AltoPartners Website News

The Director's Dilemma - April 2026 Edition

2026-04-01T08:51:18Z

Produced by Julie Garland-McLellan, one of Australia’s most internationally acclaimed company directors and board advisors. She is renowned for her practical experience as well as deep governance expertise and qualifications. She is a consultant at AltoPartners Australia and is based in Sydney, Australia and travels worldwide to bring boards and directors the practical development and insights that they need.

Contribution by Jana Martinová, the owner and manager of Accord Group in the Czech and Slovak Republic, and a founding partner of the AltoPartners global alliance. Jana is a long-term board member of the French-Czech chamber of commerce and has represented CEE on the global board of AltoPartners. Jana feels “at home” in different cultures and languages including German, Czech (both mother tongues), French, English (fluent), Russian and Serbian/Croatian (working level). She is based in Prague, Czechia.

This edition of the newsletter was first published on The Director’s Dilemma website and the full newsletter is available for viewing here To subscribe to future editions of the newsletter, click here

The Director’s Dilemma - April 2026

This month our real-life board dilemma concerns a decisive CEO and a Committee Chair who feels left out of a relevant decision.

Helen chairs the people and culture committee of a government-owned utility business. At the last board meeting, the CEO reported that he had restructured the business to reduce the number of his direct reports from six to four, reducing costs to meet government savings and efficiency targets. He had already informed the people who were changing roles and reported the changes to the Minister.

She feels disrespected. Surely, he should have discussed these changes with the committee before implementing? She rang the Chair as soon as she read about the proposal in the board papers (a couple of paragraphs in the CEO report and a ‘for noting’ paper with the new organisation chart, role titles, and delegations). The Chair had not been aware of the changes until discussing the papers with the CEO before the meeting. He was surprised but unperturbed because, as he rightly said, operations and management structures are clearly within the CEO remit.

The People and Remuneration Committee Charter says that the committee is to advise on HR matters, oversee performance, and report to the board with recommendations to improve culture or the lived experience of staff at work. The Committee’s advice was not sought, and the changes were designed and implemented either ‘below the radar’ (covertly) or in between the board meetings (hastily). Helen likes to make careful plans and consult widely before changes. She is worried that unforeseen consequences will damage morale and/or performance.

How can Helen position her committee to play a bigger role in supporting the CEO and ensuring rigour when HR decisions are taken?

Jana’s Answer

Assuming a government-owned utility with a two-tier board, Helen’s role as Chair of the People and Culture (P&C) Committee is defined by corporate governance. The governance structure likely gives the CEO authority over organization and management decisions, which explains why the Chair was initially unaware of the CEO’s action. The CEO sought (retroactive) approval by reporting the decision to the Minister, a higher authority.

Immediate Recommendations

● De-personalize: Helen should set aside personal feelings; the omission concerns the CEO’s relationship with the entire Board of Directors (BoD), not just her.

● Avoid Opposition: She should not oppose a change the CEO has already implemented.

● Manage External Expectations: She should address third-party expectations using the argument/stance of the Chair.

● Formal Note: The Chair must formally state and record that the CEO made the decision without seeking prior approval from the Board.

Future Role Reflection

Helen should reflect on the future role of the P&R Committee by:

Reviewing Expertise Areas: Re-visiting corporate governance and past Board meeting notes to identify areas where the committee’s expertise was previously sought (e.g., remuneration, social climate, trade union negotiation).
Clarifying Involvement: Distinguishing between regular/recurring involvement in people processes and ad-hoc advice.
Proactive Engagement: Proposing initiatives and offering her skills in areas critical to the CEO and BoD to generate trust and demand for the committee’s future involvement. Implementation & Czech Context

To implement these changes, Helen requires support from her Chair and other Directors, and the Chair should involve the Minister.

In the Czech Republic, Supervisory Boards are increasingly moving beyond a formal/strategic consulting role to deeper corporate development involvement. The P&R committee is frequently engaged on remuneration and may face public scrutiny for top-manager appointments. Coordination between the Board and management in state-owned companies is an evolving, patience-demanding process, often complicated by less transparent decision-making due to frequent changes in Ministers and Directors.

Julie’s Answer

Helen is right to be concerned and should be even more concerned that her Chair was also unaware of the proposed changes. Ministers and CEOs can sometimes view the board as a cosy sinecure to reward past political favours rather than a source of value for the business.

I would suggest that Helen approach the matter with a positive attitude and ask “How can my committee help you to implement these changes whilst minimising disruption and potential ‘fallout’?”

She needs clear understanding of how the board, and its committees, is viewed by management. A 360o review of the board and its committees should be commissioned as soon as possible. Ideally the Minister and the Ministerial advisor(s) should be asked to contribute, as well as the CEO and their direct reports. The Chair should ‘champion’ this process and ensure that a qualified consultant who will provide unvarnished feedback is selected for the task.

If, as I suspect, the results suggest that the board is not seen as adding value, Helen’s task will be to work with the CEO to redesign the Board’s operations and specify its role and remit. This may also require the board to consider its composition and recommend changes to the Minister.

Government boards are not easy places; you have accountability but can easily be sidelined or undermined if you do not add tangible value and earn the respect of your Minister, the management team, and the wider ecosystem of stakeholders. When your value is clear and understood, you can change the world. And the best way to position yourself for that change is to offer assistance and support. Only if your offers are rebuffed, should you consider walking away.

Closing the Gender Leadership Gap : A Review of Legislative and Real-World Outcomes - AltoPartners International Women's Day 2026 Report

2026-03-05T08:13:04Z

Despite decades of progress in gender equality, women remain significantly underrepresented in corporate leadership. While many countries have introduced board gender quotas and diversity targets, the impact on executive leadership has been far more limited.

The AltoPartners International Women’s Day 2026 report — Closing the Gender Leadership Gap : A Review of Legislative and Real-World Outcomes — examines whether these policies have translated into meaningful progress for women in senior leadership roles.

Drawing on data from across the Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Africa and the Middle East, the research explores how different regulatory approaches, including mandatory board quotas, voluntary targets, and countries with no formal policies, influence gender representation in both boardrooms and the C-suite.

Key Findings

The research reveals several important insights shaping the global conversation on gender equality in leadership:

Board quotas have increased female representation on boards, but the impact on C-suite leadership remains limited.
Countries with voluntary diversity targets often show stronger executive-level representation, suggesting organisational culture and leadership commitment play a critical role.
Women’s representation declines significantly at senior leadership levels, highlighting persistent structural barriers in the leadership pipeline.

These findings highlight a critical challenge: legislation alone is not enough to close the gender leadership gap.

Download the Full Report

The AltoPartners International Women’s Day 2026 report provides a comprehensive global analysis of gender representation across boards and executive leadership teams, along with insights into how organisations can accelerate progress toward gender parity. AltoPartners is committed to furthering gender diversity by identifying, cultivating and placing suitable candidates in the boardroom.

Download and read the full Closing the Gender Leadership Gap : A Review of Legislative and Real-World Outcomes - AltoPartners International Women’s Day 2026 Report to explore the data, regional comparisons, and policy insights shaping the future of women in leadership.

With contributions and leading insights from Sonal Agrawal; Joo-Lee Aw; Andrea Brand; Matthias Bruchner; Daniele Cuminale; Julie Garland McLellan; Regina Graf; Murat Kaan Güneri; Claudia Hardy; Veronika Kaštovská; Corinne Klajda; Carol Leonard; Nicolás Mora Schrader; Mpho Nkeli; Sandra Olive; Christian Rolin; priscila Schapke; Santiago Solis Arias; Charlotte Wetterlundh and Julia Zdrahal-Urbanek. With thanks to our data partner Findem for providing the quantitative data and the Association of Executive Search and Leadership Consultants (AESC) Managing Directors Lynne Murphy-Rivera; Sarah Mortimer and Clare Mahon for providing key regional insights.

Researched and written by Gail Strauss and Renee Moodie

CEO Wanted. Leadership Not So Much

2026-03-03T11:20:52Z

By Richard Sterling, Partner at AltoPartners Australia.

This article was first posted on LinkedIn. To read the original post, click here.

The truth of a CEO role reveals itself in the first conversation with the Board. It’s there, in how the Board sees its mandate and the space it is genuinely prepared to give a leader to lead.

The arts organisation I recently worked with had genuine momentum with a growing reputation and strong community presence. It had also burned through two CEOs. As our conversation progressed, the reason became clear.

Board members remained closely involved in programming, maintained direct relationships with artists and partners and expected the CEO to lead while they stayed embedded in operations

Then another organisation. Different sector. Same dynamic.

The board of a small charity appointing its first-ever CEO was hesitant in a way that was entirely understandable. Every relationship, decision and donor conversation had passed through their hands.

They kept returning to the same instinct: staying close, being available, remaining involved. But what they were describing without quite saying it was a CEO who would carry the weight of the role without the full authority of it.

In both cases, the role was clear. The transition was not

The success of a CEO appointment depends not only on the quality of the candidate but on the board’s readiness to transfer authority. Without that transfer, the appointment proceeds, the title is conferred and the organisation continues to function as it always has.

Staff work out quickly where authority actually sits and take their decisions accordingly. The CEO is left accountable for outcomes they cannot control.

Capable leaders recognise this quickly. When authority and accountability are misaligned, experienced CEOs leave or simply refuse to join. The result is shorter tenures and repeated searches. Boards begin to wonder why the right candidate keeps proving elusive. In these situations, the candidate is not the problem.

The board’s motivation for holding on vary. The effect on the organisation does not.

When the board won’t step back, the CEO cannot step in. The organisation doesn’t necessarily fail. It stalls.

The most useful conversation a board can have before beginning a CEO search is not about the candidate. It is about themselves.

What are we genuinely prepared to hand over? What does the CEO need from us in order to lead effectively?

Boards that cannot answer those questions honestly are not yet ready to hire and appointing ahead of that readiness is a cost that falls on the organisation, the incoming leader and ultimately, the community the organisation exists to serve.

The Director's Dilemma - March 2026 Edition

2026-03-02T07:45:46Z

Produced by Julie Garland-McLellan, Consultant at AltoPartners Australia and non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Contribution by Mario Mora, Founder & Senior Partner of Equation Partners / AltoPartners Chile. Mario was a board member of the Chilean Banking Association (2000-2002) and the Corporación Educacional Santo Tomás (2004-2008) and was the LATAM representative on the AltoPartners Operating Committee. Mario speaks both Spanish and English fluently and holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the Universidad de Chile. He is based in Santiago, Chile.

The Director’s Dilemma - March 2026

This month our real-life board dilemma concerns a conflict of interest that is shared by all members of a board committee. I hope you will enjoy the sample responses and consider how you might choose to approach a similar issue.

Graeme chairs the Professional Standards Committee for the board of his Professional Association. The board started remunerating directors two years ago. The fees are a pittance compared to the workload and responsibility, but it is a token that is appreciated by the directors. A member has now written to Graeme, asking if it is good governance for the Chair of a board to also chair the people and remuneration committee when the people and remuneration committee determines the fees for board members. Graeme was about to respond confidently that it is standard practice for chairs to also chair the remuneration and nominations committee because they are the leader of the board and have most interest in ensuring appropriate composition, skills, and culture. But then he started to think about the principle that nobody should determine their own remuneration and wondered if that was still right. The constitution states that members of the board should not act if they have a conflict of interest. It then goes on to specifically exclude conflicts of interest that all directors share, such as their membership of the association. The committee is composed entirely of directors who are also association members, but Graeme is wondering if that is a ‘good enough excuse’ rather than ‘good enough governance’.

How would you advise him to respond?

Mario’s Answer

I think Graeme should avoid framing this as “standard practice” and instead anchor his response in governance principles.

In Chile, under local regulations, the core principle is clear, directors should not participate in decisions that directly determine their own remuneration. Even where legally permissible, perception risk can erode trust, particularly in professional associations where legitimacy is reputational.

It is true that in many listed companies the Board Chair sits on, and sometimes chairs, the nominations and remuneration committee. However, best practice usually introduces safeguards. For example, in most Chilean publicly listed companies, the Chair recuses himself when the committee discusses the Chair’s own fees, and the final recommendation is approved by independent directors or the full board without his vote.

In this case, the argument that “all directors share the same conflict” is legally defensible but governance wise insufficient. The question is not only actual conflict, but perceived conflict. In membership organizations, that distinction matters greatly.

My advice to Graeme would be:

Acknowledge that the question is legitimate and aligned with good governance.
Clarify that while it is common for Chairs to lead nominations and remuneration, they should not participate in determining their own compensation.
Propose a safeguard going forward, for example, delegating the discussion on director fees to an independent committee member, with the Chair formally recusing himself from that item and abstaining from the vote.
If appropriate, consider member ratification of director fees.

By responding with openness and strengthening the process, Graeme protects both himself and the institution. In governance, perception managed well is credibility earned.

