As Global Head of Research & Leadership Advisory at JRG Partners, I have written this plain-English explainer because the question comes up in nearly every client conversation. Yes, when the exercise genuinely assesses something the role requires and respects the candidate’s time, a well-designed case or presentation is one of the best predictors of executive performance. Work samples, a strategic case, a presentation, a plan for the role, reveal how a candidate actually thinks and performs far better than interviews alone. The key is designing them well: relevant, respectful of the candidate’s time, and not exploitative of their ideas.
This explainer covers what the term means in practice, why it matters for employers and boards, the distinctions that most often cause confusion, and how the concept shows up in real hiring and governance decisions. It is written for decision-makers who need a clear, accurate working understanding they can act on, not an academic definition.
Key Takeaways
- A well-designed case or presentation strongly predicts executive performance.
- Work samples reveal how a candidate thinks and performs, beyond interviews.
- Design the exercise to assess something the role genuinely requires.
- Respect the candidate’s time; senior candidates will not do extensive unpaid work.
- Do not exploit candidates’ ideas or use the exercise as free consulting.
Why Work Samples Predict Performance
A case study or presentation is a work sample, and work samples are among the best predictors of performance because they reveal how a candidate actually thinks and performs, not just how they describe themselves. Watching a candidate analyze a strategic situation, structure a plan, or present their thinking shows their reasoning, judgment, communication, and executive presence directly. This is far more predictive than interview answers alone, which reveal how candidates talk about their work rather than how they do it. A well-designed exercise adds genuine assessment signal that interviews cannot provide.
Design It Well
The value depends entirely on design. A good exercise assesses something the role genuinely requires, a strategic challenge like the role will face, a plan the role will need, so it is relevant and predictive. It should be scoped to respect the candidate’s time; senior candidates will not, and should not, do extensive unpaid work, so the exercise should be substantial enough to reveal signal but not exploitative. And it should give the candidate a fair, well-defined task. A well-designed exercise is a strong assessment tool; a poorly-designed one wastes everyone’s time or alienates candidates.
Don’t Exploit the Candidate
A serious pitfall is using the exercise to extract free work, having candidates produce detailed plans, strategies, or solutions the company then uses. This is exploitative, alienates good candidates (who recognize it), and damages your reputation. The exercise should assess the candidate, not solve the company’s problems. Keeping the exercise focused on assessment rather than deliverable extraction, and respecting the candidate’s intellectual property, is essential both ethically and to attracting strong candidates, who will decline exercises that feel like unpaid consulting.
How It Works in Practice
In practice, use a case study or presentation when it genuinely assesses something the role requires, design it to be relevant and predictive, scope it to respect the candidate’s time (substantial enough for signal, not exploitative), and keep it focused on assessment rather than extracting free work. A well-designed exercise, watching how the candidate analyzes, plans, and presents, adds strong predictive signal beyond interviews. You explain the exercise’s purpose, keep it fair, and respect the candidate’s ideas. Done well, it is one of the best executive assessment tools; done poorly, it wastes time or alienates candidates.
Why This Matters for Employers
Interviews alone are limited predictors of executive performance, and a well-designed work sample adds strong, direct signal about how a candidate actually thinks and performs. Using cases and presentations well, relevant, time-respecting, non-exploitative, improves assessment quality, while using them poorly wastes candidates’ time or alienates strong ones, so the design matters greatly.
Common Misconceptions
A misconception is that asking executives to do a case or presentation is either always inappropriate (too demanding for senior candidates) or always fine (they should prove themselves). The truth is in the design: a well-scoped, relevant, respectful exercise is valuable and strong candidates will engage with it, while an exploitative or excessive one alienates them. The exercise’s quality, not its mere existence, determines whether it works.
A Practical Example
One company asks finalists for a detailed, unpaid strategic plan it then uses, and strong candidates decline, recognizing free consulting. Another asks finalists to present their thinking on a representative challenge in a scoped, respectful exercise, and learns far more about their reasoning and presence than interviews revealed, without exploiting them. The well-designed exercise strengthened the assessment; the exploitative one repelled candidates.
The Bottom Line
Yes, use an executive case study or presentation when it genuinely assesses what the role requires and respects the candidate’s time, because a well-designed work sample strongly predicts performance, but design it to be relevant and non-exploitative, since a poorly-designed or exploitative exercise wastes time and alienates strong candidates.
Related Resources
For employers going deeper, see The Work Sample Revolution, Structured Interview Guide Template for VP-Level Roles, How to Interview for Execution.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Q: Should executive candidates do a case study or presentation?
- A: Yes, when the exercise genuinely assesses something the role requires and respects the candidate’s time, since a well-designed work sample strongly predicts performance.
- Q: Why do work samples predict performance?
- A: Because they reveal how a candidate actually thinks and performs, reasoning, judgment, communication, presence, far better than interview answers about their work.
- Q: How do I design the exercise well?
- A: Make it relevant to what the role genuinely requires, scope it to respect the candidate’s time, and keep it focused on assessment rather than extracting free work.
- Q: Will senior candidates do a case exercise?
- A: Strong candidates will engage with a well-scoped, relevant, respectful exercise, but will decline one that is excessive or feels like unpaid consulting.
- Q: Is it wrong to use candidates’ case ideas?
- A: Yes; using the exercise to extract free work the company then uses is exploitative, alienates good candidates, and damages your reputation.
![](https://www.jrgpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/tanya-gallardo.jpeg")
Tanya Gallardo
Managing Director, Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy
Tanya Gallardo is the Managing Director of Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy at JRG Partners, leading C-suite and Board engagements across key growth sectors including Technology, Financial Services, and Manufacturing.
With over 18 years of experience specializing in disruptive technology leadership, Tanya is recognized as a leading authority on talent architecture for future-focused executive roles, such as the Chief AI Officer (CAIO) and Chief Digital Officer (CDO). Her expertise lies in accurately assessing the cultural fit and technical depth required to ensure a high return on investment (ROI) for critical leadership appointments.
Prior to her role at JRG Partners, Tanya held senior roles directing global talent acquisition strategies at a major publicly-traded technology firm, advising on organizational design and succession planning for emerging executive functions. She is a recognized speaker and contributor to industry events, sharing data-driven insights on executive compensation, leadership development, and the measurable business impact of C-suite talent.
