The Résumé Got Them Hired. Here's What Sinks Them by Month Nine.

Author : Wardah Harharah | Published On : 04 Oct 2026

A CEO said this to me recently, in a version I hear often: "On paper, she was perfect." The new executive had the right pedigree, the right sector experience and a strong run of references. Nine months later, two direct reports had asked to move teams, the CEO was quietly re-doing her decisions, and she was working longer hours than anyone while accomplishing less.

Nobody in that story lacked ability. What failed was everything around the ability, which is exactly the gap Wardah Harharah's Executive Transition programme is built to close.

The numbers are uncomfortable, and consistent

Methods differ between studies, so I treat any single percentage with caution. But the direction barely changes. Heidrick & Struggles' chief executive told the Financial Times that roughly 40 percent of senior-level hires are pushed out, fail or quit within 18 months. An HBR piece by Mark Byford, Michael Watkins and Lena Triantogiannis put the odds closer to one in two that a new executive fails or leaves in that window, whether hired externally or promoted internally.

What matters more is why. Leadership IQ's study of new hires found that missing skills were the cause of failure only 11% of the time, with interpersonal difficulties far more common. That study covers new hires broadly rather than just the C-suite, but it matches what I see at the top. The résumé gets people through the door. Relationships, expectations and context decide what happens next.

The mandate nobody wrote down

Most failed hires I come across share one feature: the CEO, the board and the new executive each hold a slightly different picture of the job.

The CEO says "transform the function." The board hears "stabilise it." The executive hears "do both, immediately." Each is sincere, and none of them has compared notes. Within weeks the executive is being measured against an expectation they never agreed to.

Before day one, I encourage executives to ask three uncomfortable questions. What will have changed in 12 months for you to call this hire a success? What are you not willing to change? Who has the most to lose from me being here? The answers are rarely tidy, but hearing them early is worth far more than discovering them in month seven.

You didn't hire one person, you changed a team

Organisations tend to onboard the individual and ignore the group they are joining. HBR's executive playbook from April 2026 makes exactly this point: most CEOs treat C-suite onboarding as an individual exercise, even though a new executive reshapes the entire leadership team.

I see the effect clearly in multicultural leadership teams. One person comes from a consensus-driven background, another expects the leader to decide, and a third will not disagree in a meeting but will in the corridor afterwards. Add a newcomer with a different style and every working agreement shifts, usually without anyone saying so. If the existing team is not prepared for that, the new arrival gets read as "difficult" when they may simply be unfamiliar.

Where the GCC raises the stakes

In the Gulf, relationships carry weight that an org chart does not show. Trust is built over time, often through personal contact, and decisions frequently run through conversations that never appear on a calendar. An executive arriving from a more transactional market can work on the formal agenda for months while the real conversations go on around them.

Many of the region's leaders are also hired into family-owned groups, government-linked entities or organisations mid-transformation, where the history behind a decision matters as much as its logic. Seniority is read differently. So is directness. A leader who treats a polite "let us look at it" as a yes will be confused by what follows.

None of this is a reason to hire only from within. It means the first year has to include deliberate, unhurried relationship-building, and the senior hire needs someone outside the reporting line to help them read the room.

Look at behaviour, not just the CV

When I work with leaders in transition, I use tools like the EQi-2.0 and the Hogan Leadership Suite. They are not there to label anyone. They show how a person is likely to behave under pressure, and that is where first-year failures tend to start. A strength such as decisiveness can turn into overruling people once the stakes rise. Hogan's derailer measures are useful here because they flag these patterns before they cost anyone their credibility.

A coach adds something an organisation cannot easily provide: a confidential space where a new executive can say "I don't understand how decisions really get made here" without it going into their file. It is also a place to rehearse the difficult first conversations. This is the thinking behind the programme I mentioned at the start, which pairs assessment with structured, ongoing support through the early months of a senior role.

If you want a closer look at the personal side of stepping into a C-suite role, my earlier piece, Executive Transition to the C-Suite: What Nobody Tells You, covers it in depth.

A better question to ask before the offer letter

Most hiring conversations focus on whether someone can do the job. A more useful question is whether this organisation is ready to receive them: whether the mandate is clear, the team is prepared, and someone is looking after the transition itself.

If you are about to make a senior hire, or you are about to be one, it is worth settling that before the first board meeting rather than after the first misunderstanding. The programme page linked above explains how I approach it, and I am always glad to talk it through.