The RARE Executive Candidate: Why Good Isn't Good Enough
Gina Riley | Gina Riley Consulting & creator of Career Velocity, a comprehensive career transition system.
What's worse than being unqualified for the job? Being perfectly qualified and still coming in second. Again and again. Especially when the role feels tailor-made for your expertise.
As an executive search consultant with Talence Group, I've seen firsthand what separates the offer-winners from the runners-up. It's not degrees, titles or pedigree. It's how prepared they are to deliver when it counts most, in mission-critical, high-visibility interviews that determine who will lead a critical part of the business into its next era.
Too many experienced leaders treat the executive interview like a conversation when it's actually a high-stakes business meeting. Finalist rounds are a live audition that assesses your ability to lead, influence and navigate ambiguity while demonstrating the clarity and conviction that instills confidence in decision makers.
That's why the winners don't wing it. They become what I call RARE candidates.
In executive-level hiring, qualifications are table stakes or the bare minimum to enter conversations. What decision makers want to see is how you think, lead and communicate when pressure is high and ambiguity is real. They're not looking for a resume walk-through. They want to feel your leadership in action.
Yet even the most experienced candidates often show up with long-winded stories, vague value propositions or surface-level understanding of the organization's strategic context. It's the equivalent of walking into a board meeting with half-baked slides, a high-risk move that erodes credibility and squanders opportunity.
• Underestimating The Importance Of Deep Research: Many candidates rely solely on publicly available information, missing critical insights into internal dynamics, recent challenges and future goals.
• Failing To Align Past Experiences With Future Needs: Executives often present past achievements without connecting them to the prospective company's current and future challenges. In doing so, they fail to become a candidate with the relevant skills urgently needed today.
• Neglecting To Demonstrate Executive Presence: It's not just about what you say, but how you say it. Confidence, clarity, adaptability and humility are key.
• Not Evaluating The Organization's Fit: Candidates sometimes overlook the fact that interviews are a two-way street. Assessing whether the organization's culture and values align with your own is equally important in making a good business match.
In my upcoming book, Qualified Isn't Enough, I introduce the RARE Candidate formula, developed to help executives show up as the sharpest, most aligned version of themselves.
Winning candidates go far beyond basic searches. They dive into analyst calls, leadership transitions and strategic plans. They know the stakeholders. They anticipate the political shifts. They prepare like they already work there.
This isn't reading the company website—it's diagnosing what keeps the CEO up at night.
Your stories must connect directly to what the business needs now. Tailor your message to demonstrate how your leadership style solves their problems and accelerates outcomes.
You're not reporting history. You're bringing to life the value you deliver for their future.
Final interviews can involve founders, C-suite panels or board directors. The words are only half the story. How you listen, adapt and respond signals your readiness to lead at the next level.
Executive presence isn't just charisma. It's your ability to shift energy, pace and tone to meet each room where it is.
RARE candidates don't chase every opportunity. They show discernment. They ask sharp, strategic questions. They test alignment with culture, values and leadership chemistry.
Power dynamics go both ways. You're not just being interviewed—you're interviewing them.
When I began working with my client 'Nick,' he had the resume, the pedigree and the referrals. But he couldn't get past first-round interviews. It quickly became clear why: his unique value proposition (UVP) was muddled. His stories wandered. And he hadn't done the strategic prep to understand how the role would shift the organization's dynamics.
He rambled in interviews. His mind wandered. So did his listeners.
We overhauled his approach and applied the RARE framework. We mapped the business context. We reframed his wins. We sharpened his message. Nick didn't just become a finalist, he became the kind of sharp, decisive "must-hire leader" people wanted on their team.
He didn't just make it to the final rounds. He started winning simultaneous offers.
Here's how I put it in Qualified Isn't Enough:
'By thoroughly researching, tailoring your message, reading the room and asking the right questions, you present yourself as the candidate who not only fits the role but also elevates the organization. This sets you apart in a field of equally qualified executives.'
Senior-level interviews aren't about perfection. They're about preparation. The RARE candidate doesn't improvise; they rehearse. They don't hope to rise under pressure; they train for it.
Because that's what it takes to win.
