trick is to find the right coach or mentor who will guide you through that obstacle course.
Feedback is one of the most powerful tools a leader has, shaping both individual and organizational culture. Yet, despite its value, it’s often met with apprehension—seen as judgment rather than an opportunity. Instead of fueling growth, it can create tension, leaving recipients feeling exposed and defensive.
This reaction is natural. Feedback touches on identity, competence, and self-worth. When framed as a verdict rather than an insight, it sparks defensiveness instead of openness. But what if feedback wasn’t about judgment? What if it was a tool for gathering better data—both for the recipient and the leader?
When leaders make feedback a habit, not a performance review, they gain sharper insights, model continuous improvement, and create a culture where learning thrives. The shift from evaluation to empowerment turns feedback into fuel for growth. And at the heart of this shift? Curiosity.
Leading in a MESSY world: Why feedback matters more than ever
Leaders today operate in constant disruption and complexity. They must move beyond assumptions and seek new perspectives. At BTS, we call this operating in a MESSY world:
- M – Making sense of the broader ecosystem
- E – Establishing emotional connections to build trust
- S – Seizing momentum to stay ahead
- S – Sensing the future amid uncertainty
- Y – Yielding ego to create space for others to grow
Feedback is critical in helping leaders navigate these challenges. It’s not just a tool for correction but a catalyst for innovation and collaboration. But without structure, feedback can fall flat. That’s where the AFIRM Model comes in.
Reframing feedback: From evaluation to exploration
Great feedback moves beyond transaction into mutual discovery. When leaders model effective feedback, they foster deeper connections and unlock insights that drive performance.
Curiosity plays a crucial role in this transformation. When leaders approach feedback with genuine curiosity—asking open-ended questions and actively listening—they shift conversations from critique to shared learning. Curiosity also provides leaders with better data on how they show up, helping them refine their approach and model the kind of feedback culture they want to create.
Balancing feedback with efficiency is essential. The AFIRM Model provides a structured approach that makes feedback actionable and constructive while keeping curiosity at the center.
Structure feedback for impact with the AFIRM model
AFIRM enables structured yet flexible conversations—ensuring feedback drives results. It provides a roadmap for leaders to create meaningful, productive discussions that foster growth and accountability. Here’s how it works:
A – Agenda
Set clear intentions. Define the purpose and desired outcomes upfront. A prepared conversation leads to honest, productive dialogue and signals that feedback is a shared responsibility rather than a one-sided critique.
F – Facts, Observations, Evidence
Keep it objective. Base feedback on data and observations to minimize bias. Stay neutral and constructive. Providing fact-based feedback ensures conversations remain focused and prevents emotional reactions that derail progress.
Curiosity fosters deeper dialogue—ask questions, seek perspectives, and pave the way for growth. Instead of assuming why something happened, ask “What led to this?” or “What challenges were you facing?” to create space for honest reflection.
I – Impact
Clarify effects. Who was affected? What were the consequences? Centering feedback on impact builds trust and accountability. Highlighting the broader implications helps individuals understand why feedback matters and how their actions contribute to team success.
R – Request
Co-create a path forward. Define actionable, SMART next steps (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound). Encourage collaboration by asking “How do you think we can move forward?” or “What support do you need?” Keeping the dialogue open ensures accountability while fostering autonomy.
M – Mutuality
Feedback is a partnership. Success requires shared ownership and commitment to growth. A strong feedback culture thrives when both parties see feedback as a two-way street—leaders should also invite input on how they can better support and enable success. Take time to ask “What feedback do you have for me?” to reinforce that feedback is a mutual learning process.
Creating feedback-driven growth
Imagine an organization where feedback fuels engagement and connection. When framed as a tool for growth rather than judgment, conversations shift from evaluation to exploration. Everyone is on the same team, with the same goals.
Great leaders don’t just give feedback—they seek it, reflect on it, and use it to sharpen their approach. By modeling curiosity and making feedback a daily habit, they foster a culture where feedback is normal, constructive, and empowering.
Feedback isn’t about fixing. It’s about discovering what’s possible. By approaching it as a shared learning opportunity, we move from judgment to collaboration, growth, and transformation.
What’s one question you could ask today to spark a meaningful feedback conversation?
