Purpose: This research aims to fill a gap in the literature concerning the extent to which recruitment interviewers may substitute leadership capability sets (CSs) differing from those in the job specification (JS). Design/methodology/approach: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior personnel involved in senior staff selection in a higher education (HE) institution. Findings: The interviews reveal that the majority of respondents select candidates against transactional capability sets (TcCSs), ignoring the largely transformational capability sets (TfCSs) laid down in the JS. Research limitations/implications: The research is anchored in a single organisation and in a single sector, HE. It would be useful to extend the research to another institution in the public sector within both the public and the private sectors. It would furthermore be useful to identify the practical measures needed to overcome the problems identified here. Practical implications: Organisations pursuing diversity initiatives or attempting to influence the culture of an organisation and its leadership style need to be aware of the extent, hitherto unrevealed, to which the leadership CSs laid down in the official selection criteria can be disregarded in favour of CSs substituted, consciously or unconsciously, by recruiters. If the practice identified here is representative across the HE sector, then a failure to follow the leadership CSs contained in a JS can serve as a barrier to the appointment of women who may favour the deployment of TfCSs. It may also serve as a barrier to the introduction of transformational leadership and cultures. Originality/value: The paper provides useful information on CSs laid down in the official selection criteria and whether they can be disregarded in favour of CSs substituted, consciously or unconsciously, by recruiters. (Contains 3 tables and 1 note.)