A strong track record helps, of course. But using it as the main criterion is like buying a car from a photograph: it might work out well… or it might prove expensive.
The problem appears when we confuse signals: a big name on the CV does not guarantee method; a senior title does not guarantee judgement; an achievement does not guarantee it can be repeated under different conditions.
In 2026, with roles changing faster than job descriptions, what matters is not so much what someone has been, but what they are capable of achieving again.
What is actually worth assessing:
- Speed of learning: how they adapt when tools, priorities or the market shift.
- Clarity of thought: how they break down a problem and make trade-offs with incomplete information.
- Demonstrable impact: what changed in measurable terms, and which decisions made that possible.
One simple practice that improves interviews is to ask the candidate to reconstruct a real project using data, even if anonymised. The polished story is not the point; the process is:
- the starting point,
- the difficult decisions and rejected alternatives,
- the measurable outcome,
- what they would repeat and what they would not.
A career history opens the door. Evidence decides whether it is worth walking through it.
Sources:
- 17 years of first-hand experience in Executive Search
- https://hrmasia.com/hiring-for-tomorrow-why-learning-velocity-now-outranks-experience/ (HRM Asia)
- https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/talent-velocity-report (linkedin.com)
- https://incop.org/index.php/mo/article/download/3246/3192/6340 (org)