Julie’s Answer

It is easy to do what ‘everybody’ does whilst ignoring inconvenient principles; Graeme should thank the Member who raised the concern, as this will help him achieve better practice.

It is common for a Board Chair to chair the Nominations and Remuneration Committee; there is no need to abandon that practice. Graeme should check his board’s conflict of interest policy and the disclosures that have been made. He should also ensure that he is familiar with constitution and the rules around director nomination and remuneration.

For most meetings of the Board, and the Nominations and Remuneration Committee, a simple declaration of interests should suffice to ensure directors are mindful of their conflicts and how these might be perceived by the members of the association.

An independent skills-based appointment to the board or committee can help to bring a different perspective on how other boards, outside of this profession, handle such issues.

For the meeting at which the Board considers its own remuneration, the committee members should ensure that they have expert outside advice on the reasonable ranges of director fees and current market conditions. They may wish to bring in an independent chair to facilitate the discussion of remuneration, or to chair the whole meeting. Or they may choose to simply use the Chair they elected and note that the Chair is conflicted as are they all.

Transparency is important. The Board should report annually on the total quantum of remuneration for the directors and how this is applied across the board members, for example:

– do committee chairs receive additional remuneration?

– does the Chair receive more than the other directors?

– etc.

They should also make available an extract from the independent expert’s advice on reasonable remuneration each year, or each time remuneration is adjusted, and ask the expert to attend the AGM and respond to questions from the members if there are any.

Pay Transparency: Regulatory Mandate or Strategic Lever?

2026-02-25T13:19:23Z

This article was first published in Italian on the TreviSearch / AltoPartners Italy website. To read the original blog post, click here

What really changes with EU Directive 2023/970? (and why many companies aren’t ready)

1. A change that goes beyond compliance

With the adoption of EU Directive 2023/970, the European Union introduces a principle destined to profoundly impact the organization of companies: pay transparency as a concrete tool to ensure equal treatment.

The formal focus is on the gender pay gap. The real impact, however, concerns the entire people management system.

It’s not just about:

– publish salary ranges

– produce reports

– respond to employee requests

It is about demonstrating that the pay system is consistent, objective and defensible

And this is where the difficulties begin, and most companies will fail not because of a lack of data, but because of a lack of processes and structure.

2. The real critical point: “work of equal value”

The Directive doesn’t simply require comparing salaries. It requires demonstrating that different roles are evaluated according to comparable and transparent criteria.

In practice:

responsibility

– complexity

– impact on business

– required skills

They must be measurable, documented and shared.

In the reality of many companies (not just SMEs):

– job descriptions are outdated or inconsistent

– the levels are historical, not designed

– pay differentials are the result of individual negotiations/mere seniority

– the memory of “why Tizio earns more than Caio” is often informal

– the responsibilities do not correspond to the role

This makes the system fragile, not just non-compliant.

3. Pay transparency = organizational exposure

The Directive introduces new rights for workers:

– access to average salary information

– possibility of contesting unjustified differentials

– reversal of the burden of proof in the event of litigation

In other words: if you can’t explain your pay system, someone else will do it for you (unions, lawyers, courts, the media).

The risk is not only legal:

– internal tensions

– loss of confidence in management

– reputational damage

– difficulty attracting talent

4. A mistake to avoid: reducing everything to a numerical exercise

Many companies are approaching the issue as a simple:

“Let’s do an analysis of the gender pay gap and see what we come up with.”

It’s a short-sighted approach. Without:

– a clear job architecture

– role evaluation criteria

– a pay equity framework

any number is contestable.

Transparency doesn’t come from data. It comes from system design.

5. From obligation to opportunity: what forward-thinking companies can do

Forward-thinking organizations that address the Directive in a structured way today can achieve concrete benefits:

– more solid and manageable remuneration systems

– greater coherence between roles, performance and pay

– reduction of legal and union risk

– strengthening the employer value proposition

– greater management credibility

– Employer Branding (Positioning yourself as a transparent and fair company attracts the best talent, particularly among the younger generations who value corporate ethics)

– Trust and Engagement (Transparency increases employee satisfaction, reducing turnover and improving overall productivity.)

In short: a competitive advantage that is difficult to recover for those who move late.

In many cases, it is an opportunity to put things in order where things have been built up for years.

6. The Trevisearch / AltoPartners Italy point of view

At Trevisearch / AltoPartners Italy, we believe that pay transparency is not an ideological issue, but a governance issue that speaks volumes about leadership, accountability, values, and the sustainability of decisions.

Who selects, evaluates and develops leaders:

– must understand the real value of roles

– must be able to read organizational inconsistencies

– must help companies make their choices sustainable over time

For this reason, we approach EU Directive 2023/970 not as a requirement, but as an organizational strengthening project , which unites:

– job architecture

– pay equity

– leadership

– sustainability of managerial decisions

7. An open question for management

The Directive will enter into full force in June 2026. But the question is already current:

“Are we able to explain – simply, objectively, and convincingly – why people in the company are paid the way they are paid?”

If the answer is uncertain, the issue isn’t the Directive. It’s the system… and it’s best to manage it (methodically) before it becomes a problem!

Across our European partner firms, we are ready to help you transform what may seem like a problem into an opportunity.

Leading in Uncertain Times: The Human Qualities Defining 2026’s Most Effective CEOs

2026-02-04T11:26:33Z

As a global executive search partnership, AltoPartners has a front-row view of how leadership is changing, not just in theory, but in the lived realities of boards, CEOs and senior teams as they wrestle with a digitally amped world in permanent flux. Across markets and sectors, one signal is getting louder: the profile of the leader who succeeds is changing.

Conversations with AltoPartners search practitioners and transformation specialists worldwide reveal a consistent pattern. The CEOs most likely to thrive are intentional, grounded, and deeply people-centred. Far from the “leader-as-hero” archetype, the emerging model is collaborative, humble, and unafraid to seek input while carefully balancing the need to be decisive and action-oriented. In the words of Santiago Solis, Global Chair of AltoPartners and partner at Executive Connection in Colombia: “Ironically, technology has put a premium on CEOs with a human touch.”

As technology accelerates, the imperative to appoint leaders primarily for their technical competence is diminishing. Jamie Garner, head of transformation at the Inzito Partnership / AltoPartners UK, puts it plainly: “In the era of artificial intelligence and advanced automation, the leaders who stand out will be those who integrate empathy, emotional intelligence and well-being into the heart of leadership KPIs, and not simply as a bolt-on.”

Humility – the new agility

Decision-making – the core responsibility of any CEO – is being tested by tectonic technological and environmental forces that are driving demographic shifts, widening inequality, and deepening polarisation. In this environment, agility alone is no longer a differentiator. What matters more is the ability to widen the frame by engaging multiple stakeholders and transcending traditional organisational boundaries.

As Garner points out, agility without collaboration can quickly become circular: “You can pivot endlessly, but if you haven’t created an ecosystem that encourages people to collaborate in new ways, you risk pivoting in place. The leader’s role is to facilitate co-creation – not to be the centre of it.”

The emphasis on collaboration requires CEOs to demonstrate a high degree of humility and self-awareness to prevent ego from getting in the way of seeking help and working with people they have little in common with. Angelique Auguste dit Marquis, executive coach and transformation advisor at AltoPartners Germany, calls this the power to activate collective intelligence. “A dash of humility goes a long way. It fosters humour, empathy, and connection, all essential to creativity and network-building. Self-awareness is not only an antidote to ego-driven decisions but also the gateway to collaboration,” she observes wryly.

Deep listening as a superpower

Trust, the basis for all successful collaborative endeavours, begins with listening. “Leaders who listen actively earn trust and catch nuances that others miss, allowing them to look at issues from different perspectives and uncover blind spots. Fortunately, it’s a skill that can be learned and cultivated,” says Auguste dit Marquis.

Deep listening signals a leader’s ability to regulate attention, tolerate complexity, and understand multiple perspectives simultaneously. “Deep listeners create psychological safety, detect weak signals in culture and risk, and navigate conflict, acknowledging the interdependences of people throughout the organisation,” she explains. “By staying curious rather than being prematurely certain, they foster innovation and adaptive learning; crucial qualities in leading in a world shaped by rapid technological change and geopolitical uncertainty.”

Creators of safe spaces, custodians of organisational well-being

The ability to create a safe environment is emerging as a critical differentiator. Leadership burnout and team exhaustion have become strategic risks. CEOs are increasingly being called upon to actively manage workload, recovery time, and boundaries as levers of productivity, retention, and innovation.

The pressure is amplified by fears of job displacement and structural change. Murat Kaan Güneri, managing partner of MKG & Partners / AltoPartners Türkiye, notes: “Uncertainty amplifies stress. Leaders must establish psychological safety through consistent, clear and authentic communication – especially when delivering bad news. It helps teams stay focused and resilient amid ambiguity.”

A distinctive cognitive mix

Beyond personal qualities, future-ready CEOs stand out in how they think and learn. “Top executives are increasingly defined by insatiable curiosity, rigorous critical thinking, mental agility, and the stamina to persevere,” notes Garner. These qualities underpin a genuine growth mindset. “Without curiosity, leaders cannot question assumptions or anticipate unintended consequences, especially as AI takes on more of the technical heavy lifting,” says Solis.

Strategically savvy, ethically grounded

While strategy remains central to the CEO role, leaders must now operate fluently across a wider range of domains. They need to “speak” technology, governance and multi-stakeholder dynamics with equal ease – and integrate these into a coherent vision. Digital fluency is a core part of this. “We don’t expect all CEOs to be AI experts, but we do expect them to be tech-fluent, which is a step beyond basic literacy,” says Sonal Agrawal, Managing Partner, Accord India / AltoPartners India.

AI, automation and digital platforms are now strategic levers. CEOs must ask the right questions, evaluate risk, and integrate technology with clear ROI and sound governance. This all rests on a strong ethical compass. Moral clarity must be embedded in decisions from the outset, not applied retroactively.

Execution under pressure: the return of operational leadership

Agrawal notes a marked shift in board priorities over the past year. As complexity rises across regulation, supply chains and multi-site operations, boards are increasingly favouring execution certainty and operational resilience over growth optionality. “In India especially, the sharp rise in COO appointments reflects the need for experienced operators to stabilise scale, governance and delivery.

“Across markets, leadership demand is migrating from expansion narratives to margin defence, risk management and institutional maturity. Experience is being priced as insurance, with boards placing renewed value on judgement, pattern recognition and stakeholder credibility. Boards are also looking for people-centred leaders who can hunker down, absorb pressure and translate strategy into reliable execution by bringing a broad range of stakeholders along with them.”

Clarity in the absence of consensus

While expanding the information base through consultation is necessary to improve decision quality, it won’t always result in consensus. Daniele Cuminale, partner at TreviSearch / AltoPartners Italy, says that more than ever, boards will be looking for CEOs capable of making unpopular decisions based on what the organisation needs: “Broadening input is about improving decision quality, not sharing accountability. Objectives are not aspirational statements, but tools of governance that guide priorities, trade-offs and decisions when pressure is highest. Trust and engagement follow when leaders demonstrate coherence between stated objectives and the decisions they take under pressure, including difficult ones. In this environment, successful CEOs are defined by the ability to establish clarity, absorb the cost of choice, and translate direction into disciplined action.”

The new playbook: being pluralist

All this represents a decisive break from the hero-CEO mythology that shaped corporate life in the pre-COVID and pre-generative AI eras, only five and three years ago, respectively.

As organisations move deeper into uncharted territory shaped by climate change and artificial intelligence, leadership will be judged less by visibility or bravado, and more by the ability to build resilient systems that outlast the individual at the centre. The most valuable CEOs will be pluralist leaders: technically literate, ethically grounded, and emotionally intelligent; capable of widening input without diluting accountability, anchoring decisions in clear objectives, and maintaining coherence between intent and action, particularly where stability, execution and trust matter more than speed.

“As trusted executive search partners and leadership advisors, we play a critical role in guiding boards through this paradigm shift,” says Solis. “That means reframing CEO success profiles, stress-testing candidates against complexity rather than charisma, and identifying leaders with the cognitive range, humility and integrative capacity to translate uncertainty into durable advantage.” Further reading

Ask Alto: How leadership can tackle burnout

Ask Alto: What is “stagility” and why do leaders need to know?

Ask Alto: How to make AI work in your organisation

Ask Alto: What is strategic empathy, and why is it a key leadership skill in 2025?

The Director's Dilemma - February 2026 Edition

2026-02-02T08:24:14Z

Produced by Julie Garland-McLellan, Consultant at AltoPartners Australia and non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Contribution by Lauren E. Smith. Lauren is Managing Partner and Co-Head, Board Practice, DSG Global / AltoPartners USA. She has been named three times to the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) Director 100 as a top governance professional in the country. She is the current Chair Governance and past President of the NACD Florida Chapter. She is an NACD Board Leadership Fellow and an NACD Certified Director. Lauren is a Board Member of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and sits on the Advisory Board of Women Executive Leadership. She is based in Miami, Florida, USA

The Director’s Dilemma - February 2026

This month our real-life board dilemma concerns a board that allowed executives to usurp the role of the board and is now suffering the consequences.

