Executive Selection Brief

Example brief

Service Director

Westmere Field Services

Purpose of the appointment: Free the owner to focus on major customers by transferring day-to-day operational coordination․
Leadership focus: Coordinate resources across regions while protecting service commitments and sustainable workloads․
Matters to clarify: Clarify delegation, achievable targets and applicable safety requirements․

The organization

Westmere Field Services is owned by the respondent and maintains equipment for commercial sites․ The appointment is therefore grounded in operational service delivery to commercial customers․
The owner reports 24 technicians and three dispatch coordinators across two regions․ The director will need to coordinate resources across this operating footprint rather than manage each region in isolation․

The role and mandate

The service director will manage scheduling, the regional supervisors and service delivery across both regions․ The appointment is intended to transfer recurring operational coordination from the owner, freeing them to focus on major customers․

Intended delegation to the director

Once established, the director is intended to own day-to-day scheduling, cross-region staff movements, roster changes, overtime within the current budget and routine service problems․

Decisions retained by the owner

The owner retains major-customer relationships, new pricing, extra permanent posts and spending beyond the agreed limit․

Coordination and review

The director’s contribution to growth is operational: enable reliable delivery of more work, identify service-led opportunities and advise on capacity before additional contracts are committed․ Outright sales ownership is not part of the intended remit․
The owner intends monthly reviews with the director and finance controller, with short interim updates on response windows, overtime, workload, costs and evidenced capacity․ Threats to existing customer commitments and matters requiring retained approval should be escalated promptly; routine service decisions should not wait for these meetings․
The supervisors’ independent responsibilities and central coordination needs remain unmapped; this does not establish a capability deficit․ The owner proposes reviewing recent schedules with the two supervisors and dispatch coordinators to clarify decisions and handoffs, which will inform delegation and any development needs․

Expected outcomes

Continuing success requires existing customers’ agreed response windows and reliable service to be maintained․ Growth and cost savings must not be achieved by burning out technicians․
A successful transfer will allow routine scheduling and service issues to be resolved without recurring owner involvement, while preserving timely escalation of exceptions․ No timetable for completing this transfer has been established․
The proposed supervisor-and-finance review has not started and has no specified completion date․ It would establish available information on schedules, overtime, response-window performance and associated costs to inform early priorities; responsibility for commissioning or conducting it has not been assigned to the director․

Six additional contracts and a 10% operating-cost reduction in the first six months remain the owner’s provisional hopes, not agreed performance targets․ Firm expectations depend on the operational and cost review, and additional contracts should not be promised until existing work can be protected․

Leadership capabilities and interview focus

Applicable legal, safety and regulatory constraints, and the director’s responsibility for applying them, remain unspecified․ This limits assessment of how candidates should integrate those obligations into staffing and capacity decisions, beyond the established customer-service and workload safeguards․

Collective Enablement

Collective Enablement matters because the director must replace owner-dependent coordination with clear ownership, shared operational context and workable cross-region resource decisions․ The delegation arrangement may vary, but coordinated delivery remains central․

Interview question

Describe one past situation in which you coordinated service delivery across teams with competing resource needs․ What authority and information did you have, what ownership arrangements did you consider, what did you personally do, and what happened to delivery and the teams’ ability to make decisions?

What to examine

Explore how the candidate shared context, involved relevant expertise, allocated authority and resolved competing interests․ The answer can show whether their contribution enabled collective delivery or simply redirected every decision through them, taking account of the authority and resources available․

Leading by Example

Leading by Example matters because roster, overtime and staff-movement decisions directly affect customer commitments and technician workloads․ The role requires principled service and workforce stewardship within delegated authority․

Interview question

Tell us about one service decision where customer commitments, costs and staff workloads pointed toward different options․ What were your responsibilities, which alternatives did you weigh, whose interests did you consider, what did you decide and do, and what consequences followed?

What to examine

Examine the reasoning behind the trade-off, attention to both ends and means, consultation or challenge, and how the decision was explained and enacted․ Assess stewardship within the candidate’s actual constraints, including consequences for service, people and costs, rather than favoring a particular choice automatically․

Sustained Change Leadership

Sustained Change Leadership matters because everyday scheduling improvements must endure while normal service continues․ The director needs to sequence changes, distribute ownership and monitor delivery and workload across both regions․

Interview question

Describe one scheduling or service improvement you led over an extended period while normal delivery continued․ What was the starting situation, what implementation alternatives did you consider, how did you sequence work and assign ownership, and what evidence led you to maintain or adjust the approach? What results lasted?