.avif)
The landscape of leadership is evolving as newer generations challenge traditional hierarchies. Outdated practices, focused on a top-down power dynamic, have fostered an “us vs. them” mentality, stifling collaboration, slowing innovation, and hindering sustained growth.In response, Future Relevant Organizations are adopting "next practices" that recognize and celebrate contributions, influence, and impact of contributions at all levels of the organization. Central to this shift is the movement from “leading others” to “leading with others,” recognizing that leadership isn’t confined to those in senior positions.“Leading with others” encourages a more inclusive, collaborative approach by:
- Encouraging employees to lead and influence across boundaries.
- Inspiring shared purpose and accountability toward collective goals.
- Prioritizing well-being, fostering psychological safety, and enabling open idea-sharing.
- Viewing vulnerability as a strength, recognizing that no one has all the answers.
- Maintaining focus and thoughtful engagement amidst uncertainty.
A biopharma company with a historically top-down leadership structure offers a clear example of the transformative power of this shift. While the company had enjoyed impressive growth, it faced competitive and pricing pressures from disruptive innovation, regulatory challenges, and supply chain vulnerabilities, all of which called for a fresh approach to leadership. Innovation and expansion were crucial to sustaining success.Recognizing the need for change, the company embraced the idea that leadership and influence aren’t confined to those at the top. Here’s how this new approach reshaped their organization:
- Empowering all levels: Leadership became less about titles and more about fostering a culture where every employee felt valued and capable of contributing. Through well-crafted experiences, 5,000 employees enhanced their self-awareness, challenged established norms, and adopted a long-term perspective aimed at collective growth.
- Redefining leadership: Leadership shifted from micromanagement to empowering others to make meaningful contributions. Employees were given greater agency and ownership, leading to increased adaptability in a dynamic market.
- Building trust through vulnerability: The organization encouraged vulnerability, quickly building trust across teams in an evolving, loosely connected environment. This strengthened team dynamics and established a supportive community ready to face new challenges.
Next practices: Shared leadership responsibility
The shift toward “leading with others” is not simply a change in leadership style; it is a strategic imperative. By embracing diverse perspectives and treating leadership as a collective responsibility, organizations gain more valuable insights that drive better decision-making and innovation. Companies that adopt this approach are better prepared to adapt to change, seize new opportunities, and build a culture where everyone is engaged in shaping the future.
“Leading with”: A more inclusive path forward
Adopting a “leading with others” mindset requires more than just structural changes—it calls for a fundamental shift in how leadership is understood at all levels. Leaders must actively create environments where contributions from all employees are expected, not optional. This inclusive leadership approach fosters a deeper sense of ownership and accountability, empowering employees to align their actions with the organization’s long-term goals.As the business landscape continues to evolve, organizations that embrace this collective approach to leadership will be better positioned not only to navigate uncertainty but also to thrive in the future ensuring future relevance.
Related content
In 2012, 74% of SaaS account executives hit quota. Today, it's just 48%.
It's tempting to chalk that up to a software problem. But the pattern is broader. Alexander Group found that just 49% of core sellers across nine industries hit or exceeded quota in 2023.
But here's the kicker: the average seller in that study still reached 89% of target.
Across industries and benchmarks, attainment has been drifting down, but this isn't a story about a handful of great sellers carrying the number while everyone else is falling dramatically behind. The typical seller is getting close to quota.
Sellers aren't suddenly incapable of selling, the context around selling has changed.
Buyers still need sellers… they just need them differently
1. Seller's aren't guiding a single buyer anymore
B2B deals now involve six to 10 stakeholders, and enterprise purchases can involve 17 or more. About 77% of buyers describe their last purchase as complex or difficult.
The seller's job is increasingly to help a group reach a decision, not simply help one person make one.
2. The seller's information advantage is shrinking
The seller's information advantage is shrinking
Buyers now use about 10 interaction channels during a purchase, roughly twice as many as in 2016. AI is accelerating that shift, giving buyers more ways to research, compare and pressure-test options before they ever engage a seller.
The value of simply knowing more than the buyer is disappearing.
3. Buyers can avoid seller friction for longer
About two-thirds of B2B buyers prefer a rep-free buying experience. It's easier than ever to research a category, build a shortlist and develop a point of view without talking to sales.