Forbes Agency Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investor slams Victoria's Secret ‘super squad' leadership as inexperienced, ineffectual
This story was originally published on Retail Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Retail Dive newsletter. Victoria's Secret & Co.'s CEO Hillary Super is under fire just nine months into her tenure from an investor who would like to see the lingerie giant step back into the past. In a letter to the retailer's board chair this week, Barington Capital Group Chairman and CEO James Mitarotonda advocated for bringing back the lingerie giant's 'iconic Angels campaign' and shaking up its board, and against its adoption of a poison pill last month to stave off a hostile takeover. He criticized Super as having limited leadership experience, especially at a public company or in intimates, and has demonstrated 'a troubling lack of strategic focus.' Super arrived in September after serving as Savage x Fenty CEO for about a year. In April she brought on Adam Selman, previously chief design officer for Savage X Fenty, to be executive creative director. Victoria's Secret & Co. in an email to Retail Dive expressed confidence in its 'strategy under the new and experienced leadership team' and said that, while Barington hasn't sought to engage with the company, it was open to a discussion. Mitarotonda gave Barington Capital props for L Brand's stock performance of several years ago. The firm was advising the L Brands board until the once-mammoth apparel conglomerate formally spun off Victoria's Secret in 2021. Since then the lingerie company has lost over $2.4 billion in shareholder value, he wrote. As of Friday Barington owned more than 1% of Victoria's Secret & Co.'s outstanding common stock. 'We can't bring back the Angels because we're not in that time, and that's what shot down Victoria's Secret in the first place." Jessica Ramírez Co-founder and Managing Director, The Consumer Collective The company was losing market share back then, too, however, and Barington's idea to revive the old Angels campaign would be shortsighted, according to Jessica Ramírez, co-founder and managing director of The Consumer Collective advisory firm. The brand's share losses continued through its most recent quarter. 'We can't bring back the Angels because we're not in that time, and that's what shot down Victoria's Secret in the first place,' she said. 'They didn't catch up with the times, they didn't want to innovate. To want to bring back the exact same model, the exact same messaging, from when it was successful — you have to understand that the '90s and the 2000s were a different time. That go-to-market strategy isn't going to work today.' The Angels did return last fall after a six-year hiatus, but that was a lower-key, more inclusive event, she said by phone. Mitarotonda also had linguistic criticisms, slamming 'internal rhetoric referring to senior leadership as a 'super squad'' as 'arrogant and unjustified given the company's declining performance.' He said it was surprising that executives 'expressed satisfaction' during the company's most recent earnings call, counting 14 mentions of being 'pleased' or 'proud.' Barington is unlikely to let up the pressure any time soon, according to Jason Schloetzer, a professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, who called the firm's letter 'a shot across the bow to an underperforming management team.' 'Underperforming management typically strikes a tone of seriousness and concern, so Barington may be pointing out that routinely mentioning how 'proud' management is with the company's current performance, which appears to be less than super, is well out of step with reality,' Schloetzer said by email. 'If there isn't some combination of a change to strategic direction, modest evidence of leadership change, and a tweak to board composition after this letter, I suspect Barington will make another move to shake up the company.' But it's too soon to judge Super, according to Ramírez. It will be a full year before the results of her team's efforts will be truly evident, she said. 'Victoria's Secret still has large market share, and it's a big brand, but the reality is, it has definitely lost a lot of the market and it is out of touch. They have a bunch of issues with quality, design, marketing — and while it's better, it's still not the best,' she said. In its email Wednesday, Victoria's Secret acknowledged the need for further improvement but said it's making inroads. 'As outlined on our March and June earnings calls, bras and beauty are at the center of the Victoria's Secret Path to Potential strategy, and these efforts are showing momentum in spite of the challenging market environment,' the company said. 'While we have more work to do, we are already delivering meaningful progress, including exceeding revenue and adjusted operating income guidance in the first quarter.' Recommended Reading Adidas says its Yeezy partnership is 'under review' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's Why I'm Buying Alphabet Stock Like There's No Tomorrow
