The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story “Making Sure the Boss is the Right Fit”. The article cites some recent examples where seemingly exceptional leaders, from places such as Google, failed to mesh with the people or culture of their new firm.

We could go on with dozens of examples of this problem. The wizard from Apple who tried to transform J.C. Penney or the revolving door of leaders that Hewlett Packard had in the last decade.

One fascinating comment in the article was that it should take a lot more than interviews to avoid costly mistakes when hiring a new leader. And we will come to that. But one failure that both companies and potential executive candidates are guilty of, is not enough of or the right kind of interview. The higher the position is, in my mind, the more number and diverse the interviews should be.

My old private firm boss, Don Brown, had 7 interviews with a very qualified and ultimately successful candidate (that I had personally found!)  That seems like a lot and it is. But we had individual interviews, two on one interviews, two separate, private dinner interviews and even a dinner with spouse interview. Dinner interviews are especially critical and revealing. In an hour or so in the office, you can gloss over  a number of issues that can be much more fully explored or discussed in a two to three hour dinner. I am not saying that 7 is the right number, but too often in our fast paced world of business, we don’t spend enough time with interviews.

Which brings us to who should or could be included as part of the interview process. The direct boss, of course, and a couple other superiors who could be Board members. Also, a wide sample of the people who will report to the new hire. In the case of a potential CEO, the list should include the CFO, the heads of a couple businesses, the head lawyer and, my favorite, the head of HR. But smart firms also add to this list. Perhaps some very bright up-and-comer who is not shy. Maybe a soon to retire old, salty veteran who really knows the firm, its people and its culture. With a mix like this both the firm and the candidate could learn something about the possible fit.

But the hardest thing to analyze with any candidate is their fit or ability to adapt to the company’s culture. In my book, The Business Zoo, we talk extensively about this. Leadership and Culture, another famous business writer said, are the flip side of each other. A strong and dominate culture can destroy a new, very differently focused, leader. A weak or fading culture can be remade or revitalized by a new, strong leader. But most situations are somewhere in the middle. Candidates should study the hiring firm’s culture through the interview process and by doing their own research. With the internet this is certainly easier. Articles in business magazines or trade journals or a firm’s own written histories can tell you a ton. And the hiring firm needs to do research themselves, and not just with a search firm, on the candidate’s style and approach to people and problems as well.

Think of it like due diligence in a major purchase of a merger. The upfront, extra time and costs invested to improve the new leader’s chance of being successful is minor compared to the cost of a failed new leader and its impact on the company.

Leaders need to fit or adapt to a firm’s culture or they will fail; not the other way around!

Take more time and make more effort when hiring new leaders and when being hired.