That means sellers have to earn their way into the conversation by adding value, not just showing up.
4. Sellers are becoming sense-makers
Buyers aren't necessarily struggling to find information. They're struggling to determine what to trust, what matters and what to do with it. In fact, 69% say they turn to sales reps to validate AI-generated insights.
Which brings us to the kickoff
All of this has big implications for the one moment each year when we bring the entire commercial organization together to prepare for the year ahead.
The good news? You don't need to scrap the kickoff, you just need to redesign it.
That's work we do with clients all the time, across sales kickoffs and other high-stakes moments where strategy needs to become action.
And, in the spirit of not gatekeeping the good stuff, here are three things every kickoff designed to change behavior needs:
Before
Start with the change, not the agenda
This is where many sales kickoffs go wrong. They start with the event: strategy update, product roadmap, messaging, breakouts, keynote. The agenda becomes the organizing principle.
Flip it.
Start with the behavior you need to change, then design the kickoff around it.
That means thinking beyond the room itself. What needs to happen before people arrive? What do they need to experience and practice during the event? And what needs to happen after they get back to work?
Find the real constraint
Most revenue leaders have a hypothesis about what's holding their teams back. Few have enough data to know.
We ran a readiness diagnostic for a financial services client preparing for an AI leadership event. The leadership team came in expecting the biggest barrier to be skepticism: Would sellers actually believe AI could help them sell differently?
They were wrong.
Sellers and leaders already believed in the value of AI. The real gap was much more practical: confidence and ability. People understood the promise but weren't yet sure how to use it in their day-to-day work or bring it into a client conversation.
That changed the intervention completely. Instead of spending the event convincing people that AI mattered, we could spend the time helping them actually use it.
That's what a good diagnostic buys you: permission to change the plan.
A useful diagnostic doesn't need to be complicated. Ours can take 15 to 20 minutes per person and, when deployed across the full population, give leaders a ranked view of the constraints by region, function or level.
It also gives you a baseline for the behavior you're trying to change. Without a clear starting point, there's no way to know whether the kickoff actually moved the needle.
Get leaders ready before the room
Leader preparation shouldn't be a briefing the night before. If leaders aren't aligned on the change, the room won't be either.
Before the wider team arrives, leaders need to understand the data, the capability gap and, most importantly, what they need to do differently to close it.
The strongest version we've run gives leaders a dedicated session ahead of the main event. They arrive aligned on what needs to change, why it matters and how they'll reinforce it with their teams.
The test: Can every leader explain what their team needs to change, how kickoff will help and what they'll do differently afterward?
If not, you're asking the organization to change before its leaders are ready to lead the change.
During
Get people working, not watching
Most events fail for a pretty unglamorous reason: People sit and watch.
If you want behavior change, the room needs to feel more like the work and less like a conference.
A simple experiential architecture works:
- Start with the real work. Put people into a live or simulated situation before explaining the framework.
- Let them see the gap. Pause and reflect before introducing the solution. Let the insight come from the room.
- Give them something to try. Introduce the model, tool or methodology when people have a reason to use it.
- Practice before they leave. Don't assume understanding will translate into behavior. Let people try the new behavior while they're still in the room.
Skip the practice and you have awareness. Practice it and you have a shot at behavior change.
Put your leaders to work too
Leaders should facilitate, participate, join teams at the tables and model the behaviors they're asking others to adopt.
If executives are on stage for 20 minutes and gone by lunch, you've designed a broadcast.
People notice the gap between what leaders say matters and what they actually spend their time doing.
The test: Did leaders do the same work they're asking their teams to do?
After
Build reinforcement into the work
This is where a lot of the investment quietly disappears.
Managers today are carrying more people and more work than ever before. Gallup reports that average team size rose from 10.9 direct reports in 2024 to 12.1 in 2025. Yet managers remain one of the biggest variables in whether new behaviors stick, with Gallup estimating they account for 70% of the variance in team engagement.
So don't give managers another program to administer.
Make the first 90 days part of the design
- Weeks 1–2: Translate the kickoff into 90-day commitments with clear owners and dates. Give leaders an executive synthesis they can use with their teams.
- Days 30–60: Bring managers together in peer groups of six to eight to compare what's working. Give them simple guides they can use in 1:1s and pipeline reviews.
