Recruitment & Evaluation

How do you get to an unbiased truth, especially when power and politics are in the room? I’ve seen two very different governance environments when it comes to board composition.

In one, the board (or its nominating committee) has real control over the recruitment process. Skills matrices are used thoughtfully. Profiles are debated openly. References are checked rigorously. The conversation is about what the board needs for the next chapter.

In the other, directors are effectively “received.” Appointments are made by controlling shareholders, governments, founders, or stakeholder groups. The board’s role is less selection and more integration.

 In both environments, cognitive bias is alive and well.

The difference is not whether bias exists. It is whether the board has the courage and structure to surface it.

Director selection and evaluation are particularly vulnerable to bias because they sit at the intersection of: Power, Identity, Reputation, and Future strategy.

Some of the most common distortions I see:

o   Affinity bias – preferring candidates who “feel familiar.”

o   Confirmation bias – interpreting a resume or board contribution to support a pre-existing narrative.

o   Halo effect – assuming excellence in one domain translates to all domains.

o   Status bias – overvaluing title or pedigree.

o   Political bias – elevating loyalty or alignment over independence.

None of these are malicious. Most operate below the surface. But left unchecked, they shape boards in ways that subtly undermine long-term governance quality.

When You Control the Nomination Process

When a board genuinely controls recruitment, the risk is self-replication. Boards unconsciously recruit in their own image. So how can you move the conversation closer to truth?

1. Start with Strategic Gaps, Not People

Before discussing names, articulate:

• What strategic inflection point is ahead?

• What assumptions underpin the strategy?

• What expertise or perspective would challenge those assumptions?

If the strategy is evolving the board profile must evolve too.

2. Separate Competence from Comfort

A useful question to ask in governance conversations:

“Are we selecting for effectiveness or for ease?”

Directors who challenge constructively may not be the most socially comfortable additions. That does not make them wrong.

3. Use Structured, Evidence-Based Evaluation

Board evaluations should not simply ask, “Is this director adding value?”

They should examine:

• Decision quality

• Preparedness and judgment

• Risk oversight engagement

• Contribution to debate versus volume of airtime

• Impact on group dynamics

Without structure, evaluation becomes anecdote. Anecdote is where bias thrives.

When You Must Accept Appointments

In public companies with controlling shareholders, Crown corporations, nonprofits with appointed representatives, or founder-led organizations, you often ’get’ directors.

Here, the governance challenge shifts. You cannot control entry, but you can control integration and accountability.

1. Clarify Role and Expectations Early

Independent governance requires clarity about:

• Fiduciary duties

• Confidentiality

• Collective responsibility

• The difference between representation and stewardship

When expectations are explicit, manipulation has less room to operate.

2. Build Transparency into Committee Work

Where agendas can become politicized, documentation becomes your ally:

• Clear charters

• Documented rationales

• Explicit risk discussions

• Recorded dissent where appropriate

Transparency reduces the ability to quietly steer outcomes.

3. Strengthen Collective Norms

Boards are social systems. If the norm is thoughtful debate and evidence-based reasoning, even politically appointed directors tend to adapt. If the norm is deference and speed, manipulation accelerates.

Getting to the Truth

To me, the hardest part of governance is not identifying bias in others, it’s recognizing it in ourselves. A few practices help boards move closer to truth:

Slow the Moment

Speed rewards narrative. Deliberation rewards evidence. Ask:

• What assumption are we making about this candidate or director?

• What data would disconfirm our view?

• Who benefits from this framing?

Invite Dissent Intentionally

Assign someone the role of testing the consensus.

Not to derail the process. But to protect it.

Bring in Periodic External Review

Independent third-party evaluations, if done well, can surface patterns internal members cannot see.

They are not about compliance. They are about ‘cognitive hygiene’.

The Deeper Question

At its core, director selection and evaluation are not administrative exercises. They are strategic risk management tools.

When boards slow down, test assumptions, and design processes that reduce the power of bias, they do something subtle but powerful: They shift from protecting relationships to protecting the organization. And that is the work.