In the gleaming conference rooms of corporate India, a familiar drama unfolds. The candidate speaks with polished confidence, drops the right names, and boasts credentials from prestigious institutions. The interview panel nods approvingly. Yet months later, the same executives wonder why their star hire has failed to deliver.
“He was extremely fluent, very suave and rather presentable—a smooth talker,” recalls Emmanuel David, a seasoned HR leader, describing a recruitment disaster that cost his company dearly. “The leadership and the board were impressed. But three to six months in, his talk didn’t match his walk.”
This cautionary tale exposes a deeper malaise in modern workplaces: the silent sabotage of assumption. In an era where image often trumps inquiry, organisations are systematically mistaking fluency for intelligence, confidence for competence, and credentials for capability. The cost is not merely poor hiring decisions—it is the systematic strangulation of the very curiosity that drives innovation.
David’s example illustrates the perils perfectly. The candidate sailed through multiple interviews, charming a succession of senior executives with his articulate manner and impressive CV. Red flags were ignored, tough questions went unasked, and the few who harboured doubts lacked the confidence to challenge the prevailing enthusiasm.
“Within three to six months, I could see the signals,” David shares. “The talk wasn’t matched by action. It took over two years before a strong conversation was had, and he was asked to leave because of the damage done.”
The culprit was not deception but confirmation bias—that most insidious form of corporate assumption. Once a candidate aligns with expectations in language, tone, or worldview, competence is simply assumed. Conversations become echo chambers where listeners fill in blanks and speakers conform rather than challenge.
“Such situations are not limited to hiring,” observes Rajeev Singh, group CHRO, Epic Group. “They pervade daily operations, brainstorming sessions, strategy reviews—any space where questioning should ideally thrive. When voices mirror dominant views too closely, dissent is seen as disruptive rather than constructive. Curiosity becomes a casualty.”
The problem extends beyond individual hiring mistakes to encompass what might be called “pedigree worship”—the dangerous assumption that prestigious backgrounds guarantee performance. Pallavi Poddar, CHRO, Fenesta Windows, has witnessed this phenomenon repeatedly.
“We assume that someone coming from a good pedigree is already better than others, more ready, more capable,” she explains. “But we forget, they’re under pressure too. They need to learn. They lack practical experience.”
When leaders bypass proper onboarding based on a candidate’s impressive credentials, they inadvertently create a recipe for failure. Worse still, colleagues without such pedigree may feel discouraged from contributing equally, creating a subtle but damaging hierarchy based on background rather than ability.
Poddar identifies another variant of this assumption trap: hiring exclusively from within the same industry. “We think they’ll be good because they know the business, but that just makes us narrow. Same industry means same thinking, same approach. No disruption. No challenging of the status quo.”
The assumption epidemic is particularly virulent when it comes to familiar faces. Leaders who have worked with someone before often believe they fully understand their capabilities and values. But as Poddar notes: “You assume you know them. You’ve worked with them before. You believe you understand how they operate. But these assumptions don’t hold true. People change. Contexts change.”
Such associations can reinforce exclusionary dynamics, with teams subconsciously favouring familiar circles whilst leaving outsiders feeling like perpetual newcomers regardless of their contributions. The result is a subtle erosion of diversity—not just demographic but intellectual.
In many organisations, particularly those with hierarchical cultures, fear compounds the problem. “In most Indian workplaces, the system is feudal and hierarchical. The social distance is very high,” David explains. “People ape the boss. They hesitate to speak up.”
This fear-induced conformity suppresses the very questioning that organisations desperately need. Even when employees offer different perspectives, institutional pressure often wraps them up before they can take root.
The antidote, David believes, lies in what he calls “radical candour”—not harsh criticism but deep, empathetic listening. True leadership maturity involves creating environments where people feel safe to share genuine insights rather than merely echoing expectations.
Poddar emphasises the importance of psychological safety, particularly for those lacking traditional credentials. Her approach actively encourages critical thinking: “Ask why. Get convinced before you implement anything. Don’t just follow what I say. Challenge it.”
Some progressive leaders are deliberately countering assumption culture by insisting that team members question decisions, even when instructions come from above. They make clear that ideas must earn conviction, not just compliance. Such environments allow professionals to test assumptions rather than inherit them.
The goal, as Singh notes, is building teams with varied backgrounds that naturally bring different perspectives—but only if those perspectives are actively encouraged. “When leaders take time to know their team members as individuals, beyond résumés or associations, they can create collaborative cultures that unlock untapped innovation.”
The stakes could not be higher. In a world obsessed with disruption, assumptions are not merely errors in judgement—they are barriers to innovation that shrink space for new thinking and kill exploration before it begins.
The greatest risk facing modern organisations is not failure but false certainty. When credentials replace curiosity, when networks replace nuance, when associations silence dissent, companies do not evolve—they ossify. In the assumption trap, the most dangerous assumption of all may be believing we already know the answers.