- Day 90 and beyond: Connect the new behaviors to business-led check-ins and actual performance.
Make leaders accountable for what happens next
Leaders set the expectation, managers coach it, executives model it, and the organization measures it.
No platform substitutes for a manager asking about the behavior in a 1:1.
The test: 90 days out, can a participant remember the last time their manager asked about the behavior?
If they can't, kickoff probably didn't stick.
The opportunity is bigger
The best kickoffs don't just get everyone aligned on the year ahead. They create a shared understanding of what selling requires now, give people a chance to practice it, and make it easier to carry that behavior back into the work.
If you remember nothing else from this blog, I'll leave you with a simple but powerful question to take into the planning process for your next event:
When your sellers walk back into the field on Monday, what will they be able to do that they couldn't do before?
If you have a good answer, you're probably on the right track.
There’s a specific kind of strategy meeting getting scheduled right now, in nice hotels with bad coffee: the AI reset off-site.
And for good reason. In a 2026 WRITER survey, 48% of leaders described their AI rollout as, in their own words, a "massive disappointment." That's nearly half the room.
What that number really measures is the distance between what these tools can do and what people are doing with them. In our experience, that distance is almost entirely human.
Which is why the off-site is the right instinct. Making the most of that time is the harder part.
What separates an AI reset that actually changes the game from an expensive two-day conversation? In our experience, it comes down to avoiding four common design mistakes.
Mistake 1
Blaming the bots
The gap between AI investment and real adoption is almost always about people, not technology. And when adoption stalls, we usually find it's one of four things.
- They don't think it will help them
- Nobody around them is using it
- They don't feel capable
- Or they don't have real access to the tools they were promised
Four different problems, and four completely different fixes.
That's why diagnosis comes first. If you don't know which barrier you're dealing with, every intervention becomes an educated guess. And you cannot tell which one you have by staring at a dashboard. A belief gap and a skill gap look identical in a status report and need opposite interventions. Show up guessing, and you'll spend real money teaching people to use a tool they simply don't trust yet. Congratulations - you've just catered the wrong conversation.
Mistake 2
Letting leaders off the hook
One of the biggest predictors of whether change sticks is also one of the most overlooked: leadership.
If your executives show up as observers, nodding along and quietly answering email under the table, your people clock it in about four minutes.
That doesn't mean your CEO has to emcee the thing. It means they use the tools in front of everyone, participate in the conversation, and make it clear this isn't someone else's initiative.
Recently we’ve been working with a Fortune 200 global professional services firm who’s top 120 leaders were at very different points with AI. Some were redesigning entire processes. Others were using it to summarize emails, or not at all. Rather than focus on the technology, the four-hour session focused on what leaders could do with AI, applying it to a live strategic challenge and ending with a personal commitment to lead differently. The response was strong enough that the organization is now cascading the experience globally.
The lesson is simple: when leaders experience AI as a strategic capability, they're better equipped to model the behavior that makes adoption stick. Nothing you build during those two days survives without that entire chain of leadership doing its part.
Mistake 3
Chasing the wrong outcome
Without a behavioral baseline, you have no way to prove anything actually moved. No baseline, no ROI. You're just hoping the energy in the room was good, which is a wonderful feeling and a terrible metric to bring to your CFO.
But the baseline isn't just about proving the off-site worked. It's about understanding where you're starting in the first place. And you'll want that clarity, because the quiet resistance is real. In that same 2026 research, nearly a third of employees admitted to actively working around their company's AI strategy. If you don't win their belief in the room, some of them will keep politely ignoring the whole thing from their desks. You can't measure your way out of that. You have to earn your way out of it.
Which brings us to the biggest reframe of all.
Mistake 4
Leaving follow-through to chance
We've been working with a Fortune 100 medical device company on their AI strategy for three years. It started with their leadership team, a three-hour session built around what those leaders would do differently, and it landed. What became clear afterward was that the same experience needed to happen everywhere else. So, it expanded: 90-minute activations for 15,000 people, and this year intact teams redesigning their own workflows.
Three years in, that first session is the smallest part of the story.
Your event is where momentum gets created. What happens at 30, 60, and 90 days is where results get made.
If you're planning one of these and want to change what happens on Monday, not just how everyone feels on Friday, that the work we do.
