The Operator Behind the Outcome

Amazon didn’t just grow in 2025, it reaccelerated. The business reached $716 billion in revenue, growing 12.4% year over year, while AWS expanded by 24% in Q4 and hit a $142 billion run rate. For a company of that scale, that kind of acceleration doesn’t happen by accident. It wasn’t just strategy or market timing driving results.

It was the operator.

When Andrew Jassy stepped into leadership of Amazon’s cloud division, he understood exactly where to push and when. That level of precision is what separates consistent growth from true performance acceleration, and it highlights something every private equity firm already agrees on: talent is everything. The difference is, most firms cannot consistently hire it.

The 20% Problem No One Measures

Across thousands of conversations with private equity firms, one number keeps surfacing. Around 20% of executive hires are successful, defined as the individual still being in the role by the time the business exits. That means four out of five hires fail. It’s not a figure that is widely shared, and it’s certainly not one that LPs tend to push for, but it remains one of the biggest constraints on value creation in the industry.

This is what makes the situation so paradoxical. If you listen to leading investors, CEOs, and operators, they all point to the same driver of success: people. High-performing executives are the individuals who transform businesses, execute strategy, and ultimately deliver returns. Yet despite universal agreement on their importance, hiring them remains inconsistent at best.

The Real Issue: “Talent” Isn’t Clearly Defined

A large part of the issue is that talent is still defined in vague and intangible ways. Ask most investors what a great CFO or CEO looks like and you will hear similar descriptions: driven, intelligent, charismatic, hardworking. While these traits sound appealing, they are not measurable and they do not indicate whether someone can perform in a specific private equity environment. Without a clear definition of what “great” looks like, hiring becomes subjective, and subjectivity leads to inconsistency.

The firms that consistently get this right approach hiring very differently. Instead of relying on instinct or generalisations, they focus on three specific changes that significantly improve outcomes.

1. Define the Avatar With Precision

The first is defining the avatar with precision. Before entering the market, the best firms are explicit about what success looks like in the role. This goes beyond personality traits and into real, evidence-based criteria. They assess the environments a candidate has operated in, the challenges they have faced, and the outcomes they have delivered. At this level, hiring is not about potential. It is about proof, and the closer a candidate’s past experience mirrors the situation they are stepping into, the higher the likelihood of success.

2. Hire for the Entire Hold Period

The second shift is hiring for the entire hold period, not just the immediate problem. This is where many firms fall short. They focus on the issues the business is facing today rather than what it will need to achieve over the next three to five years. For example, a firm may hire a CFO to professionalise the finance function or implement an ERP system in a newly acquired platform. While that may address the immediate need, it ignores what comes next, such as executing an M&A strategy, managing integration, handling increased debt pressure, and maintaining tight control of cash flow.

The best firms take a longer-term view. They map out the full value creation plan and hire executives who have already navigated the majority of those challenges before. Typically, this means identifying individuals who have solved 80 to 85 percent of the problems the business is expected to face during the hold period. This reflects a critical reality of private equity: these are not development roles. Executives are not there to learn on the job, they are there to deliver outcomes.

3. Fix the Interview Process

The third area is the interview process, which is often the most overlooked. Most private equity professionals are highly skilled in financial modelling and deal execution, but very few are trained in assessing executive talent. As a result, hiring decisions tend to rely on factors that are easy to evaluate, such as background, education, and previous company names, rather than a deeper understanding of capability.

In many cases, candidates are also asked to present what they would do in their first 90 days. While this seems logical, it rarely provides meaningful insight. Strong executives do not make decisions based on incomplete information; they assess, validate assumptions, and then act. As a result, these presentations often become rehearsed and generic, offering little indication of how the individual will actually perform.

A more effective approach is to centre the interview around real business challenges. Instead of hypothetical plans, candidates should be given a genuine problem that the company is facing, ideally one that would create significant impact if resolved. This allows investors to understand how the executive thinks, how they prioritise, and how they have approached similar situations in the past, while also generating valuable insight into the business itself.

The Mindset Shift: From Development to Delivery

Ultimately, the difference comes down to mindset. Average firms tend to hire executives with the expectation that they will grow into the role, whereas the best firms hire individuals who have already done the job. In private equity, where time is limited and expectations are high, there is little room for a learning curve.

Talent is not the problem. Hiring it properly is.

The Bottom Line

Improving executive hiring does not require a complete overhaul, but it does require clarity and discipline. By defining what great looks like, hiring for the full lifecycle of the investment, and adopting a more rigorous approach to assessment, firms can significantly improve their success rates. In an environment where the majority of hires fail, even small improvements create a meaningful competitive advantage.