Fenella sits on the board of a listed company that is still chaired by the founder and run with strong emphasis on delivering what the founder needs. She has always taken heart that, although the board is sometimes left out of the loop on decisions that exceed management delegations, everyone acts in the good commercial interests of the company and there is no ‘real’ conflict of interest.

A few months ago, the CFO (who has been with the company since it started) was struggling with the demands of the combined CFO/Co Sec role and the board discussed that they should consider appointing a Company Secretary with listed company expertise. There was no mention of the discussion in the minutes, and Fenella didn’t ask for it to be inserted because there had been no decision. At the next board meeting, the CFO introduced the board to a new Company Secretary whom he had recruited. The new Company Secretary was asked to minute the board’s in camera conversation so Fenella didn’t feel comfortable raising her concern that the board had not been involved in the recruitment or that the new secretary had no formal qualifications or experience with listed boards.

The CFO has continued to struggle; he is not coping with the accurate timely disclosures needed to comply with the exchange rules. Fenella suspects her fellow independent director - who chairs the audit committee - shares her concerns. She would like the board to discuss performance management and training, demotion or replacement. She is hesitant to approach the chair directly and alone but also hesitates to raise the issue in the board or in camera as the new Company Secretary is always present and clearly feels that the CFO is her boss and deserves her loyalty.

What should Fenella do?

Lauren’s Answer

Fenella’s instincts are sound, and the situation now requires deliberate, well-documented action rather than further restraint. Three priorities should guide her next steps: allies, process, and record.

First, she should align privately with the independent director who chairs the audit committee. A one-on-one conversation framed around regulatory risk, disclosure obligations, and board accountability (not personalities) is appropriate and prudent.

By seeking alignment, the issue becomes an audit-committee-level governance matter. Second, she should use a formal board process to create a protected forum. She can request that the chair convene an in-camera session of independent directors only, explicitly excluding management and the Company Secretary. This is standard practice on listed boards and avoids the loyalty conflict currently chilling discussion.

If the chair resists, that resistance itself is a governance signal that should be noted. Third, Fenella should insist on proper documentation going forward. She can ask that concerns about CFO performance, disclosure compliance, and the Company Secretary’s qualifications be reflected in minutes or in a confidential board or audit committee memo. Silence in the record is exposure for directors.

Fenella should advocate for a structured response for the CFO performance issues: an external assessment of finance and disclosure capability, targeted training with deadlines, and a clear escalation path if performance does not improve. On the Company Secretary, the board should clarify reporting lines (to the board, not the CFO) and reassess whether the role requires replacement or supplementation.

If these steps are blocked, Fenella should consider independent legal advice—not as an escalation tactic, but as protection of her own fiduciary position.

Julie’s Answer

Fenella is right to be concerned. The CFO should not be making the appointment of a company secretary without input from the board. Neither, for that matter, should the Chair. Fenella is dangerously distant from the mechanisms of control and direction; she needs to get back into the processes for delegation and decision-making ASAP.

She could start with a conversation with the other independent director. Hopefully he will understand the risks of management making decisions that should be reserved for the board and support her in addressing the issues.

The Audit Committee Chair could review delegations to ensure that these are contemporary and appropriate. This should include delegations for hiring, representing the company, and/or entering into contracts, not just financial levels of signing authority. Fenella needs to discuss this with him and ascertain if he is willing to start this process. If he is not, then she can suggest it herself at a board meeting.

Next, Fenella should have a candid discussion with the Board Chair and suggest that, as a minimum, the Company Secretary receive training on company secretarial duties. A company secretary is a key element of the board’s governance; directors need to rely on her judgement. If the chair is amenable, Fenella could next suggest that a skilled professional company secretary be brought in - by the board - on a part-time basis to establish processes and help train the new Company Secretary. She should also raise the issue of ‘board only’ time excluding non-directors.

If Fenella’s colleagues are willing to enhance their governance, she should stay and help. If they are not, she should seriously consider the risks of being on a listed board that has no control over its governance processes and financial disclosures.

The Director's Dilemma - December 2025 Edition

2025-12-01T09:09:34Z

Produced by Julie Garland-McLellan, Consultant at AltoPartners Australia and non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Contribution by Dr Julia Zdrahal-Urbanek. Julia has successfully built up the Austrian executive search business of AltoPartners. She has worked in the manufacturing & technology sector, for NGOs, in financial services and for health/biotech/pharma clients. With almost 20 years’ experience in executive search, Julia started her executive career in London, then worked at the Medical Faculty of Wuerzburg, Germany, and moved to the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, Vienna. From 2016 to 2025 Julia holds an Operating Committee role in the global AltoPartners organisation. She is regularly invited to speak about international trends covering board composition as well as board diversity and holds a Non Executive Director role in a family business. Julia holds a science master’s degree and a PhD in Psychology and speaks German and English.

The Director’s Dilemma - December 2025

This month our real-life board dilemma concerns a new director who clearly doesn’t understand the role and a chair that appears reluctant to act.

Elle is in her second term on a board. She pushed successfully for directors to get email addresses with the company domain and to receive their papers and other notifications using only this address. The board approved this initiative as the non-profit had no IT department and ‘couldn’t justify’ investing in a portal.

At the last board election, a new young person was voted onto the board “as IT director”. There had been no discussion of skills gaps or candidates, and the directors only knew of the candidate when he appeared on the notice of meeting. It seems that there was no induction provided, which is hardly surprising as Elle didn’t receive one either, but Elle had volunteered to help with this and didn’t hear back from the Chair or CEO. Her invitation for ‘coffee’ and chat about the board - and governance in general - was ignored.

The new director is not a qualified IT person or experienced on any boards. He has been given an access to the server that includes ability to read other directors’ emails. Sensitive information from CEO and other board members is now viewed by a director with little experience on the board or understanding of governance boundaries. Staff have complained to Elle that he wants things to be done without board approval, accesses their email accounts, and insists they should respond to his requests.

What should Elle do?

Julia’s Answer

This case highlights governance and role-clarity issues, informal processes in the election of board members, and structural weaknesses within a Tier-1 non-profit board. Elle has attempted to introduce more structure and improve data protection. For example, she ensured all board members use an official company email address. She recognises that the new director is neither qualified nor aware of the boundaries of his role. Even if appointed as an “IT Director,” a board member is not an operational IT manager but part of a strategic governing body. Her attempts to raise these issues are ignored by the Chair and CEO or perceived as interference. However, it is entirely appropriate for her to insist on a written clarification of role responsibilities (for all board members!). Only a documented, non-negotiable definition of roles supports proper governance-aligned behaviour.

Elle needs to document everything in writing (e.g., staff complaints, observations regarding the IT Director’s behaviour, the Chair’s and CEO’s lack of response) and be fully aware of her own director’s duties (Care and Diligence, Act in Good Faith, Avoid Misuse of Information). Her first step should be to approach the Chair directly and outline her concerns with reference to governance gaps, lack of best practice, and potential liability risks, and record this formally. If the Chair does not respond, Elle should place the issue on the agenda of the next board meeting.

The next step would be to speak directly with the Company Secretary or Governance Officer, seek external advice (e.g., the AICD or equivalent bodies in other countries), and ultimately consider her own resignation.

For readers in a European Tier-2 board system, for example in Germany or Austria, where a clear separation exists between supervision (Aufsichtsrat) and management, some steps differ; for example, there is not always a Company Secretary or Governance Officer in an NGO. However, supervisory board members have oversight duties and no operational authority. Elle must understand the supervisory board’s duty of care and potential personal liability. Her approach would similarly be to inform the supervisory board chair, both informally and formally, place GDPR and governance risks on the agenda, involve the data protection officer if necessary, and consider resignation if the chair fails to act.

Julie’s Answer

Something is very wrong. Elle has been on this board for more than one term and yet her concerns are being ignored even though she has previously driven a valuable change in this board’s practice. Unauthorised access to emails is a breach of privacy legislation and a major cause for concern.

Elle should approach her closest ally on the board and ask them:

How they feel about the general skills and capabilities of this board
What do they think about the new director
What they have observed in the relationship between Elle and the Chair
What they have observed in the relationships between staff, the board, and the CEO
Why they think staff are taking complaints to Elle rather than the CEO

This is data gathering. She should listen and acknowledge the information, possibly clarify, but not challenge it. Then she should develop her plan of approach to the CEO and Chair, using the communication style that is most likely to get her heard.

Maybe ‘coffee and chat’ was too casual to get attention and she needs to be more formal. Or perhaps she is seen as a ‘squeaky wheel’ or a stickler for details that don’t add value. Or is there a relationship between the new director and her colleagues that is making them reluctant to act? Elle needs to understand the situation before she can encourage the Chair and CEO to put the best interests of the business first.

If, after a more carefully modulated approach, she is still ignored, Elle should place the matter on the next board agenda for discussion. She should do this in writing and after checking the constitution. The most urgent concerns are privacy and the overstepping of the board/management boundary to giving staff instructions. She can wait on the induction for a time when these important issues are resolved.

Interviewing Senior Candidates: In-Person vs. Virtual and the Nuances That May Be Missed

2025-10-16T08:45:41Z

This post was originally published by Karla Dorsch, Founder and Managing Partner Evrima / AltoPartners Abu Dhabi, on LinkedIn. To view the original post, click here.

These days, it feels like half our lives happen on Zoom. Job interviews are no exception. For senior roles especially, the question often comes up: is it better to meet a candidate on screen, or in the flesh?

Virtual interviews definitely have their perks. They save time, money, and jet lag. You can include board members dialling in from three different time zones, and candidates don’t have to rearrange their lives to fly in for a first conversation. As a way to cast the net wide and quickly get a feel for someone’s background, virtual interviews are great.

But here’s the catch: senior hires aren’t just about résumés and technical know-how. They’re about presence, leadership, and that hard-to-define “do I trust this person to steer the ship?” factor. And that’s where video calls can let us down.

On screen, you only see a cropped version of someone, usually head and shoulders. You miss the posture, the way they walk into a room, how they shake hands, or even how they react to small talk. A shaky internet connection or bad lighting can make a brilliant leader look flat. And those in-between moments, the coffee chats, the hallway introductions, often say more about a person’s style than the formal Q&A. None of that happens when the call ends with a click.

That said, there’s a flip side: today’s executives do need to connect virtually. If a leader can’t engage their team over video, that’s a red flag. So seeing how a candidate comes across on screen is still valuable, it just shouldn’t be the only test.

The sweet spot is a hybrid approach. Start with virtual interviews to save time and filter down the list. But when it gets serious, when you’re about to pick the person who’ll set the tone for the whole organization, bring them in. Meet them face-to-face, see how they interact with people, and feel the energy in the room.

In the end, video is efficient, but people are three-dimensional. For senior hires, you want to see the whole picture before making an important hiring decision for your organization.

Will AI Supersede Human Interface in South Africa?

2025-10-15T07:54:58Z

This blog past was first published by Search Partners International (SPi) / AltoPartners South Africa. To read the original post, click here.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer just a sci fi fantasy, it is here, reshaping how we work, communicate, and live. From chatbots handling customer queries to algorithms sifting through CVs, AI is making waves globally. But in South Africa, with our unique blend of cultures, economic challenges, and tech adoption, the question looms: Will AI ever fully replace the human interface? Let us unpack this with a local lens, exploring what it means for businesses, job seekers, and our society.

The Rise of AI in South Africa

AI is already part of our daily lives, even if we do not always notice it. Whether it is the virtual assistant on your phone, predictive text in your WhatsApp chats, or algorithms curating your Takealot recommendations, AI is quietly transforming how we interact with technology. In South Africa, businesses are adopting AI rapidly. Retail giants use AI to manage stock, banks rely on it for fraud detection, and search firms like ours at SPi leverage AI tools to match candidates with roles faster than ever.

But South Africa is not Silicon Valley. Our tech landscape is shaped by unique challenges: high data costs, uneven internet access, and a workforce where digital literacy varies widely. While AI is growing, it is not a one size fits all solution. The human interface, those personal connections, emotional intelligence, and cultural understanding, still plays a vital role in how we do business and build relationships here.

AI is Strengths: Efficiency and Scale

Let us be honest, AI is highly effective at some tasks. It can process data at remarkable speed, spot patterns humans might miss, and handle repetitive tasks with ease. For example, in search firms, AI powered tools can scan thousands of CVs in seconds, selecting top candidates based on keywords and qualifications. This saves time for recruiters and gets job seekers in front of employers faster.

In South Africa, where unemployment sits at 33.5% (Stats SA, Q2 2025), AI could help bridge the gap between job seekers and opportunities. Platforms using AI can match candidates to roles across industries, even in rural areas where access to traditional job boards is limited. AI driven chatbots can also guide candidates through application processes, offering 24/7 support, something a human recruiter might struggle to provide.

