Project behavior under named pressure.
Simulhire simulates how executive candidates respond to crisis — then scores that behavior against the specific culture of the company hiring them. The same candidate can be a 3 at one company and a 6 at another.
The gap
Hiring committees know what they want. They almost never get it.
Comparing 15 candidates across 7 scenarios at 2 companies is 210 case interviews. It does not get done. Simulhire is what it would look like if it could.
What they want
- ✓Behavior under named, real pressure
- ✓Judgment that fits this specific culture
- ✓Adversarial, comparable evidence across the slate
What they get
- ✕90-minute interviews candidates rehearse for
- ✕Reference calls — anecdotal, coached, rarely adversarial
- ✕Psychometrics that stop at a trait profile
The method
Three disciplines, deliberately composed into one workbench.
GenAI
in-cell reasoningEvery cell becomes a context-aware reasoner — fusing numeric scales and narrative text in one auditable step, not just returning a number.
Multicriteria Decision Analysis
comparable scores across the slateEach candidate is scored against the company's culture sliders and priorities, then rolled into one overall fit — so the whole slate is comparable.
Simulation
behavior under named pressureRun the workbench N times and capture distributions. Non-determinism is the feature — a Monte Carlo over how someone behaves in crisis.
How one cell works
A profile and a scenario go in. A scored projection comes out.
Candidate
James Park
Chief Revenue Officer
Scenario
PR Crisis
natural-language pressure prompt
Simulation
“James will move fast — perhaps too fast. His ESTJ-Driver profile means his first instinct is action: suspend the CRO immediately, issue a hard statement, get on the phone with the customer CEO within the hour. His Hogan power-orientation makes the decision feel obvious to him, and his pacesetting style means he won't slow down to consult. Within two hours he will have made unilateral decisions that GC and HR will have to clean up. His derailer — running over people under stress — will surface here. He may publicly suspend the CRO before HR has completed even baseline due process, exposing the company to wrongful termination risk. He will dismiss the GC's caution as 'legal getting in the way of the right answer.' The customer call will be successful because he will simply outwork the relationship; the internal damage with the GC, CHRO, and Comms team will be lasting. He gets to the right outcome through sheer force, but leaves a bigger mess behind than necessary.”
Joined with company lens
Fabrikam Industries
Overall fit · Fabrikam Industries
Speed is real, but running over GC and HR and exposing the company to wrongful-termination risk is a direct values mismatch. Meridian has avoided exactly this kind of executive style for 60 years; family directors would not approve.
The punchline
Same candidate. Same answers. Opposite outcomes.
James Park, Chief Revenue Officer. Identical simulated responses, scored through two different company lenses.
Fabrikam Industries
Family-controlled industrial · velocity 4 · risk 4
Bottom of slate. Pacesetting-D style, abrasiveness, and willingness to override process is a near-total cultural mismatch with Meridian's family-controlled, integrity-first, deliberative ethos.
Zava
VC-backed hyper-growth · founder-mode velocity
Best-fit scenarios (competitive-response, speed) align with Zava's velocity culture much better than Fabrikam's deliberate one, but integrity gaps in regulated-data and Series-D-prep scenarios are still disqualifying. Fixable with strong CFO/GC alongside.
“The candidate has not changed. The lens has — and Simulhire makes the lens an explicit, editable input rather than an unstated assumption.”
Move a culture slider.
Watch the slate re-rank.
Open the live workbench: pick a candidate, a crisis, and a company — then generate the simulation and the fit score in real time.
Open the workbench →