What to examine

Explore implementation choices, resource alignment, decision and communication rhythms, and responses to service or organizational-load signals․ Distinguish the candidate’s contribution from wider conditions and assess whether changes became workable routines; personal endurance or willingness to overwork is not evidence of this capability․

Profitable Growth Discipline

Profitable Growth Discipline matters because capacity advice must connect additional work with costs, reliable delivery and workforce constraints before the owner commits to contracts․ Its scope here is operational economics, not ownership of sales, pricing or the entire business model․

Interview question

Describe one occasion when you assessed whether a service operation could take on additional work on an economically sustainable basis․ What authority and operating information did you have, which alternatives did you evaluate, what costs and capacity requirements mattered, what action or recommendation did you make, and what followed?

What to examine

Explore how the candidate established the relevant economics, identified barriers and considered capacity over time, including dependence on overtime or extra resources․ The answer can reveal the quality of operational advice and action within retained commercial approvals, whether the eventual decision was expansion, delay or another approach․

Bias-Aware

Bias-Aware decision discipline matters because the director’s assumptions about capacity and savings will influence additional-contract commitments․ Testing those assumptions helps distinguish sustainable routine improvement from results dependent on exceptional resources․

Interview question

Tell us about one capacity or cost decision where you tested an important assumption of your own․ What initially informed your view, what alternative explanations or options did you examine, how did you seek and evaluate further evidence, and why did you retain or revise your judgment? What action and results followed?

What to examine

Explore whether the candidate made assumptions explicit, used proportionate checks and independent perspectives, and considered evidence that could challenge their view․ Assess the reasoning behind either retention or revision and its consequences; changing one’s mind, using a named method or labeling a bias is not sufficient evidence on its own․

Other role requirements

Assess practical scheduling, resource-allocation and service-management expertise through candidates’ own decisions about staffing, rosters, overtime and routine service problems․ Evidence should address coordination across operating locations within budget and approval boundaries․
Candidates need to relate operational information to costs and communicate a clear, evidence-based view of workload and capacity to the owner and finance controller․ Assess how they distinguish information suitable for routine updates from matters requiring prompt decisions․
The owner wants evidence of sustained everyday scheduling improvement, including the candidate’s changes and how service performance and technician workloads were checked․ Urgent coordination is also relevant, but its dependence on extra shifts and applicability across both regions must be examined․

The opportunity

The role offers meaningful influence over how two regions deliver reliable service and create sustainable capacity for further work․ A suitable candidate could value establishing effective operational ownership while working within the owner’s retained commercial and investment decisions․

Working arrangements and appointment terms

The service director appointment will be permanent․
The base location, work and travel arrangements across the two regions, start timing and remuneration have not been supplied․ These need clarification to support candidate discussions and establish practical availability․

Search arrangements

Both internal and external candidates will be considered․
Candidate assessment should explore sustained operational contribution as well as urgent delivery, with attention to resources, working conditions and applicability across the two regions․ The owner’s stated evidence requirements should inform interviews rather than treating a crisis-delivery example as sufficient on its own․

Open questions and uncertainties

Sustainable additional capacity and operating-cost savings remain unknown․ The proposed operational and cost review has not started, and its timing is unspecified․

Findings may change early priorities and achievable outcomes․ Until they are available, the six-month figures should remain provisional rather than become candidate commitments or firm performance expectations․

Applicable legal, safety and regulatory requirements, supporting procedures or specialists, and the director’s responsibility for applying them have not been clarified․

Clarification may add specific knowledge or eligibility requirements and change the judgment expected when adjusting staffing or accepting more work․ The search needs to distinguish responsibility for designing compliant arrangements from following established procedures and escalating exceptions․

What legal, safety or regulatory requirements, if any, constrain staffing and service capacity across the two regions, and what responsibility should the director have for applying them when changing schedules or taking on more work, alongside any established procedures or specialist support?