Beyond search firms, AI is making inroads in sectors like healthcare, where it is used to predict disease outbreaks, or agriculture, where it helps farmers optimise crops. These advancements are promising, especially in a country where innovation can address systemic challenges like poverty and inequality.

The Human Interface: Why It Still Matters

But here is the reality, AI is not human, and in South Africa, that is significant. Our country thrives on relationships, ubuntu, and the personal touch. Whether it is a handshake at a business meeting in Sandton or a conversation over braai in Soweto, human connection drives trust and understanding. AI cannot replicate that. Not yet, anyway.

In executive search, AI can effectively shortlist candidates by analysing CVs and qualifications at scale, but it is the experienced executive recruiter who identifies the subtleties essential for leadership positions, such as a candidate’s passion, their alignment with organisational culture, or their capacity to drive strategic growth beyond their documented experience. South Africa’s diverse workforce, with 11 official languages and numerous cultural nuances, requires emotional intelligence and contextual insight that AI cannot yet fully replicate. A machine may fail to recognise why a candidate’s community engagement or resilience in challenging circumstances makes them the ideal fit for a C-suite role.

Then there is the issue of bias. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, and if that data reflects historical inequalities (which South Africa has in abundance), AI can perpetuate those biases. A human recruiter, on the other hand, can challenge assumptions, advocate for diversity, and ensure fairness in ways algorithms cannot.

The South African Context: Opportunities and Challenges

South Africa’s tech landscape highlights a stark digital divide. Urban centres like Johannesburg and Cape Town are AI innovation hubs, driven by startups and corporates with access to infrastructure and skills. Rural areas, however, face barriers like limited internet, outdated hardware, and low digital literacy, stalling AI adoption. If AI supersedes human interfaces in sectors like customer service, finance, or healthcare, rural communities’ risk being marginalised. Jobs reliant on human interaction could vanish, and without access to AI tools or training, these populations may struggle to adapt. This could deepen inequality, as urban elites benefit from efficiency gains while rural workers face unemployment or exclusion from AI-driven services. Bridging this gap requires targeted interventions: expanding broadband access, subsidising tech infrastructure, and prioritising digital skills programs in rural areas. Without these, the divide will widen, leaving many unable to participate in an AI-driven economy.

For candidates seeking executive roles, AI could be transformative, but only if they have access to the technology and expertise to engage with it. A young professional in Pretoria might easily navigate an AI driven executive search platform, but a leader in a small town like Vryburg might struggle without reliable internet or digital literacy training. This is where human intervention, through tailored career coaching, strategic networking, or mentorship, remains critical for securing C-suite positions.

Businesses also face a balancing act. Adopting AI can reduce costs and boost efficiency, but over relying on it risks alienating customers who value personal service. In a country where “people buy from people” is a guiding principle, completely replacing human interface could backfire. Imagine a call centre where an AI chatbot cannot understand your isiZulu accent or a bank where an algorithm denies your loan without considering your unique circumstances. Frustrating, is it not?

The Future: A Collaborative Approach

So, will AI supersede human interface in South Africa? Our view: not likely, but it will reshape the landscape. The future lies in a collaborative model where AI and humans work together, each leveraging their strengths. AI can handle the heavy lifting, data processing, automation, and scale, while humans bring empathy, creativity, and cultural insight to the table.

At SPi, we are already embracing this. Our AI tools streamline executive sourcing, but our search team add the human touch, ensuring every executive placement is right for both the executive and the client. This balance is especially crucial in South Africa, where trust and relationships are the foundation of business.

For executives, this means upskilling is critical; learning to work alongside AI in leadership. For businesses, it is about investing in AI thoughtfully, ensuring it complements rather than replaces the human element.

Conclusion: Embracing AI with a Human Heart

AI is transforming South Africa, but it is not here to replace us, it is here to support us. In a country as vibrant and complex as ours, the human interface remains irreplaceable.

At SPi, we believe the future is about collaboration, not competition, between AI and humans. By blending advanced technology with the personal touch, we can create opportunities that uplift individuals and businesses alike. So, let us embrace AI, but let us do it with a human heart, because that is the South African way.

What are your thoughts on AI and the human interface? Are you seeing AI change the way you work or look for jobs? Drop a comment below or get in touch with us at SPi to share your story!

Seven Things we Learned about Leadership from Sport

2025-10-13T07:48:24Z

It’s difficult to get a grip on the actual value of the global sports industry, with estimates varying between US$2.65 trillion (2023) and US$487 billion (2022). Whichever way you measure it, one thing is clear: there’s a lot of money in sport.

Sport is about more than money, though. It is intrinsically woven into our lives. Whether you actively participate, or follow it from the comfort of your armchair, there is drama and ongoing narrative involvement: epic battles, heroic failures and glorious victories. The sporting spectacles we witness offer life lessons, examples of human endeavour, teamwork (or not), moral and ethical dilemmas.

Are there lessons from the world of sports that business leaders can learn?

We asked a group of sports-enthusiasts from across the AltoPartners alliance for the lessons they have learned from sports that they carry into their business lives.

1. Sport as character-builder

For Nicolás Mora Schrader, Managing Partner at Equation Partners / AltoPartners Chile, sport is more than a game. “I have been closely involved with rugby for many years, both as a player (in my youth) and as a passionate follower of the sport… Rugby became a school of values and discipline that has influenced the way I approach challenges, relationships, and leadership in my professional life.”

Thomas Heyn, Partner of Jack Russell Consulting / AltoPartners Germany, agrees. A basketball player during his university years, Dr Heyn says sport teaches fundamental values and character traits that are missing in modern society – including reliability and accepting the rules (no cheating!) even if they are not in your favour.

2. Sport as a place to learn

Heyn recalls a moment during a university football game when he lost his temper and pushed an opponent against a wall. “At the time I considered myself a nice guy, someone who stuck to the sportsmanship ethic. Forty-five years later, I still remember the lesson that taught me about self-control and the need for emotional self-regulation.”

Christo Badenhorst, Director Search Partners International / AltoPartners South Africa, who describes himself as a “crazy sports nut since primary school” and who plays a mean game of golf, says the opportunity to learn about other people is key. “The chance to engage with someone for five to six hours on a golf course is second to none – especially seeing how that person reacts when challenged or beaten!”

3. Sport and resilience

Tracy O’Such, Global Managing Partner, Media, Entertainment, and Sports: DSG Global / AltoPartners USA, who has placed senior level executives at all US major sports leagues (including NBA, NFL, NHL and USTA), says perseverance, and learning how to pick yourself up after a loss, strike her as major lessons from sport.

Says Mora: “You get knocked down many times, but the real measure is how quickly you stand up, refocus, and keep moving forward.”

4. Sport and planning

Keith Labbett, Managing Partner Osprey Executive Search / AltoPartners Eastern Canada, who has long-standing sport coaching experience in rugby, hockey and American football – alongside years of work in executive search and advisory capacities with National Sport Organizations (NSO) in Canada, professional franchises and leagues (MLB, NHL, CFL) – says he learned that the ability to execute a plan and learn from failure is more important than having a brilliant plan that can’t be implemented. “As heavyweight champion Lennox Lewis (who won a gold medal for Canada) said: ‘You can’t run from defeat. You study it, learn from it, and come back with a better plan’.”

5. Sport, humility and grace

O’Such recommends learning to accept defeat with grace. Jean Paul Hokke, Partner LTI / AltoPartners Netherlands, agrees, advising business leaders to accept failure, and to learn how to fail better. Hokke, who was the Dutch youth champion field hockey player at the age of 17 and played cricket at the highest Dutch level for over 10 years, says it’s equally important to celebrate successes – but humility is the mark of a true leader.

6. Sport and teamwork

Teamwork is often the focus of management thinking around how sport skills transfer to business performance.

Our AltoPartners experts have some insights:

● Labbett: “The best players are rarely the best leaders. The best leader is the person who can hold it together, the strategist and the one with the most commitment.”

● Heyn: Putting a team together is not necessarily about finding the people with the most talent. “Talented people often stop developing because success comes easily. They don’t learn the hard lessons. Dedication is much more important than talent.”

● Hokke: “In sport, if things go wrong, there’s an acceptance that everybody makes mistakes. There is not much blaming and shaming. In corporate life, when things go wrong, people look around, trying to find who to blame. Instead business leaders need to create the same kind of safe space, where people can be frank about weaknesses.”

7. Sport and business leadership as an act of service

Nicolás Mora Schrader has the final say: “If I had to choose just one thing I have learned from sport, it would be this: leadership is about service to the team. In rugby, the best players are not necessarily the stars, but those who create the conditions for others to shine. I used to play as a forward, in the second row, not a particularly ‘sexy’ position like scrum-half, fly-half, or even hooker. But it’s a role that, from the shadows, has a crucial impact on the team’s success: in the line-outs, in building second and third attacking phases, and in setting the platform for others to score. I wish more leaders embraced that idea… that true leadership means enabling your people to succeed, even if it means staying out of the spotlight yourself.”

Further reading

Ask Alto : What are workplace rituals and can hybrid / remote teams still benefit?

The AltoPartners Guide to Diversity and Inclusion : Safe Spaces – Could these be the missing ingredient in your DE&I programme?

Everything I know about business, I could have learnt from Star Trek!

Written by Renee Moodie

Impactful Questions to Ask During Your Interview Process

2025-10-09T09:09:18Z

By Richard Sterling, Partner at AltoPartners Australia.

This article was first posted on LinkedIn. To read the original post, click here.

This Is Your Moment

You’ve been here before, haven’t you?

Sitting across from the selection panel for a non-executive director role at a For Purpose organisation. You’ve nailed the interview.

Then comes your grand finale: “Do you have any questions for us?”

As an executive search professional sitting in on board interviews, I’ve seen this moment often wasted.

A throwaway question about next steps. A question that shows you haven’t done your homework. Or worse, no question at all.

Miss this chance to show insight, curiosity and strategic thinking and it leaves a mark. The panel’s ‘yes’ can quickly shift to a ‘maybe’ or worse.

The strongest candidates use this moment to lean in.

They ask sharp, thoughtful questions that reveal how they think, demonstrate genuine curiosity and leave the panel with a lasting impression.

There are many questions you could ask but these three stand out. They are not mine. They come from candidates who knew how to seize their moment.

Ask : “How true is the organisation to its mission?”

You are asking this to understand what drives decisions. Is purpose shaping strategy or is funding in the driver’s seat?

You want to know if the mission is lived or just listed on the website. You are listening for signs the culture is aligned or drifting.

Most importantly, it shows you are not here to nod along. You are thinking like a board member who is focused on impact, discipline and long-term alignment.

Ask : “In what ways is your strategy shaped by your theory of change?”

This gets to whether the organisation understands how it creates impact or is just hoping it does.

You want to know if strategy is grounded in evidence or held together by assumptions. You’re listening for a clear link between daily activity and long-term outcomes.

This question shows you are focused on rigour, clarity and the connection between purpose and execution and not just good intentions.

Ask : “How is impact being measured?”

Impact is the bottom line. You want measurable outcomes. You are looking for evidence that evaluation is built in and not added on.

This shows you are focused on what matters: knowing what is working, what is not and where to focus resources for the greatest return on mission.

And now, a question for you

You may not like the answers provided by the panel. So, what will you do?

10 Big Reasons To Go Smaller on Your Next Leadership Hire

2025-10-08T07:56:28Z

In a fractured economy, clients and hiring managers find value in working with boutique, partner-owned retained search firms.

Many members of the AltoPartners global partnership – recently voted among the top 40 executive search providers worldwide by Hunt Scanlon and consistently recognised as one of the top 10 international executive search and leadership advisory groups – have their roots in one of the Big Five global executive search giants. Others spent years honing their knowledge and skills as C-suite professionals before deciding to go solo.

For all of them, it was a leap of faith, but none have looked back.

“They love AltoPartners for the ability to promote their own brand while still having access to global networks and industry expertise, as well as the credibility that comes with being a member of the AESC – the global organisation that sets the standards in terms of ethics and quality for the industry”, says Julia Scheffer, AltoPartners Global Director and AESC Global Board Member.

Here’s why smaller has proved to be better for them and their clients.

1. As owner-operators, the buck starts and stops with us, says AltoPartners global chair Santiago Solis Arias, who left a lucrative partner role at Heidrick & Struggles to start one of Colombia’s best-known private executive search companies, Executive Connection SAS. “They may have a team of researchers working on the case, but you’ll never be fobbed off to an account executive who doesn’t have skin in the game. When it’s your own business and reputation on the line, you ensure that there are no slip-ups and that your clients and the candidates are satisfied,” says Solis.

2. We get that it’s a long-term partnership. Corinne Klajda, who heads up Nuvadis/ AltoPartners Poland, sums it up: “The beauty of an owner-led executive search firm is that we are personally invested in our client’s success. We have served the Polish market for over 30 years. We know our clients, their requirements, culture and organisations, enabling us to provide a personalised approach to every client and candidate. And to do it quickly, ethically and transparently.”