Generative AI is challenging Alphabet's Google search business. The company's financial results have remained strong despite this rising competitor. 10 stocks we like better than Alphabet › Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG) (NASDAQ: GOOGL) doesn't get the same respect as its big tech peers. These stocks all trade at a premium to the market, as measured by the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC), while Alphabet does not. There is a lot of pessimism that Alphabet's primary cash cow, the Google search engine, could be losing its dominance, threatening the company as we know it today. However, the numbers don't back this up. Google Search is still dominant and making a ton of money. Because of Alphabet's strong financial picture and cheap price, it's an excellent stock to load up on right now. Most of the concern about Alphabet losing market share involves users switching to alternatives, such as generative AI models. Regardless of which one they use, each time a generative AI model is asked a question, it is one time that Google isn't able to place ads in front of a user. This threatens a core part of the company's business because it gets 56% of its revenue from search. We've seen Google's market share slip a bit, dropping below 90% for the first time since 2015 earlier this year. Still, this doesn't mean the financial picture is trending in the wrong direction, as Google Search revenue rose 10% year over year in the first quarter. One thing helping Google maintain its position is the introduction of AI search overviews, which bridge the gap between a traditional Google search and using a generative AI model. Management has discussed how popular the feature is, and it is going to continue developing it. Although the forecast for Google's market share isn't particularly great, it's still doing an excellent job with its business. I think the market is underestimating the fact that most consumers aren't going to switch away from Google unless something much better is launched. This will protect Alphabet's mindshare and ensure that it continues producing solid results. The first quarter's results were truly fantastic and did not indicate a company that was struggling at all. In that quarter, overall revenue increased 12% year over year, and diluted earnings per share (EPS) increased 49% year over year. If all I presented were those growth rates and its valuation, you would think it's an incredibly undervalued stock. But because Alphabet's name is attached to the stock, it trades at a hefty discount to the market and its peers. With the stock trading at a mere 18.6 times forward earnings, it's far cheaper than the S&P 500, which trades at 22.9 times forward earnings. The results become even more eye-opening compared to some of its peers in big tech. Revenue Growth Rate Diluted EPS Growth Rate Forward P/E Alphabet 12% 49% 18.6 Apple 5.1% 7.8% 27.6 Microsoft 13.3% 17.7% 35.8 Amazon 8.6% 62.2% 34.8 Data source: YCharts. Note: All growth rates were taken from each company's last reported quarters. Alphabet is posting results similar to these other three, yet it trades for a massive discount compared to them. This makes me conclude one of two things: The other big tech stocks are overvalued, or Alphabet is undervalued. Both can be true, but what matters is what investors do with their money. Alphabet is a great stock right now, as it combines growth and value well. This combination could provide explosive returns in the future, making it one of my best stocks to buy. Before you buy stock in Alphabet, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Alphabet wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Keithen Drury has positions in Alphabet. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Here's Why I'm Buying Alphabet Stock Like There's No Tomorrow was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Growing deficit, budget cuts yet still no mention of raising taxes on wealthy
Sen. Ron Johnson, speaking from his background, insists that the budget deficit will mortgage our children's futures. I'm not an accountant, but I do agree. I'm old enough to remember when corporations and the wealthy were not so wealthy yet were taxed at a much higher rate. The American dream was real, and America's debt was not a problem. Today, Congress struggles to fund innovations like Social Security, public healthcare and clean energy. Johnson warns that cuts outlined in the 'big beautiful' budget bill will not reduce the repercussions of our growing deficit. More and deeper cuts are needed, he says. This would disproportionately affect middle- and lower-income families, I must add. If I remember my Econ 101, rising prices from tariffs, and with that a likely recession, would deal an even heavier blow to families already hard hit. And still no mention of raising taxes on the wealthy. Suzanne Powell, Milwaukee Letters: House budget provision exempts executive branch from following court orders Letters: Wake-enhanced boating produces same dynamic as smoking in public places Here are some tips to get your views shared with your friends, family, neighbors and across our state: Please include your name, street address and daytime phone. Generally, we limit letters to 200 words. Cite sources of where you found information or the article that prompted your letter. Be civil and constructive, especially when criticizing. Avoid ad hominem attacks, take issue with a position, not a person. We cannot acknowledge receipt of submissions. We don't publish poetry, anonymous or open letters. Each writer is limited to one published letter every two months. All letters are subject to editing. Write: Letters to the editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 330 E. Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 500, Milwaukee, WI, 53202. Fax: (414)-223-5444. E-mail: jsedit@ or submit using the form that can be found on the on the bottom of this page. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: I agree with Ron Johnson that budget bill mortgages future | Letters