We'd be glad to help you design it.
Candidates now arrive at interviews pre-coached by AI, with their resumes optimized to pass every checkpoint. Polish has stopped being a signal. The traditional hiring process was built to read exactly the cues that AI is now best at producing, and the signals hiring managers once relied on have weakened as a result. And for roles where the wrong hire carries real business consequences, losing the ability to tell who will actually perform is not a minor inconvenience. It is a material risk, and it exposes the business to unnecessary turnover, reduced performance, and heavier investment for talent growth and development.
So how do you observe the behaviors that matter most, before someone is in the role?
Not by asking better questions, but rather by putting candidates in situations designed to elicit that behavior.
The limits of predicting from paper
Credentials tell you what someone has done. Structured interviews tell you what someone says they would do. Neither lets you observe what they actually do in the moments that count.
This distinction matters most in client-facing, relationship-driven roles, where the performance gap between a strong hire and a weak one plays out in real business outcomes (revenue, retention, client growth). Organizations that hire at scale in these roles carry that gap across hundreds of decisions at a time.
The better approach is to watch candidates do the work before you hire them. Put them in simulated, role-relevant scenarios, and pair the simulation with a second, different kind of measure so no single method carries the whole decision. That combination is what lets you evaluate real performance before anyone is in the role. Organization-specific simulations provide a clear read on who is ready and capable of performing on day one. In a world of AI-supported candidate signals, the use of simulations makes the process harder to prep for. It is harder to fake. And, when designed well, it is substantially more predictive than other hiring methods.
What counts as evidence
Claims about predictive power are easy to make. Evidence for them is rarer than you would expect.
A predictive validity study, the kind that links pre-hire assessment scores to how someone actually performs once hired, is some of the hardest evidence to produce and the rarest to see. Many assessments are validated against proxies: another test, or a theoretical model of the role, rather than real results on the job. Connecting scores to concrete business outcomes and doing the statistical work to show the link holds, takes years of shared data and a level of commitment from both the assessment provider and the client that most partnerships never reach. That is precisely why it is worth asking for. A provider who can show how assessment scores track to training completion, retention, and first-year output is offering something categorically different from one who can only show a correlation with another test.
Why simulation holds up where other methods do not
When a candidate sits across from a trained assessor (someone playing the client or prospect on the other side of the conversation) and has to work through a real situation, they cannot rely on a rehearsed answer. The scenario is specific. The stakes feel real. What you see is close to what you would get on the job.
That is the value of simulation-based assessment: it does not test what candidates know about the role.
It shows how they use what they know when a real person is on the other side of the conversation, before the stakes are real.
For roles that carry significant business responsibility, this distinction is the whole game. The cost of the wrong hire in a high-stakes client-facing role is not just a missed quota for a quarter - It plays out in relationships that do not develop, clients who leave, and productivity losses that compound over time. Getting those hiring decisions right, at scale, with consistency, requires methods that are built for predictive accuracy, not just candidate experience or hiring speed.
What this means for how organizations think about hiring
Most organizations are still optimizing the wrong things in their hiring process. They invest heavily in employer branding, application flow, and interview structure, all of which matter, but less in the core question: does our hiring process actually predict who will succeed in this role?
AI has sharpened the stakes here. If every candidate can present as polished and prepared, screening based on presentation becomes less useful. What holds up is direct observation of the behaviors that the job requires.
A few principles worth building from:
- Measure what the job requires, not what is easy to measure. Cognitive tests and personality questionnaires have their place, but they do not look much like the job. The closer the assessment is to the actual work, the better it predicts performance in it.
- Ask what your assessment predicts. Training completion? Retention? First-year output? Most organizations cannot answer that question today, largely because providers have rarely been asked to prove it. It is a fair thing to ask for.
- Take the human element seriously. In a simulation, a candidate is having a real conversation, responding in real time, navigating a situation that requires judgment. Even with the help of AI, that is hard to game. And it remains one of the strongest predictors of on-the-job performance available.
The data exists to make hiring decisions more accurate, fairer, and more directly tied to business outcomes. For organizations operating in high-stakes roles at scale, there is too much on the line to rely on methods that cannot hold up to that standard.
You may be interested in BTS’ thought leadership in the five talent shifts AI is forcing now.