3. All the networks with none of the off-limits. AltoPartners provides the platform for its member firms to leverage each other’s shared knowledge, experience, networks and databases across all 59 offices in 35 countries. “This way, our clients can enjoy all the benefits of local insights and the best on-the-ground expertise, while also having full access to global talent through local search partners. This approach avoids being bogged down by global off-limits (an industry term referring to search restrictions often imposed by multinational clients to prevent international search companies from approaching their top talent in other territories), which can severely limit the pool of talented candidates,” says Ricardo Bäcker, founder and chair of Bäcker & Partners / AltoPartners Argentina, who values the strong collaboration within the partnership. “At AltoPartners, I feel that each of our partners has a genuine interest in my country, our office and myself, and this entrepreneurial mindset really makes all the difference to our clients,” he adds.

4. Boots-on-the-ground local knowledge. “We have real people in real offices in each region we operate in,” says Marco Arcaini, who heads up AltoPartners Germany’s Wiesbaden office. “We live where we work – a factor that puts AltoPartners among the top five worldwide in actual reach and in-situ presence. This gives clients the best of both worlds: deep local knowledge combined with international reach.”

5. Referrals and repeat business are our bread and butter. Albert Froom, the founding Chairman of AltoPartners and Partner of LTI Netherlands, has been serving the Benelux region for over three decades. “Our clients value our flexibility and creativity when it comes to identifying candidates and the extreme care with which we approach each assignment. It’s imperative that we get it right because ultimately, we measure our success by the re-buy factor of clients, and our referrals are largely based on word of mouth. If a candidate proves unsuitable or leaves before their tenure is up, it impacts our reputation and our bottom line.”

6. High-touch, high-impact. As a former Chief HR officer for Alexander Forbes and then Vodacom, Mpho Nkeli of Search Partners International (SPi) / AltoPartners South Africa, knows what it’s like to be on the other side of the desk: “Our customer-centricity and the way we keep the client connected to each step of the search process is a source of pride. Our goal is to wow the client and the candidate at every touchpoint. Quality and speed are key as we partner with clients and candidates. We know it works because of the high level of repeat business and the number of candidates that go on to become clients.”

7. Easy on the hiring teams – and on the candidates. Without the need to focus on bureaucracy, sales targets or overheads, boutique firms can afford to be more candidate-focused. “The way candidates are treated in this industry still shocks me,” says Dr Thomas Heyn of Jack Russell Consulting / AltoPartners Germany. “If a candidate has taken the time to consider your proposal and agreed to have their name put forward, then they deserve respect and consideration, even if they do not make it onto the shortlist. We never forget that we are an extension of our client’s brand.”

8. Sectoral and local depth. “We combine sector expertise with local knowledge to give our clients deep insight and access to proven leaders, while also looking beyond the obvious to rising stars and cross-sector talent who challenge established mindsets,” says Richard Fortune, Managing Partner at AltoPartners Australia and co-head of the AltoPartners Global Natural Resources practice group.

9. Ready adoption of AI. Smaller really is nimbler when it comes to ready adoption of AI tools to help clients make better, more informed decisions, says Carol Leonard, Chief Executive Officer and Head of Board Practice at The Inzito Partnership / AltoPartners UK in London. “We’re unconstrained by group-wide policies in terms of the AI tools we are able to use, but bound by ethical commitments to protect privacy and maintain confidentiality.”

10. We see you. “As entrepreneurs, we understand what it takes to run a business successfully. We are fascinated by the businesses our clients have built – the assets they’ve developed, the skills they need, and the people who will take them forward. We invest time in understanding the unique industry and cultural context of a search to ensure we find the perfect candidate every time,” says Sonal Agrawal of Accord India / AltoPartners India, who heads up one of the subcontinent’s leading executive search organisations.

You may also like:

Ten questions to ask your executive search provider

What your retained executive search partner wishes you knew

AltoPartners Recognised in Global 40 Executive Search Firms Ranking

Ask Alto: What is a heat map? Your guide to executive search terminology

Written by Gail Strauss

The Director's Dilemma - October 2025 Edition

2025-10-01T07:26:50Z

Produced by Julie Garland-McLellan, Consultant at AltoPartners Australia and non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Contribution by Karla Dorsch, is the Founder and Managing Director of Evrima / AltoPartners UAE. She has over 25 years of experience in executive search, across a broad range of clients throughout EMEA including sovereign wealth funds, governmental agencies, banks, private equity firms, corporates, family conglomerates and start-ups. Karla has an MBA from NYU Stern School of business, a Master’s degree from the London School of Economics and a Bachelor’s degree from Columbia University, as well as a Masters degree in Psychology and Neuroscience and is a member of the International Woman’s Forum and has sat on various non-profit boards in the UK. She is Based in London.

The Director’s Dilemma - October 2025

This month our real-life board dilemma concerns a governance professional experiencing pressure from her employer to join a board that has many risks.

Cecilia is General Counsel of a company with multiple investments in other companies. As part of her role, she observes investee board meetings to ensure good governance.

One investee is very thinly capitalised and will need to raise additional capital. The founder still views the company as ‘his’ business, even though there are two other institutional investors alongside Cecilia’s company and multiple small shareholders. Cecilia has reported, to her boss, concerns that governance is poor.

The board is comprised of nominees from the institutional investors, an independent chair, an independent director who chairs the audit committee, and the founder. The founder owns 35% of the shares and the other two institutions own 12% each, Cecilia’s company has 9% and the founder’s brother has 10%. Cecilia’s company has responded to her concerns by agreeing with the founder that she should join the board, bringing the number of directors to six, and that the chair should be given a casting as well as deliberative vote.

The business has operations in Australia (where it started) and an offshore jurisdiction. It has almost 3,000 assets which are either rented or under ‘rent to own’ agreements. It has a lot of debt at around 12 times equity, and total assets are around $180 million. Its cash balances are low, and it is forecast to make a small loss this year. The relationship with the founder has not always been easy. Cecilia is not sure that she wants to take on the liabilities of directorship when, even with the support of the other institutional investors, she can be outvoted.

What can she do to manage the risks?

Karla’s Answer

Cecilia has found herself in a classic governance thriller: a fast-growing company with a headstrong founder, lots of debt, thin capital, and an uneasy boardroom mix. Now she’s being asked to step onto the stage as a full director. The prize? More influence. The risk? Personal liability in a business that looks like it’s running on fumes.

If she takes the seat, Cecilia inherits the duties of any director; acting with care, diligence, and loyalty; in both Australia and the offshore jurisdiction. With debt at 12 times equity, razor-thin cash, and a founder who thinks the company is “his,” the potential for things to go south is very real. D&O insurance and indemnities would help, but they don’t erase the personal stress of being outvoted.

So what’s the alternative? Cecilia could stay in the wings but strengthen her observer role: more access to board packs, audit papers, and committee meetings. She could push the institutional investors to act together, demanding stronger governance as a bloc. Conditions could be attached to any fresh capital: add another independent director, beef up the audit and risk committee, and commission regular governance reviews. A reworked shareholder agreement could also put guardrails around the founder’s decision-making.

If Cecilia does climb into the director’s chair, she should only do so with armour: watertight insurance, written indemnities, and documented governance reforms.

Either way, her task is the same: protect her company’s investment without becoming the casualty of someone else’s risky dream.

Julie’s Answer

Oh dear. Poor Cecilia!

There is little worse than having to choose between risking your day job and risking joining a board where you may not have the influence you deserve.

First, I would recommend that Cecilia meet with the Chair and ascertain if, as well as independence and good judgement, he or she has the toughness of character to withstand pressure from the founder.

She could then meet with the other investor-nominated board members. Again, she needs to assess the soundness of their characters and the steeliness of their resolve.

Cecilia already knows the CEO/founder so her next port of call is the remaining director, the audit chair. She should use this meeting to understand, not to judge. She needs to know what this director expects and contributes, and how they plan to improve governance.

Cecilia then needs to agree (in principle) a path forward that the large investors will support. Fortified with this outline of a way forward, she should finally meet with the founder and see how he feels about this plan.

If he is unwilling to back the plan, it is unlikely that the other investors will ‘top up’ their investment. The company has poor prospects if the existing investors have lost faith and the founder is approaching new investors. A ‘down round’ (where the share price is lower than that paid by past investors) is likely under this scenario. Cecilia’s company is likely to be very unhappy with the board and hence with Cecilia. It would be difficult to justify joining the board.
If he is willing to back the plan, there is a good chance that the current large investors will ‘top up’ and that share price will be maintained or dilution avoided. Cecilia’s company is likely to remain concerned but supportive and joining the board - especially if the plan results in a turnaround - could be a good career move.

Ultimately it comes down to Cecilia’s confidence in the founder’s ability to build a successf

Pre-onboarding: How the right executive search partner can accelerate time-to-impact

2025-09-23T08:16:19Z

When every month of executive underperformance translates into millions in lost opportunities, the first 90 days are too costly to waste. Executive search partners can provide targeted, high-touch interventions that reduce onboarding risks and accelerate time to impact.

Onboarding programmes can take anywhere from a few weeks to up to 12 months, but all are designed with one purpose: to integrate new employees into an unfamiliar environment. But not every organisation can afford to spend months getting expensive new hires up to speed. This is where your executive search partner can help, says Marco Arcaini of AltoPartners Germany. By preparing candidates before day one — bridging culture gaps, decoding stakeholder dynamics, and aligning expectations — search partners can accelerate time-to-impact and protect the return on your most critical investment: leadership.

Turning risk into ROI

“Hiring a senior executive is a big commitment for any client. The best search process can find you a suitable candidate, but it’s what happens in those first 90 days that can set them up for success or failure. It makes sense to invest in a pre-onboarding programme to align expectations and bridge any culture gaps,” explains Arcaini, who, together with executive coach and author Christian Repplinger, developed a comprehensive pre-onboarding service 14 years ago following a surprise upset when a new appointment was asked to resign due to a clash with a board member.

They didn’t fail because of a lack of skills or capacity, but because they missed one unspoken rule. That single blind spot, says Arcaini, caused months of disruption. A pre-briefing around role clarity and stakeholder mapping would have eliminated the problem.

“I realised then that what was needed was a pre-onboarding programme to help successful candidates navigate the new political landscape. This is more than ensuring a broad culture-fit, which we always do before putting a candidate forward for consideration. Pre-onboarding is about helping candidates understand the nuances of the environment they will be entering. By giving them the inside track on who they’ll be working for and what the expectations are, candidates can adjust their approach and leadership style accordingly to ensure they get off on a good footing and give the client’s onboarding programme a chance to work its magic,” he explains.

A chance to transfer critical insights

As Arcaini points out, executive search partners spend hours with their clients understanding their business and their specific needs. In the process, they gain unique insights into the dynamics on both sides: “We get to know the key players, and we make it our business to understand the context. Why did the incumbent leave? Why has the vacancy arisen? What unique challenges can the candidate expect to encounter? Where are the opportunities? We also know the candidate – what motivates them, their leadership style, and areas for personal growth and development.”

“In addition to this deep insider knowledge, we have the trust of both parties, which means we are able to transfer critical insights that will accelerate the candidate’s integration into the company and shorten the ramp-up period,” adds Arcaini.

Once the candidate starts work, the first formal check-in takes place eight weeks later, by which time Arcaini will have received feedback from both the client and the candidate. As the mediator in the middle, he is well-positioned to broach sensitive matters that are raised on both sides.

Culture: A minefield for the uninitiated

So, what does pre-onboarding look like?

Arcaini explains: “It’s very particular to the client and the candidate, and typically, it begins in earnest a month before the start date. We focus on three key areas: culture decode, expectation alignment and early integration coaching.”

“We begin with a culture debrief. Every organisation has its own way of doing things – its customs and unwritten rules, and it can be a minefield for the uninitiated. For international candidates in particular, some elements of German work culture can be disconcerting, such as the famously direct approach of giving clear and unambiguous feedback. Even junior colleagues will tell you plainly if they disagree with a decision or the way a task or process is being handled. For senior appointees, this can take some getting used to. For these candidates, a few tips about working for a German boss or managing German employees can make all the difference in forming the interpersonal relationships that can make or break a career. We also ensure that we align expectations and provide a debrief on what to expect during the first 90 days.”

“My job is to ensure complete alignment in terms of roles and expectations. A pre-onboarding programme reduces risk on both sides and ensures confident, committed hires ready to deliver from day one. I like to think of it as providing a turbo-boost for our clients’ onboarding programme. It’s a win-win all round.”

A strategic risk management tool

Has anyone ever bailed after hearing a bit more about their prospective new job?

Arcaini laughs. “No one to date. This is mainly because the actual search process itself is very thorough in terms of what the candidate will be required to do and where the challenges and opportunities lie within the role. Pre-onboarding is more personal and more granular. Our feedback from candidates indicates that they appreciate the time we take to prepare them for their new roles in a new environment. For clients, the value of pre-onboarding is even more profound, as it reduces the time to impact.”

