Most have some assessment framework now.

Five dimensions. Six dimensions. Some have eight. Most of them look credible. Most of them sound right. Most of them may not be measuring the right things in 2026.

The problem is not the frameworks. It is what sits inside them.

Most leadership assessments still weigh what built today's leaders. Track record. Sector depth. Network. Gravitas. Strategic judgement drawn from past patterns. This will continue to matter; but do they help predict whether a leader is built for what comes next?

The World Economic Forum says 39% of workers' core skills will change by 2030. McKinsey puts the proportion of employers identifying skills gaps as the single biggest barrier to business transformation at 63%. This currently sits above culture, regulation, and capital. APRA's 30 April letter named the same gap at the board level. The regulator's published observation was an "overreliance on vendor presentations and summaries", with insufficient examination of the risks underneath them. The same letter set a formal expectation that boards maintain sufficient technical literacy to challenge AI-related risks effectively.

An organisation's needs now are a different shape from the leaders they hired five years ago.

They are leaders who can change their minds when the evidence warrants. Who can process contradicting information without their experience or view getting in the way? Who can adopt a new technology or operating model fast enough to lead it, not slow enough to be led by it.

These are not soft skills. They are measurable behaviours, drawn from past evidence and situational questions, and they belong in the assessment from the start. Not a vibe check at the end.

The frameworks are important; however, the dimensions are critical.

Which question is worth asking before the next executive or board hire?

What is your assessment actually measuring? The leader you needed in 2020, or the leader you need by 2027.