What Did John Adams Know About Data-Driven Hiring That Still Applies Today?
- Philip Lamb
- May 30
- 6 min read
John Adams won the presidency without a campaign, a party machine, or a single speech optimized for popular appeal. He governed through one of the most chaotic periods in American history with almost no political base and a cabinet that was actively working against him. He left office with his reputation intact and the nation at peace, having avoided a war with France that most of his advisors were pushing him toward.
He did it by insisting on facts.
In 1770, as a young lawyer defending British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, Adams took the most politically unpopular case in colonial Massachusetts. He won it. In his closing argument, he said what has since become one of the most quoted sentences in American legal history: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
That sentence describes the single biggest problem in executive hiring today. Companies make senior leadership decisions based on what they want to be true. The candidate who presented well in the interview. The internal leader who has been loyal for a decade. The external hire who shares the CEO's operating philosophy. The facts about whether those people can actually do the job get subordinated to the story the hiring team has already decided to tell.
PRL International is a retained executive search firm serving Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania, specializing in senior-level placements in mid-market industrial, manufacturing, energy, and professional services companies. In more than 30 years of retained search, we have seen the same pattern produce the same outcome: companies that ignore inconvenient data during the hiring process pay for it during the first year of the hire.
How Did Adams Use Facts and Evidence in Ways Most Modern Hiring Processes Still Ignore?
Adams used facts and evidence in executive decision-making by insisting on primary sources, refusing to accept received opinion as a substitute for verified information, and separating what he personally wanted from what the evidence actually supported.
The most instructive example from his presidency is his handling of the XYZ Affair in 1797 and 1798. When France demanded bribes from American diplomats and war fever swept through Congress and the public, Adams received pressure from virtually every direction to declare war. He refused. Not because he was a pacifist. He refused because the facts, as he read them, did not support the conclusion that war served American interests. He commissioned his own intelligence, read the dispatches personally, and reached a different conclusion than his cabinet. He was right.
For executive hiring, the parallel is direct. The hiring decisions that fail most expensively are the ones where the hiring team decided early on who the right candidate was and then processed all subsequent information through that conclusion. The candidate's reference checks come back with concerns and get explained away. The assessment data flags a gap in a critical competency and gets dismissed as not reflective of the whole person. The final round interview reveals a misalignment on compensation expectations and the company decides to proceed anyway because everyone likes the candidate.
These are not rare events. According to research from the Harvard Business Review, nearly 40 percent of senior executive hires fail within 18 months. The most common root cause is not a lack of technical capability. It is a failure of the selection process to surface and seriously evaluate inconvenient facts about the candidate.
Adams's standard -- that facts cannot be altered by wishes, inclinations, or passion -- is a direct corrective to how most executive hiring processes actually work. The process is designed to build enthusiasm for candidates, not to surface inconvenient truths about them. Reference checks are structured to confirm positive impressions. Interview processes are structured around competency frameworks that reward candidates who know how to perform well in interviews, which is not the same as knowing how to perform well in the job.
The retained search model, done correctly, is built to counteract this tendency. An external firm has no organizational investment in any particular candidate. Their job is to deliver the best available person for the role, not the person the organization has already decided it wants. That requires the discipline to keep surfacing inconvenient facts all the way through the process.
Why Do Executive Hiring Decisions Still Default to Instinct When Data Is Available?
Executive hiring decisions default to instinct when data is available because instinct is faster, socially easier, and produces decisions that are harder to hold anyone accountable for.
When a CEO looks across the table at a final round candidate and feels confidence in that person, that feeling is real and not entirely worthless. Experienced executives develop genuine pattern recognition about leadership quality over decades of observation. But pattern recognition built on surface signals -- how someone presents, how they answer anticipated questions, how well their narrative maps onto the organization's self-image -- is not a reliable predictor of whether that person will succeed in a specific role at a specific organization under specific conditions.
The data sources that would reduce this error are available and are routinely underused. Structured behavioral reference checks with former supervisors, subordinates, and peers produce more predictive data than unstructured calls with references the candidate selected. Work sample assessments and problem-solving exercises calibrated to the actual challenges of the role produce more predictive data than standard competency interviews. Longitudinal performance data from prior roles, when available, produces more predictive data than a polished 45-minute interview.
Josh Bersin's research on talent acquisition practice found that organizations using structured assessments in senior leadership selection report 23 percent higher retention at the 24-month mark than organizations relying primarily on unstructured interviews. The data advantage is clear and measurable. The adoption rate among mid-market companies remains low.
The reason is exactly what Adams identified. The data is stubborn. It does not change because the CEO has a good feeling about the candidate. It does not change because the organization has been searching for six months and everyone is tired. It does not change because the candidate is a referral from a board member. The data says what it says, and for organizations that are not practiced at incorporating inconvenient data into hiring decisions, the data often feels like an obstacle rather than a tool.
For more on how retained search firms surface and evaluate candidate data through the process, read what retained executive search actually looks like and why it is not what most companies think and does your executive recruiter tell you the truth.
What Does an Adams-Style Data-Driven Executive Assessment Actually Look Like?
An Adams-style data-driven executive assessment looks like a process designed to generate inconvenient facts and then take them seriously, rather than a process designed to confirm a decision the hiring team has already made.
In practice, it means four things. First, it means structured reference conversations with people the candidate did not select. Former supervisors, former direct reports, and former peers who were not pre-briefed by the candidate and who can speak frankly about performance under pressure, decision quality in ambiguous situations, and behavioral patterns in the rare difficult circumstances that define leadership capacity.
Second, it means work sample assessments calibrated to the actual role. Not generic leadership style inventories. Specific exercises that require the candidate to engage with the real problems on the company's current agenda, at the level of depth and rigor the role requires. The candidate who has been studying the subject profoundly -- to use Hamilton's phrase -- will perform differently in this exercise than the candidate who has been performing well in interviews.
Third, it means financial and performance data from prior roles, verified independently where possible. A VP of Operations who claims to have reduced cycle time by 30 percent should be able to point to a verifiable record of that result. An executive who cannot point to verifiable results is an executive whose story is not accountable to facts.
Fourth, it means incorporating all of this data into the decision in a structured way, with explicit weight given to the signals that contradict the prevailing narrative. The candidate everyone likes who has two reference concerns and one competency gap is not a candidate to proceed with until those concerns have been addressed. The data is stubborn. Address it, or pay for it in year one.
For more on how mid-market companies build better assessment processes into executive search, visit our mid-market executive search practice page. For a look at what the first interview in a search actually reveals and what it misses, read the first interview is not a warmup -- it might be your best candidate.
Adams governed in a period of maximum uncertainty with almost no institutional support and a political environment actively hostile to calm, evidence-based decision-making. He relied on facts because they were the only thing that could not be corrupted by the people around him. Two hundred and fifty years later, the same logic applies to every senior hiring decision a mid-market company makes. The facts say what they say. Build a process that surfaces them, and then build the discipline to take them seriously.
If you are ready to fill a senior role or want to talk through your search, reach out at prlinternational.com/contact
Want to know what questions to ask before hiring a search firm? Download the free 7-Question Guide: https://prl-proposal.vercel.app/guide
Comments