Ultimately, says Arcaini, pre-onboarding is not a nice-to-have: “It’s a strategic risk-management tool that pays dividends in performance, retention, and cultural alignment. Clients who extend their partnership beyond placement gain a competitive edge: executives who arrive already briefed, aligned, and prepared to deliver. The question for CEOs and hiring managers is simple: if your onboarding programme doesn’t begin before day one, are you really giving your leaders—and your business—the best chance to succeed?”

You might also like:

Ask Alto: Onboarding pays: so why aren’t more companies doing it?

International Equal Pay Day 2025: Persisting Gaps & What Needs to Change

2025-09-18T06:05:04Z

Observed annually on 18 September, International Equal Pay Day is a United Nations-recognised observance representing the longstanding efforts towards the achievement of equal pay for work of equal value.

The State of the Gender Pay Gap in 2025

Several recent reports show the gender pay gap remains significant, with only slow progress.

• Globally, women earn about 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, meaning a wage gap of roughly 23%.

• When measured without adjusting for job type, experience etc. (“uncontrolled” gap), the disparity is large: overall pay for women is about 83% of that of men.

• After controlling for factors such as role, qualifications, and location, the gap shrinks, but it does not disappear. Even in similar roles, women are still underpaid on average.

• In the United States, the median pay ratio for all workers is about 85%: women earn ~85 cents for every dollar men earn. Among younger workers (ages 25-34), the gap is smaller: women earn about 95 cents for every dollar earned by men of the same age group.

• Progress is slow: according to the Global Gender Gap Report 2025, it would take more than a century (estimated around 123 years) to close gaps in economic participation and opportunity at the current rate of change.

Key Contributing Factors & Structural Barriers

Some of the persistent drivers of inequality include:

• Occupational segregation: Women are overrepresented in lower-paid sectors (care work, informal economy) and underrepresented in higher-paying technical, leadership, or STEM roles.

• Career interruptions and caregiving responsibilities, particularly associated with motherhood, affect women’s earnings trajectory over time.

• Limited pay transparency and opaque recruiting/hiring/promotion practices, which make it harder to detect and correct unequal pay.

• Unconscious bias and discriminatory practices in evaluation, promotion, and compensation even when formal equality policies exist.

AltoPartners’ Insights & Role

AltoPartners has in its 2025 research underlined some valuable points:

• In “Accelerating Gender Parity: Recommendations for Executive Search and Hiring” (Jan 2025), AltoPartners highlighted that globally, women earn about 84% of what men earn on average. This aligns closely with other global metrics, showing the gap is narrowing, but not fast enough.

• That report emphasizes the importance of inclusive hiring, measurable goals for diversity, diversifying candidate pools, adopting gender-neutral job descriptions, and rethinking traditional leadership criteria.

• From earlier reporting (“Gender equality and women’s participation in the workforce – still a work in progress”), AltoPartners noted that even where female participation is relatively high, representation at senior levels remains low, and occupational segregation (women concentrated in lower-paid roles) persists.

What Must Change: Policy & Practice

To make meaningful progress toward pay equity, the following must happen:

1. Pay audits and transparency: Organisations should regularly audit pay, publish results (where possible), and provide clear paths for correcting disparities.

2. Redefining job value: Recognise work of “equal value” even when it’s in different sectors; ensure that roles traditionally dominated by women are not undervalued.

3. Support for caregiving: Flexible work, parental leave, childcare support—all reduce the earnings penalty associated with caregiving.

4. Leadership & pipeline interventions: Sponsorship, mentorship, inclusive leadership criteria, and targeted development for women in the middle levels can help reduce the drop-off toward senior roles.

5. Legislation & public policy: Enabling laws for equal pay, protections around discrimination, requirements for disclosure, and incentives for companies to improve.

6. Cultural change and bias reduction: Training, inclusive culture, challenging norms that privilege certain career paths or penalize breaks in employment.

International Equal Pay Day 2025 reminds us that despite progress, pay equity remains a distant goal. With women still earning between 77-84% of men’s pay on average, and full parity projected to take over a century at current rates, more urgent, systemic action is needed.

AltoPartners’ voices from 2025 show that anywhere from recruitment to leadership selection, from job design to policy frameworks, there are levers that organisations, and advisors like AltoPartners, can pull to help close the gap. The challenge moving forward is not just measurement, but commitment: sustained, visible, and measurable change across sectors and regions.

Forces Shaping the MENA Region

2025-09-11T15:09:26Z

This post was originally published by Karla Dorsch, Founder and Managing Partner Evrima / AltoPartners Abu Dhabi, on LinkedIn. To view the original post, click here.

Across the MENA region, three forces are reshaping how we lead people and organisations: tightening labour markets, rising expectations, and fast-moving HR regulations. These aren’t challenges for any one company but realities for all.

Let’s start with regulation. In the UAE, Emiratisation now reaches even smaller employers, with quotas applying to firms of just twenty staff in some sectors. In Saudi Arabia, Saudization rules continue to tighten, especially in tourism and healthcare. Oman has introduced shorter working weeks and expanded leave entitlements. Qatar enforces a statutory minimum wage with mandatory allowances. Egypt has raised its private-sector minimum wage to seven thousand pounds this year. The message is that the regulatory floor across MENA is rising, and rising fast.

Next, compensation. Inflation, currency shifts, and fierce competition for scarce skills are pushing wages upward. But broad salary increases are not sustainable. Many organisations are finding a smarter balance: linking pay reviews to inflation data, separating base salary from temporary market premiums, and investing in benefits that matter most to employees, healthcare, education, mobility support, and future savings.

At the same time, localisation is transforming the talent equation. Compliance with quotas in the UAE and Saudi Arabia is mandatory. The companies getting ahead are those with role-by-role localisation roadmaps, graduate intakes, and internal academies that build national talent pipelines. Leaving localisation to the last minute only drives up costs and is disruptive.

Recruitment and retention are also shifting. On the recruitment side, multi-track sourcing, from university partnerships, to returning expats, to contract-to-permanent models, helps reduce both the time to hire and wage inflation. On the retention side, many organisations are learning that small moves can be as powerful as big pay rises: lateral career opportunities, project-based bonuses, and regular stay interviews with employees at risk of leaving.

And then there is compliance. Across the region, regulators are becoming more active and more digital. To stay ahead, organisations are embedding compliance into daily operations.

So what does this mean? Three things.

First, sharing intelligence on regulations, compensation trends, and localisation practices rather than reinvent the wheel.
Second, investing in national talent, because today’s graduates are tomorrow’s shared workforce.
And third, set a higher bar for both compliance and employee experience, so that the region is not just competitive, but also a place where talent wants to stay and grow.

The pressures of labour shortages, rising pay, and shifting rules will not ease soon but addressing them will ensure continued success.

How and Why Boards Are Redefining Leadership

2025-09-11T09:18:12Z

By Richard Sterling, Partner at AltoPartners Australia.

This article was first posted on LinkedIn. To read the original post, click here.

Last week, I joined a panel hosted by the Australian Institute of For Purpose Leaders to tackle a question I’m hearing with increasing urgency:

“What are the top three qualities Boards are seeking in For-Purpose leaders to future-proof organisational growth and sustainability?”

The discussion confirmed what I’m seeing across my For-Purpose executive search practice: Boards are raising the bar. Safe, status-quo leadership is over.

With volatile funding, relentless scrutiny, digital disruption and rising complexity reshaping the operating environment, Boards want leaders who can deliver impact and navigate uncertainty with confidence.

Drawing on my work with Boards and insights from global peers, here are the three qualities shaping the next generation of For Purpose leaders.

1. Commercial Acumen Meets Purpose

Boards want leaders who balance mission with money and who treat revenue and impact as inseparable.

Traditional funding models are no longer enough. Leaders need diversified revenue streams, innovative business models and the smart use of digital to accelerate growth and impact.

Boards are not hiring caretakers. They are hiring builders, leaders who create value not just protect it while staying anchored to the mission.

2. Moving Beyond Impact

Results matter and so does how you communicate them.

Funders expect measurable outcomes. Donors connect with human stories. Communities seek proof that lives are improving. Volunteers want to feel inspired.

It isn’t just the data OR just the narrative, it’s both. Numbers validate. Stories motivate.

Boards are looking for leaders who can craft powerful stories that help shape policy, mobilise networks and secure long-term funding.

3. The Trust Dividend

Trust underpins everything: funding, partnerships, culture and reputation. Without it, nothing holds.

Boards are prioritising leaders who earn trust through transparent, values-driven leadership. Those who lead with clarity, consistency and genuine conviction attract top talent, make better decisions and strengthen governance.

Trust compounds like capital. It is a force multiplier that accelerates growth, amplifies influence and drives sustainable impact.

The New Baseline

For Boards, the baseline has shifted. They now seek leaders with commercial acumen, storytelling grounded in impact and the credibility to earn trust.

These qualities determine who drives organisations forward and who gets left behind.

Ask Alto: Mental health for business leaders: Is ‘wellth’ the new wealth?

2025-09-08T12:31:00Z

“Executives are telling me that they are struggling mentally and emotionally to release accumulated stress, and that it often ends up affecting their physical health.” – Corinne Klajda, Managing Partner, Accord Polska / AltoPartners Poland.

Stress is rising among C-suite executives at large companies, with 82% reporting higher stress levels than in 2024.

Sentry Insurance’s 2025 C-Suite Stress Index for Large Businesses, which surveyed 100 executives from large enterprise companies, found that the heightened stress stemmed from a range of external pressures: supply chain and logistics challenges, economic uncertainty, inflation and labour shortages. Also on the risk radar were cyberattacks and severe weather events.

An April 2025 study by consulting firm Anthrome Insights found that almost three-quarters of C-suite and executive management feel overwhelmed. The 1,000-person study found high workloads were the issue: “66% of… self-reported reasons for feeling overwhelmed related purely to tasks and time.”

Then there’s pressure to perform. Klajda says executive stress can be exacerbated by people’s own ambitions or their need to achieve regardless of the environment in which they operate.

All of this impacts leadership effectiveness and churn in executive ranks. Dr Reena Patel, Global Managing Partner and Practice Leader, Consulting DSG Global / AltoPartners USA, says she is seeing high turnover in leadership-level positions across the board.

But when stress is effectively managed, stronger leadership emerges. Leaders who prioritise their well-being and openly address their struggles can become positive role models, fostering resilience and mental health within their teams.

One way to manage stress is to embrace the concept of ‘wellth’.

What is wellth?

A 2016 book entitled Wellth: How I Learned to Build a Life, Not a Resume by Jason Wachob suggested that people needed a new life currency and introduced the idea of making deposits into wellth accounts, creating a sustainable approach to living.

Cultivating physical and emotional health, finding richness in daily life, and ensuring work is purposeful are all ways to make deposits into one’s well-being account. The key is to focus on attainable goals: small, daily actions that contribute to long-term personal growth.

How wellth might work for C-suite executives

Here’s how thinking about wellth rather than wealth might help stressed and overwhelmed executives:

● Proactive well-being: Instead of leaders reacting to burnout by soldiering on regardless, a wellth approach suggests consciously being aware of the warning signs that burnout is a possibility: early signs of fatigue, dips in focus, and sleep erosion.

● Daily choices: Establishing disciplined morning and evening routines, incorporating micro-recovery breaks throughout the day, engaging in regular exercise, and maintaining a healthy diet are all effective ways to manage stress and build resilience.

● Connection: Leaders can work on building stronger team relationships and creating safe spaces for honest conversations. This includes being vulnerable about personal struggles, asking for help, and relating to team members’ challenges, which in turn fosters trust, authenticity, and a sense of belonging.

● Delegation and team empowerment: Leadership development could focus on training leaders to build teams they can rely on, thereby alleviating their own stress and empowering their team members. In this framework, well-being is “built in, not bolted on”.

● Purposeful work: In leadership development, this means guiding leaders to find deeper meaning in their work and helping their teams connect to that purpose. This means taking a clear view on what’s not worth doing and who doesn’t need to be involved to reduce the intensification of workloads.

In essence, wellth offers leaders a framework to survive the increasing pressures of the C-suite and to thrive by integrating health, happiness, and purpose into their leadership style and organisational culture.

The wellth cascade for employees

When leaders openly prioritise their own well-being and share their vulnerabilities, they act as role models for their teams, a Rutgers University Future of Work article says. Demonstrating that self-care is not a luxury but a necessity for sustained performance sets a precedent for organisational culture and encourages employees to set boundaries and manage their stress.

As part of this process, it’s essential for leaders to create a safe environment where employees can be candid about their struggles and feel supported. “The reality is that if your employees are struggling with work-life balance or issues with burnout and stress, it’s likely that you can provide guidance to help,” Rutgers says.

Practical tips

Klajda has some specific suggestions:

● The workday: Implement a consistent morning routine; walk, stretch, write thoughts down, keep a gratitude journal. This provides space to prepare for the day. During the day, stay hydrated and eat healthy snacks.

