Expert: top appointments suffer from vague tasks and overreliance on resumes

The selection process for Latvia's next State Chancellery director has revived questions about how to choose the right person for top jobs. After the Saeima amended the State Civil Service Law, allowing the prime minister to appoint the head of the chancellery without an open competition in certain cases, both the procedure and the criteria have drawn attention. Olga Dzene, leadership development expert at Figure Baltic Advisory, notes that a candidate's track record is not enough to predict how they will behave in a role they have never held before.

Many organizations fall into the trap described by the Peter Principle: a strong specialist is promoted, but the new position demands a different kind of work — getting results through others. In such cases, the new manager may hoard decisions, avoid difficult conversations and slow down the team, even though their personal performance was excellent in the previous job. According to data from Russell Reynolds Associates cited by Dzene, the average tenure of top executives has fallen to 7.1 years, and last year eleven executives left their posts within less than a year.

The expert argues that companies need to define the purpose of the position before starting interviews. If the board does not clarify what the new leader must achieve, evaluators will judge candidates according to their own preferences, focusing on industry experience, change management or stability depending on individual outlook. Risks such as excessive ego, a weak capacity to learn and unwillingness to hear objections may be obscured by a strong CV and reputation.

Drawing on Gallup research, Dzene says about 70% of differences in team engagement levels are linked to direct managers. Employees quickly adapt to a leader's attitude toward mistakes and criticism: if they see people being humiliated or ignored, they stop reporting problems. This leaves decision-makers with incomplete or delayed information, driving up costs. While a perfect choice cannot be guaranteed, the expert stresses that defining the task, required competencies and unacceptable behaviour in advance can reduce the risk of appointing the wrong person.