by Evan Wescott, Principal

Executive search is often evocative of the highest decision-makers in an organization: CEOs, CFOs, Presidents, and Board Members. There’s an aspect of elitism that permeates the understanding of our work and sometimes unnecessarily pigeonholes client expectations of our capabilities.

Over the past four years, we’ve seen a consistent representation of “director-level” projects as a substantial portion of our search workload. There is a general trend away from exclusively operating at the highest levels of an organization and reapplying our same methods and techniques to bring in talent at other levels of a company.

What is a director-level position?

Naming conventions vary from business to business and sector to sector, but generally speaking, a director generally sits at the cusp between managers (who have a handful of direct reports) and vice presidents (who have broader functional or domain responsibility). Directors generally operate as leaders of a “team of teams” to coordinate more granular movements or initiatives.

Directors also generally sit in the middle of the tactical-strategic continuum. Unlike the highest-level executives, who deeply consider strategic priorities but can typically delegate tactical details, directors sit at the bleeding edge of ideation and implementation. These leaders get a “hand on the ball” regarding business strategy, taking time to process and understand the broad, organization-wide mandates being passed down while processing the implementation details and ultimately bringing the plan to life.

Last, directors tend to lean into a domain-specific skill or knowledge base that keeps them focused on a particular niche. It can be useful to have a director with a depth of knowledge within a subfunction (e.g., a Director of Compensation reporting to a Vice President of Human Resources) that can offload the cognitive load of nuance, especially as the world and economy increasingly require specialization.

What are the benefits of hiring a director?

We often provide search services for director-level searches for a variety of reasons:

• The growth of an organization requires a single person to help coordinate a team-of-teams situation.
• An existing director has left, and a company or organization has no meaningful way or reason to let the gap in reporting persist.
• A unique business case or vertical requires a leader to coordinate a specialist initiative (e.g., targeted talent acquisition, business development, or supply chain leaders.)

Whatever the case may be, if there are no suitable managers or team members ready to step into this position, companies are forced to look elsewhere for leadership talent.

An added benefit of placing a leader at this level is the ability to grow this individual over time. A “junior leader” has time to grow and evolve, often helping to shape the business and people they are leading. They become excellent assets and candidates for succession over time. In theory, a director becomes a vice president, then an executive! Three leaders for the price of one.

What are the challenges?

Executive searches around directors are not without their challenges, including a few common ones: 

• Inexperience with Recruitment Processes: Directors are generally promoted into their current positions, and experience with recruiters can be limited. Partnering with an executive search firm may feel daunting or drawn-out given the various stakeholders in decision-making.
• Difficulties Relocating: If a search becomes national, or even regional, it can often be difficult to make a compelling case for relocation for a sitting director. They might be waiting for a VP-level title for their next role and prefer to “wait it out” before taking the effort to uproot and move a family.
• Misaligned Client Expectations: An executive team sometimes expects a great deal from a director (as they should!), but sometimes these professionals are just now stepping into broader leadership roles. Directors can have more gaps and weaknesses due to a lack of experience.

How Do We Overcome These Challenges?

• Service-Oriented Processes: Creating a relentlessly positive experience is very attractive to junior leadership. They get the chance to hone their interview presence, executive persona, and career narrative against real-life scenarios, and most welcome the opportunity to do so with a small, boutique firm that places a premium on direct, human engagement.
• Understanding and Creating Broader Alignment: A better understanding of “where the puck is headed” for a potential candidate’s career can help to overcome inertia for many candidate objections, including relocation. Combined with a seamless candidate experience, emphasizing career goals helps candidates see alternative (and appealing) growth trajectories.
• Having a Growth Plan: Interviews should serve as both validation and assessment; candidates who bring all the right pieces to solve the pressing problems still likely have room to grow. By incorporating those items into a candidate’s growth plan once they transition over, the company follows through on a commitment to continue that leader’s growth, making them sticky and long-lasting at a given placement.

How do you know you need an executive search firm to find your next director?

Ask yourself the following questions:

• Do I need specialist, domain experience when evaluating leaders driving a use case in a functional subspecialty?
• Does our current organizational growth require additional support around leadership hiring?
• Have we never hired for this role before? Do we want guidance on how to bring in the right talent?

If the answer to any of the following is “yes,” contact us so we can explore a search solution tailored to your business and leadership needs.

Remote work, once a niche arrangement, has transformed into a mainstream component of the workforce, especially following its surge in prevalence during the year of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the past five years, as the world has begun to recover, employers have gradually reintroduced their employees to the office environment, a transition that has yielded mixed outcomes. Industry giants such as Amazon, AT&T, Boeing, Dell, and Walmart have mandated that select staff return to the office five days a week, a move that reflects a growing preference for in-person collaboration. Yet, amid this push for full-time office attendance, a substantial number of employees yearn for the flexibility to either work remotely or embrace a hybrid model that offers the best of both worlds.

David Alexander, Consumer Practice Leader, states, “As an executive recruiter navigating a diverse array of industries, I see both sides of this issue. Many employers believe that on-site work fosters company culture, enhances collaborative teamwork, and bolsters employee engagement. On the other hand, employees working remotely often feel they are more productive and enjoy a significantly improved quality of life by sidestepping the grind of daily commutes.”

What are the pros and cons of remote work?

A recent Pew Research Survey has shed light on these dynamics, revealing that employees who have adopted a hybrid scheduling approach report meaningful improvements in balancing their professional responsibilities and personal lives. More than 60% of respondents feel that their flexible arrangements have enabled them to meet deadlines and complete the work more efficiently. However, this is not without drawbacks; nearly half of these workers express that, at times, working from home has diminished their ability to forge connections with their colleagues, leading to feelings of isolation.

For employers, the advantages of allowing remote or hybrid work arrangements are manifold. These practices can significantly lower operational costs, grant access to a broader talent pool, and enhance employee retention. In fact, a remarkable 76% of workers assert that having flexibility in their work arrangements profoundly influences their decision to remain with an employer. Moreover, the necessity for reduced office space further alleviates financial burdens. The infusion of flexibility and autonomy fosters greater employee satisfaction, while the elimination or reduction of commuting times not only enhances productivity but also uplifts morale.

Yet, employers face considerable challenges in this new landscape. As companies hire remote talent, they are compelled to navigate the complexities of compliance with varied laws and regulations across different jurisdictions. Additionally, disparities in remote compensation can arise, leading to inequities in salaries for similar roles, dependent on local market conditions.

The potential for remote workers to experience feelings of isolation poses another significant concern. Such isolation can result in diminished productivity, a weakened company culture, and challenges in employee retention. Fostering a cohesive environment for remote employees requires intentional efforts. While empowering employees to direct their own workdays can be beneficial for both the employee and employer, it can also present challenges.

What is the balance?

Achieving balance in the workplace entails crafting an environment that encourages optimal collaboration while addressing the diverse needs of individuals.    It involves exploring and designing methods that allow every person—regardless of their work location—to contribute their best selves.

“There isn’t a definitive right or wrong answer to this complex issue, but both employers and employees must recognize the inherent trade-offs,” David Alexander observes. He cautions, “Employers who do not offer remote or hybrid work options may inadvertently limit their ability to attract and retain top talent, especially in cases where relocation poses a challenge. Meanwhile, employees who insist on working exclusively from home should be mindful that they may be curtailing their opportunities for career advancement and professional growth.”

While no single solution guarantees the perfect balance between remote work and in-office presence, it is essential to create a framework that respects individual preferences while simultaneously driving business success. This delicate alignment is key to nurturing both employee satisfaction and organizational productivity.