● Lifestyle: Take daily exercise (try walking for an hour). Prioritise quality sleep by maintaining a consistent wake-up and sleep schedule. Consider incorporating food supplements, saunas, ice baths, and massages into your healthy lifestyle. And create boundaries between work and home, starting with a ritual to transition from work to personal mode, which could be as simple as developing a strategy for when and how devices will be used after work hours.

● Long-term: Engage in longevity programmes to check and measure health, then implement healthy lifestyle improvements.

● Get help: Consider psychotherapy or working with a life coach as a form of self-care, rather than an admission of weakness. Create or join networks and support groups to combat isolation.

● Meetings: Practice centring, breathing and stretching before meetings; take regular stretching breaks. Consider walking or stand-up meetings.

● When things get bad, consider instituting a “rage room” to release stress.

● For staff: Allow pets at work to soothe anxiety. “Venting” sessions in a safe space could be a way for teams to share what’s bothering them. Or consider incorporating laughing yoga sessions at the office to help combat stress.

How can executive search / leadership advisory consultants help leaders?

Honest conversations within a safe, non-judgemental set up are key. Klajda believes a consultant’s role is “to uplift others and to enable others to see what they might not be seeing at the moment – hope.”

Case study: How one executive does it

Klajda: One CEO I know joined the 5 a.m. club, waking up every day at the same time and using the first two hours for himself. Walking, stretching, writing his thoughts down, and gratitude journaling – all this before breakfast.

By the time he arrived at the office, he had a clear vision of the day for himself and his business. Creating a mindset for the day set him up to be a cheerleader even when times got tough.

When I asked him how he overcame a failed merger, he said he stuck to his daily routine and sought help from a group of wise business friends, asking how they would approach different topics. Today, his business is doing well. It has remained small, but his team is healthy, thriving, and more engaged than ever. They all feel they have been through the wars together and have bonded through hard times. He and his team have learned to focus on what they can control and let go of what they can’t control.

FURTHER READING

Ask Alto: What is “stagility” and why do leaders need to know?

The AltoPartners Guide to Diversity and Inclusion : Safe Spaces – Could these be the missing ingredient in your DE&I programme?

Ask Alto : Burnout - what causes it and how to deal with it

Ask Alto : How leadership can tackle burnout

Ask Alto : The eight habits of high performers that reduce the risk of burnout

Written by Renee Moodie

What's Next for the Search Business as we Head into 2026?

2025-09-08T09:13:13Z

This post was originally published by Karla Dorsch, Founder and Managing Partner Evrima / AltoPartners Abu Dhabi, on LinkedIn. To view the original post, click here.

Let’s start in Saudi Arabia.

Think of the market like a music festival. The headliners have played, the lights are still dazzling, but the crowd knows the encore won’t last forever. Demand is still strong, make no mistake, but the frenzy is cooling. Leaders finally see the stage clearly: hiring is tough, talent is scarce, but the hype of record highs is giving way to something even more useful, focus.

Now, shift your attention to the UAE.

This isn’t a music festival. This is Formula 1. The track is crowded with global talent, engines are roaring, and the real disruption is in the pit lane: AI. It’s not just tinkering with the car, it’s redesigning the whole race. Legal departments? Downsized. Customer service? Reinvented. Sales teams? Rewired. This isn’t the future. It’s now. By 2026, the speed only goes up.

But here’s the plot twist: when machines take over tasks, they don’t end the story, they write a new chapter. And our job in search? Find the people who can race alongside the machines, not get lapped by them. The innovators. The builders. The people who thrive on change.

And let’s talk about demand. It’s not vanishing, it’s exploding. Real estate is booming. Construction is roaring. Manufacturing is back. Tourism is scaling like never before. These industries don’t just need workers; they need visionaries, navigators, dreamers who can build the next skyline, the next factory, the next destination.

And then there’s localisation. Governments are cranking up the pressure, but the smartest companies? They’re turning that pressure into jet fuel. National talent isn’t just a compliance box. It’s a loyalty engine. It’s reputation. It’s alignment with the very future of economies. That’s not a burden, it’s a competitive edge.

So, what’s the shape of 2026?

• Realism in Saudi Arabia: the market sobering up and getting smarter.

• Recalibration in the UAE: AI rewriting the DNA of entire functions.

• Resilience in industries that refuse to slow down.

• Reinvention through localisation: where national talent becomes the X-factor.

And here’s the punchline: when markets shift, when leaders panic, when talent pools change overnight, that’s when we’re most valuable. We’re not just filling jobs. We’re shaping the future of work in one of the most dynamic regions on earth.

The Director's Dilemma - September 2025 Edition

2025-09-01T08:08:12Z

Produced by Julie Garland-McLellan, Consultant at AltoPartners Australia and non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Contribution by Jaco Kriek, is Managing Director Search Partners International (SPi) / AltoPartners South Africa and has more than 25 years financial, mining and executive experience. At the IDC, he was Executive Vice President - Projects and he led the IDC Finance team in the Mozal Aluminium Smelter in Mozambique. Jaco worked at Standard Bank as Head - Mining & Metals Finance, Africa and he was the Standard Bank representative on the Phembani Board. He was CEO and Executive Director of the Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor Company (PBMR) for 6 years and is still a 45% shareholder in Ennex Developments (Pty) Ltd, a Project Development Company, focusing on power, energy and water.

The Director’s Dilemma - September 2025

This month our real-life board dilemma concerns how to manage a director who has strong backing from the shareholder but who has mistaken the role as that of a specialist consultant.

Brett chairs a government-owned board and will reach the end of his tenure next year. Six months ago, the Minister appointed a new director to Brett’s board. The new director is an expert in environmental offsets and carbon measurement and trading. He is brilliant in his field and Brett’s company aspires to best practice in using (and monitoring) credits. The trouble is that he just seems to either find fault with the management team or to sit back and wait for ‘his’ topic to come up rather than adding value or contributing to any other topic.

Brett has tried to suggest that the director take some general governance education and also become more involved in discussions of staffing, budgeting, and other business activities, but the director rebuffs all efforts saying that he “wants to stick to what he is good at”.

Worse, the Minister suggested at Brett’s last meeting with her, that she was considering making the new director ‘Deputy Chair’ because she saw him at a recent conference and was impressed by his expertise. Brett tried to voice his misgivings but was brushed aside. He knows there is an expectation that the Deputy Chair would step up to become Chair after he leaves and knows that this would be a disaster.

What can be done about this?

Jaco’s Response

As Chair of a State-Owned Enterprise, Brett faces a typical, but difficult governance challenge. Technical expertise is valuable and important at board level, but directors must always act as custodians of all aspects and not just their chosen field of expertise. A board’s strength lies in collective accountability, every director shares the joint responsibility for e.g. Strategy, Risk Management, Financial oversight and Company culture.

The first step is to align expectations and responsibilities of all directors. Brett should appoint an independent Consultant to perform a board effectiveness and governance evaluation. Brett should also consider including the Minister (maybe for her educational purposes only), to get her views on board effectiveness and governance, as well as the consequences of her actions in respect of corporate governance. The full board should deliberate the report, preferably facilitated by the Consultant. Brett should utilise the input from all board members and the Minister, to strengthen and agree the need for collective versus narrowly defined board responsibilities.

With the fresh understanding of joint board responsibilities, Brett can find constructive ways to engage the new director on a broader basis e.g. to serve on the Audit, Finance & Risk sub-committee. His environmental offsets, carbon measurement and trading expertise can be leveraged, ensuring that his skills add value which could also change his attitude and reduce his dominance of Executive management in board meetings.

Finally, succession planning requires careful diplomacy. Brett should brief the Minister at the appropriate time, with evidence from the board effectiveness and governance evaluation, offering a competency-based succession framework. Brett can demonstrate that good govern

Julie’s Response

he best director is not the same as the most knowledgeable expert!

Getting the Minister to recognise this when she clearly respects the expertise is going to be difficult. Brett should focus on his board, which is - or should be - more within his scope of influence. Hopefully his board has an established habit of annual performance reviews; if not, his job will be even harder.

First, Brett needs to brief an expert mentor and advisor to help him and the whole board through the process. This must be someone with tact as well as expertise. There is a process to follow that will ensure the board is united, rather than divided.

Next, Brett should engage with each of the other directors to check their views of the board and their new expert colleague. It could be that he and the management team have a different view of the situation from that of the other directors.

Once Brett has a clear understanding of the views of the board, he should work with the advisor to develop a carefully constructed review that will provide evidence of the issues and ideas for solutions. This is not an ‘off the shelf’ review. Brett needs unambiguous evidence to support the course of action that emerges from the review. That probably requires a quantitative as well as qualitative approach. The results can be shared with the Minister.

Brett should share the results with the individual directors and agree a development plan for each one. It is important that the result of performance review should be performance improvement, not criticism of one director. These plans should then be implemented and appropriately resourced. Brett should use a feedforward approach where each director knows what the board and each other director are trying to change, looks for those changes, and supports as the desired change is implemented. Again, the Minister can receive reports of progress in the usual briefings. Brett can frame these in the context of getting the new director ready to step confidently into a deputy or, eventually, chair role.

Board and Executive Remuneration 2025 Update

2025-08-26T09:40:00Z

AltoPartners Australia has released our 2025 Board and Executive Remuneration Reports for ASX-listed Mining, Energy, and Resources companies.

The past year has again tested the resilience of the sector, shaped by volatile commodity prices, shifting fiscal regimes, and selective deal activity. Battery metals are stabilising, gold remains strong, and energy markets are navigating OPEC+ policy and the renewables transition. Against this backdrop, boards are recalibrating strategies, managing risk, and rethinking remuneration in an environment demanding both prudence and agility.

Download the reports to benchmark remuneration and explore the trends reshaping leadership in mining, energy, and resources.

To download the full Mining Executive Remuneration Report 2025 click here or the Energy Executive Remuneration Report 2025, click here

When the Offer Doesn't Reflect the Effort: A Candidate's Story

2025-08-18T10:38:55Z

This post was originally published by Karla Dorsch, Founder and Managing Partner Evrima / AltoPartners Abu Dhabi, on LinkedIn. To view the original post, click here.

This week, a story unfolded that I believe holds valuable lessons for companies, candidates, and those of us in the Executive Search profession.

We recently represented a high-calibre candidate: a seasoned, in-demand executive with an outstanding track record in his particular function. A high-profile company, reputationally sound and with a international presence, chose him to explore the opportunity we were mandated on. The process was extensive as we anticipated with included numerous calls with various stakeholders, culminating on flying him out for final face to face interview. Upon final psychometric tests and reference checks an offer was made. The client was aware of the individuals current comp as well as their expectation so no mystery on numbers.

Then came the offer…

It was below his current compensation, not marginally, but significantly. No clear reason, no compelling long-term incentives, no creative structuring to bridge the gap. Just a flat number that, in essence, said: ‘We love you, but not enough to meet you where you are or where you should be’. The candidate, professional yet deeply disappointed and a bit angry, declined. As an executive search firm, we have to ask: What does this mean for everyone involved

For the company: This was a reputational misstep as great candidates talk and word travels, especially at the executive level about how companies treat senior talent. Investing thousands in travel, dozens of hours in interviews, and signalling alignment, only to lowball at the final hour, sends a mixed message. It suggests either internal misalignment and a lack of respect for the candidate’s value, or a short-term view of leadership investment. None of these are attractive signals to the market, or to other top-tier candidates watching closely.

For us as the search partner: Our brand is staked on bringing the right talent to the right table and we are also facilitators of trust. When a company behaves inconsistently at the final stage, it reflects not only on them, but potentially on our judgment and our ability to set expectations for both parties.

What can we learn?

Compensation is not just about money, it’s about message. A low offer undermines every signal sent during the process.
Consistency matters. If you vet someone like a top performer, compensate them like one.
Executive search is not matchmaking, it’s brand stewardship. Candidates are evaluating culture as much as opportunity. The way companies behaves speaks volumes.

This is a valuable reminder: In executive search, how you offer is how you’re perceived. And the best candidates always have options!

Impact Speaks. Intent Doesn't

2025-08-13T08:56:53Z

By Richard Sterling, Partner at AltoPartners Australia.

This article was first posted on LinkedIn. To read the original post, click here.

So many C-suite résumés read like LinkedIn profiles on sedatives, polished but lifeless.

Impressive titles? Yes. Lists of responsibilities? Usually. But where’s the spark? The leadership thread? Where’s the evidence they reshaped the role not just occupied it?

After nearly 30 years in executive search, I’ve reviewed thousands of résumés. Some impress. Many don’t.

The best résumés go beyond a catalogue of roles. They make a credible leadership case.

So, let me offer a candid perspective on what I look for, what raises red flags and what turns a résumé from ordinary to remarkable.

The First Impression

The résumé, although not always the beginning of an executive search process, needs to make a strong first impression.

