Case overview
After a series of interviews, a large holding company had three finalists for its CEO role. All had relevant experience, strong careers, and excellent performance throughout the selection process. The client knew that a poor choice would be costly. We proposed adding a strategic simulation that tests complex management decisions under uncertainty. Two of the three candidates performed poorly on day-to-day operational decisions, a critical requirement for the role.
This case is for owners and boards that want to assess both strategic vision and the ability to manage complex systems under uncertainty.
The situation and the problem
The client was a large holding company with annual revenue above RUB 100 billion. Following the departure of its previous CEO, it began a search. Three candidates reached the final stage. All had experience leading large businesses and had interviewed successfully with the owners and board members.
The owners could not decide. Each finalist appeared excellent, but the risk of choosing poorly was high. The client wanted a way to assess more than past achievements: how candidates actually thought, made complex decisions under uncertainty, managed interconnected variables, and adapted to a new environment.
Our solution and implementation
We proposed a strategic simulation that put each finalist in charge of a fictional company. Across 12 rounds, they had to manage a production chain, investment, staff, and sales in a volatile market. The simulation assessed:
- Strategic thinking: setting long-term direction and balancing resources;
- Operational decisions: sound judgment, cost management, and responses to new developments;
- Adaptability: understanding instructions, settling into the role, and adjusting to change.
All candidates completed the simulation under the same conditions, remotely and with full access to the instructions. Results were recorded automatically.
Results
Before: Three candidates had equal prospects after the interviews. The owners could not choose.
After: Two candidates scored below 30% on key metrics; one scored above 70%. The report showed specific errors, including poor resource allocation, weak responses to market signals, and impulsive investment decisions. The client chose the candidate with the stronger result.
Additional outcome: The holding company added the simulation to its senior team assessment program and plans to use it to develop its internal leadership pipeline.
Conclusion: The simulation helped the client choose a leader and assess the risk that a candidate might struggle to manage a complex system.
Before and after
| Before | After |
| Three finalists appeared equally strong after interviews. A wrong choice could cost the company money. | The simulation revealed real differences: two struggled to manage under uncertainty, while one performed strongly. |
| Selection relied on past experience and presentation skills. | Objective metrics—strategic thinking, operational decisions, and adaptability—helped the client assess likely performance in the role. |
