The 30-second version:
→ Charisma and confidence in an interview say little about how someone will treat colleagues and employees later on.
→ People with pronounced toxic traits tend to come across as unusually likeable and competent in short encounters such as interviews (Reynolds & Rogelberg, 2026).
→ The damage shows up later: turnover, disengagement, a fractured team culture. Research cited in the article ranks toxic culture as a stronger driver of attrition than pay.
→ Asking candidates about failures, dependencies, and collaboration, rather than only successes, reveals patterns that would otherwise stay hidden.
→ Keep technical and interpersonal assessment separate, so technical brilliance doesn't drown out warning signs.
Why toxic candidates do well in interviews
An interview is a short, controlled encounter, and that is exactly the problem. Traits such as self-overestimation, charm, and the ability to present oneself well tend to land positively in that setting, regardless of how someone actually behaves toward a team day to day. Reynolds and Rogelberg (2026) describe how people who prioritize their own interests over the team's, take credit for others' work, or react defensively to criticism often outperform other candidates in standard interviews, precisely because those traits are persuasive in the short term.
What a bad leadership hire costs
The effect only becomes visible after the hire: team members withdraw, strong performers leave, collaboration with other departments suffers. The research referenced in the article ranks toxic leadership culture among the strongest drivers of turnover, well ahead of compensation. Organizations that only notice the pattern after the hire pay twice: once for the mis-hire itself, once for rebuilding the team afterward.
Five practical checkpoints for the hiring process
Reynolds and Rogelberg propose a six-step approach that condenses into five practical checkpoints.
1. Clarify the role's interpersonal requirements up front
Talk to future peers before the interview to understand what collaboration really requires, not just the technical side.
2. Ask about failure, not only success
Questions about failed projects, disagreements, or developing other people reveal more than success stories, because they require self-criticism and giving credit to others.
3. Follow up systematically
Who helped you? How did the team experience this? Candidates who stay vague on generic answers like "the team" often repeat that pattern later on.
4. Separate technical and interpersonal evaluation
Different people on the hiring team should assess each independently, so technical brilliance doesn't override interpersonal red flags.
5. Validate with more than one source
A single conversation can be misleading. Multiple interviewers and targeted reference questions about collaboration give a more reliable picture.
What this means for Swiss organizations
In smaller organizations, the distance between leadership and team is often short, and that is exactly what makes a bad leadership hire so costly: the damage doesn't spread across many layers, it lands directly on the people who work with that person every day. Giving interpersonal behavior the same structured attention as technical fit doesn't require a big initiative, just the deliberate decision to make room for it in the interview.
Source
Reynolds, D. H., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2026). How to Spot a Toxic Leader—Before Hiring Them. Harvard Business Review. hbr.org/2026/08/how-to-spot-a-toxic-leader-before-hiring-them
How does your organization hire its leaders?
30 minutes, no sales pitch. You describe how your hiring process works. I listen, then give it to you straight.