Assessing leaders at the top of their game is often part art (listening, relating) and part science (gathering data, testing hypotheses). I pride myself on objectivity, as do many CEOs assessing, hiring, and developing talent at the top of the house. Yet certain leaders challenge our ability to think like scientists and make accurate predictions. Some typical profiles include:

• The inspiring leader that you want to root for 
• The brilliant leader who could change the business 
• The safe pair of hands leader the team will embrace

Each of the leaders listed above could be wildly successful, but they can also be more challenging to assess...objectively. An "inspiring" leader who fails to dig in and learn the new industry won’t live up to the hype. The "brilliant" leader’s uber high IQ can’t drive change if there’s no EQ to support it. The "safe pair of hands" leader introduces little risk but perhaps also little reward.

One I must be particularly mindful of: the “tough nut to crack” leader. Wicked smart but complicated and perhaps a little abrasive, they often leave the client asking, “are they worth it?” After spending some time with this leader, I see the patterns, the vulnerabilities, the signal through the noise. This is great! Except, if I am not paying attention, my next thoughts go something like, “the abrasiveness is a facade, and what’s underneath that is more accurate…now I understand them, so others will too…and will give them a pass.” It’s not hard to poke holes in that line of thinking. So I pause, refocus on the data, and revisit a favorite mantra: the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I regain objectivity and look again: "how is this most likely to play out?"

The takeaway: Our brains are built to find shortcuts, regardless of how logical or intelligent we are (or how much training and expertise we’ve garnered). We make better decisions when we are aware of those shortcuts and devise guardrails to keep them in check.