Who is ready to lead the next stage?
Ask for evidence of the capabilities the team needs. A polished summary can hide a gap in the record.
“Create a diverse team, create trust within the team” (opens the source)
The question
The chair asks how you would build Meridian’s leadership team and assess a successor. The mandate is growth, stronger controls and an AI-related operating change. The packets lack comparable evidence on stakeholder communication and contested decisions.
| €m | |
|---|---|
| Starting revenue | 48 |
| Ending revenue | 66 |
| Acquired revenue included at the end | 12 |
The acquisition date is not supplied. Do not call the adjusted comparison an annualised organic growth rate.
A’s operations team closed two of three major control gaps. The record does not establish that every control is effective.
“Set the role mandate, correct the evidence and propose the next assessment.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Start with the role and the team
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Set common criteria and complementary roles.
The strong move. The team’s required capabilities give the assessment its purpose.
Choose the stronger title or more polished story.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Define the outcomes the successor must deliver, the controls they must protect and the capabilities other leaders can supply. Assess both candidates against the same mandate before comparing their reputations.”
Why it works: The team’s required capabilities give the assessment its purpose.
Step 2: Correct the performance comparison
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Separate acquired revenue and ask for missing evidence.
The strong move. A summary can combine acquired growth with operating performance.
Credit all 37.5% as comparable operating growth.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Reported growth is (66 − 48)/48 = 37.5%. Excluding €12m acquired revenue leaves €54m, or 12.5% comparable growth. Ask both candidates for evidence of judgment, stakeholder work and how their teams produced results.”
Why it works: A summary can combine acquired growth with operating performance.
Step 3: Assess the new leadership evidence
A’s deputy led the control repairs. A secured resources and resolved resistance from business owners. The technology leader will leave in 90 days.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Credit the distinct roles and test the transition plan.
The strong move. Leading through others matters, but the record must identify the contribution.
Remove all credit from A because the deputy did the repairs.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“A still has evidence of leadership through resource and conflict decisions; the deputy’s work must receive credit too. The technology departure creates a transition gap. Test how each candidate would fill it rather than assume either already can.”
Why it works: Leading through others matters, but the record must identify the contribution.
Step 4: Advise the chair on the next assessment
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Recommend the next assessment and appointment conditions.
The strong move. A selection recommendation should distinguish evidence from unresolved risk.
Use an AI summary to rank the candidates and decide.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Recommend a common scenario and references tied to the mandate, then identify appointment conditions and an interim technology plan. State what remains unproven. The packet does not support declaring a winner yet.”
Why it works: A selection recommendation should distinguish evidence from unresolved risk.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Complete a mandate-based assessment before selecting the successor.
- Because
- Growth, control work and leadership contributions need comparable evidence.
- What would change it
- Verified judgment, stakeholder evidence and a credible transition plan could support appointment.
A’s deputy led the repairs. What changes in your assessment, and what does not?
Common traps
- Attributing all acquired revenue to operating growth.
- Confusing personal execution with leadership contribution.
Check your answer
- I defined the role mandate.
- I corrected the growth comparison.
- I separated individual and team contributions.
- I named the remaining evidence and transition gap.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026