Job titles alone tell me little. “Chief Executive Officer” might mean leading a national For Purpose organisation with complex funding streams, or running a small community service with a team of five. Without context a title is just a label.

I want to understand the size, scope and circumstances. Was the organisation expanding, stabilising, recovering from a funding shortfall or navigating a merger? These details matter.

Beyond responsibilities, I’m looking for outcomes. It’s one thing to say you were “responsible for transformation.” It’s another to say you “secured $4 million in new funding and unified three regional programs under a single service model.” One is vague and the other is concrete.

I also watch for red flags. Short stints, sideways moves, unexplained gaps. They’re not dealbreakers but they do prompt questions.

For example, if someone spent only nine months in a senior role, I’ll want to understand why. Was it a turnaround role that wrapped up early? Did a values misalignment lead to a planned exit? Whatever the reason, offering the context up front helps frame the story constructively.

What I’m Really Reading For

Every résumé prompts a decision as to what I should dig into further? On its own it won’t determine suitability but it always shapes the questions I’ll ask next.

I’m reading for leadership, judgment and credibility. I compare what’s written to what I find through research, interviews, referees and online footprints. If the numbers don’t add up or the story shifts, credibility suffers.

Presentation matters as well but I’m not looking for artistic flair. No fancy fonts, no rainbow colours or novelty bullets. Just clarity. Logical structure. Clean, easy to read formatting. A professional tone, free of jargon.

What Strong Résumés Do

A strong résumé doesn’t just tell me where you’ve been. It shows how you lead, what you’ve achieved and why it matters.

It should reveal how you’ve shaped strategy, delivered results, strengthened teams and led with values aligned to mission.

Intent may guide you but impact defines you.

The world is evolving - and leadership is being redefined

2025-08-12T09:46:35Z

At the recent KPMG Global Financial Services Conference in Boston, Heather Campion, Managing Director of Connected Leadership at DSG Global, spoke about the power of connection—a strategic imperative for today’s leaders.

Some key takeaways for leaders?

Communication is critical - Consistent, authentic communication—both internally and externally—is essential to leadership success.
Connection is a differentiator - Proactively building relationships with a broad range of stakeholders sets effective leaders apart.
Leadership is evolving - Today’s most impactful leaders are not top-down decision-makers—they are convenors, collaborators, and connectors.

In an age of digital saturation, true human connection is increasingly rare—and more vital than ever.

At DSG Global, we believe that meaningful relationships are the foundation of long-term success and innovation. Our Connected Leadership Practice equips executives with the tools to build influential networks, enhance reputations, and lead with purpose in a rapidly changing world.

Interested in becoming a more connected leader? Let’s talk.

Executive Compensation in Financial Services: Strategic Precision, Not Assumptions

2025-08-11T10:28:46Z

This post was originally published by Karla Dorsch, Founder and Managing Partner Evrima / AltoPartners Abu Dhabi, on LinkedIn. To view the original post, click here.

In financial services, executive pay is not merely a matter of attraction and retention; it is a direct expression of strategic priorities, regulatory posture, and institutional credibility.

Yet, too often, firms approach executive compensation with outdated benchmarks or anecdotal assumptions. The cost of such misalignment is substantial.

Leadership Volatility: In capital markets, banking, and fintech, executive turnover introduces significant operational disruption, potential regulatory scrutiny, and reputational noise, particularly in client-facing or risk-bearing functions.

Governance & Compliance Exposure: In regulated environments, compensation structures must stand up to board and auditor review, not just market expectations. Missteps here risk not only penalties, but also erosion of stakeholder trust.

Market Signaling: Compensation packages communicate a firm’s seriousness about its strategy. Offers that are misaligned with market norms, either too aggressive or too conservative , often fail to resonate with top-tier candidates, and can inadvertently signal instability or indecision.

At Evirma, we work with financial institutions to develop compensation strategies rooted in rigorous market data, institutional context, and evolving regulatory expectations.

We do not simply match pay to role, we align compensation to mission, risk appetite, and the firm’s forward-looking talent architecture.

If you’re not fully confident that your executive compensation approach reflects current market conditions and internal imperatives, drop us a note.

We are all having an 'AI Moment'

2025-08-06T08:27:21Z

This post was originally published by Karla Dorsch, Founder and Managing Partner Evrima / AltoPartners Abu Dhabi, on LinkedIn. To view the original post, click here.

In recent months, nearly every conversation I’ve had, whether with young professionals, board members, or senior executives, has found its way back to artificial intelligence.

A junior hire quietly asks whether their job will still exist in five years. Leadership teams are shifting their focus, no longer solely fixated on performance metrics, but grappling with disruption, talent displacement, and organisational readiness. Even the most experienced leaders are admitting that they aren’t sure where all of this is heading.

We are all, in one way or another, having an AI moment.

But leadership has never operated in the comfort of certainty. Waiting for perfect clarity before taking action is not an option, nor has it ever been. The work of a leader is to move forward with intention even when the way ahead feels undefined.

That does not mean rushing blindly but allowing ourselves a moment of gaining perspective and looking with clear eyes at where we stand now. In periods of transformation, we need to step back before we step in. We do not need to be prophets, but we do need to see what is true, not filtered through fear or distraction, but with calm objectivity. The question is not whether the glass is half full or half empty but knowing how much is in the glass and deciding what to pour next.

Now is the time to imagine what could be: six months from now; one year/two. What kind of organisation are we building and what kind of leaders do we need to become. The picture may evolve, and that’s expected and to chart a path without at least choosing a direction.

I was speaking recently with a senior executive who recalled how agile his organisation became during the pandemic. Decisions were faster and teams were bolder. Risk was tolerated, because survival demanded it. But now, as the urgency fades, he sees people slipping back into old patterns, more process, less movement, fear where there was once momentum.

When failure becomes something to be feared above all else, progress stalls. But setbacks are not signs of failure, they are proof that motion is happening. Learning agility, the capacity to adapt, absorb, and take action is what sustains effective leadership, especially in uncertain times.

Despite all the extraordinary advances in technology, it is still people who shape the outcomes. AI is not the threat. The risk lies in how we choose to respond.

Uncertainty is a given. Taking a breath, recalibrating, that’s human. But we cannot remain static. The world is not waiting, and neither should we.

Board Trends Brazil 2025

2025-08-04T08:27:37Z

e.Institute and Evermonte Executive Search / AltoPartners Brazil have just released the “Board Trends Brazil 2025” report.

The first section presents a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of board governance practices worldwide. Based on data drawn from technical reports, institutional studies, and consolidated findings from the past three years, this section combines both quantitative and qualitative evidence to contextualize key shifts in governance, with a focus on board composition, structure, and responsibilities.

The following chapter shifts the focus to Brazil. Using original data, it explores the progress, challenges, and tensions shaping Brazilian boards today. This approach enabled a critical comparison between the local landscape and international models, highlighting points of convergence, structural gaps, development opportunities, and emerging trends.

The study offers several valuable insights, even for those based outside Brazil.

Also, a general summary of the study was published by Forbes

Download the full report here

The Director's Dilemma - August 2025 Edition

2025-08-01T07:18:50Z

Produced by Julie Garland-McLellan, Consultant at AltoPartners Australia and non-executive director and board consultant based in Sydney, Australia.

Contribution by Corinne Klajda, heads Accord Group Polska, a founding member of the AltoPartners Executive Search & Leadership Consulting global alliance. A founder and a non-executive chairwoman of Nuvadis Interim, Corinne also consults on multiple business transition & interim management assignments. Being a certified mentor coach, she has become a trusted advisor beyond the search focus: she maintains her coaching practice exclusively for CEOs, and regularly facilitates board discussions delivering leadership consulting services. Corinne is an active YPO member and a guest lecturer at the Warsaw School of Economics or at the Executive Program for Women at the Kozminski University that she particularly enjoys as she is a firm believer in female empowerment. She is based in Warsaw, Poland.

The Director’s Dilemma - August 2025

This month our real-life board dilemma features a conflict of interest that fractures the board, shatters reputation, and reduces income.

Audrey chairs a charity board that often receives bequests.

A few months ago, the company was bequeathed a house. The executor of the will asked if he could buy the house from the Charity and offered $500,000.

The board decided to get the house professionally valued and a director, who happened to be married to a real estate agent, volunteered her husband for the role. The work was done on normal commercial terms, and the wife was not involved in negotiating the contract. The real estate agent valued the house at $580,000 and offered to list it for sale at that price and invite the executor of the will to make a bid. A few days later the house was sold for $600,000 to the father of the real estate agent. Two weeks after that, the house was sold again for $650,000 to an unrelated party.

The executor, having followed the sales on property registers, wrote to Audrey and claimed that it was a fraud and a conflict of interest for the spouse of a director to get paid to value the house, then receive commissions for selling it, and then for his father to make a $50,000 gain on the transactions. Audrey checked the details of the transactions and confronted her director, asking for an explanation. The director was defiant, claiming that all she had done was recommend an agent who had valued and sold the house with a $100,000 extra gain for the company over the original offer from the executor of the will. The executor is now running a Facebook campaign against the company and has just managed to get an article into the local paper.

What can Audrey do to protect the reputation of the company she loves?

Corinne’s Answer

This is a serious issue that has negative reputational consequences for the charity as well as the directors associated with the business, but importantly for Audrey as the Chair of the charity board. From a reputational perspective, all directors - and their family members - should understand that a charity organisation should not be used for personal gains and the actions of the director will be seen to be creating financial gain from the charity as they used their insider knowledge of the process to gain a financial advantage in the sale and purchase of the property.

To address the negative reputational impact from the executor’s claims, and subsequent media campaign, Audrey needs to take decisive action by:

Consulting legal counsel to understand the best course of action to take against the director and to aid in redirecting the financial gains back to the charity.
Raising the issue at a special board meeting and call on the director and her family to redirect all profits made from the transactions back to the charity. However, unless Audrey wants to pursue a legal option, this can only be an appeal to the director’s good will to do the right thing.
Removing the director from the board of the charity citing the conflict-of-interest issue and the negative reputational impact caused by the actions of the director’s family members.
Consulting with a public affairs / reputational management specialist to craft a legally sound media holding statement that reiterates the commitments of the charity, stating the removal of the director from the charity’s board and detailing the course of action the board has taken to address the situation. This statement should only be shared with media per the reputational management specialist advice.
Avoiding future conflicts of interest, Audrey needs to ensure that Governance documents are revised to reiterate the stance on reporting of conflicts of interest. All directors need to sign the updated Conflict of Interest documents.
Finally, Audrey should also step down as Board Chair to take responsibility for the oversight and the fact that this conflict of interest happened under her guard.

Julie’s Answer

This is an unfortunate sequence of events. As chair, Audrey must take a decisive lead in ensuring that governance is strengthened in the long term and reputation damage minimised in the short term.

She should create an ad hoc taskforce of herself, the audit committee chair, the chair of the Governance or nominations committee (assuming neither Audrey nor the implicated director are chairs of those committees), and the Company Secretary or CEO.

The committee should review the boards policies and constitution to ensure that they remain satisfied with the robustness of these. Then they should review the minutes of the relevant board meetings and construct a timeline of what happened and what role was played by the board and the implicated director. Did they breach any existing governance arrangement, and would they have breached any better ones that seem necessary with the benefit of hindsight?

Now Audrey is ready for a conversation with the board’s legal advisor and can provide the relevant policies, suggested enhancements, and timeline. Legal advisors are an investment not a cost but if you take the time to prepare a good briefing for them, your can save time and money.

It appears that only the decision to award the valuation and sale to a related party were within the board’s purview; the subsequent sales and gains happened after those two decisions and without involving the board.

Merely removing a related party from discussions is a weak protection - in future the board should seek independent service providers and several quotes to ensure they make a reasonable choice.

The charity did, however, make $100k more than they would had they sold to the executor without the professional valuation. Presumably, the executor was offered a chance to match or better the price at which the Charity sold. If not, Audrey needs to know why not.

The implicated director is now defiant and feels she has been attacked for offering to help. She possibly had no idea the property would sell again almost immediately. If she will not stand down, there is risk in asking the Members to vote her off the board. Careful legal advice on what to say and how best to proceed is essential.

Good luck, Audrey, and beware of conflicts of interest in future!

The Over-Networker. When Your Name-Dropping Crosses the Line

2025-07-31T11:10:20Z

This post was originally published by Corinne Klajda, Managing Partner Accord Group Polska / AltoPartners Poland, on the Accord Group website. To view the original post, click here.

“During my time working with [insert high-profile CEO here],” starts the candidate for the third time in ten minutes. What begins as an impressive credential quickly spirals into a litany of names, positions and connections. Until it becomes clear they’re more interested in who they know than what they can bring to the table.

Networking is a powerful tool, but when overdone, it can backfire. Leaders who lean too heavily on name-dropping often come across as insecure or lacking substance.

Name-dropping without substance can undermine credibility.

Focus on sharing value-driven stories, rather than listing connections.

The best networkers use their relationships to build bridges, not pedestals.