I can see why people like the sound of a decentralised business. More autonomy, closer to the decisions, less waiting for head office. But I’d want to know what that means on a difficult Tuesday, when the local MD wants one thing and the group expects another.
“Comfortable with ambiguity” doesn’t tell me enough. I’d want to understand which decisions this person can make, where they need support and when they are expected to push back. That is the job I’d assess them against.
Candidates need an honest picture of that balance before they join.
Explain where authority actually sits
A decentralised group can take many forms. Some businesses have genuine local control over commercial and people decisions. Others use the language of autonomy while retaining extensive central approval.
Describe the reality. What can the role decide? What requires approval? Which group standards are mandatory? What support is available, and what will the person need to arrange themselves?
For an HR business partner or people leader, the reporting relationship matters. Reporting to a local managing director while receiving professional support from a group people function creates a different job from reporting centrally and serving several business units.
The candidate should know how disagreements are handled. A vague promise of “strong dotted-line support” leaves too much room for interpretation.
Assess the environment behind their achievements
Someone may have delivered excellent results in a large organisation with specialist teams around them. That experience is valuable, but the support available affects how easily it transfers.
Explore a specific project. Who produced the analysis? Who managed implementation? What did the candidate do personally? Where did they rely on a system, a team or the authority of head office?
Then ask how they would approach the same requirement in your business. They may adapt readily. They may prefer a different environment. Either answer is useful before the appointment.
Be careful in the other direction too. Experience in a smaller autonomous business does not automatically prove the candidate can handle group complexity or influence across several divisions.
Test judgement at the boundary
The interesting decisions often sit between local priorities and group expectations. An illustrative situation might involve a managing director wanting to retain an employee through a pay arrangement that creates difficulties elsewhere in the group.
How would the candidate establish the facts? Who would they involve? What alternatives would they consider? What would they do if the managing director disagreed?
You are looking for proportionate judgement. Escalating every disagreement can make the role ineffective. Keeping every problem local can expose the wider business to avoidable risk.
Use questions that help distinguish the two:
| What you need to understand | Evidence to explore |
|---|---|
| Independent decision making | A decision they owned when guidance was incomplete |
| Working with local leadership | A disagreement with a managing director and how it was resolved |
| Group responsibility | A time they involved central colleagues and why |
| Practical delivery | What they completed personally with limited specialist support |
| Influence across businesses | How they gained cooperation from people outside their reporting line |
Ask what they would repeat and what they would change. An answer that includes an imperfect judgement and a sensible correction can tell you more than a flawlessly rehearsed success story.
Be candid about the trade-offs
Autonomy attracts some candidates because they can see the effect of their work. It can frustrate others who expect established processes, ready access to specialists or a clear career ladder.
Explain the travel, the team and the practical support early. A home-based contract can still involve substantial time at operating sites. A senior title can still mean doing detailed work yourself.
The organisation should also be honest about what it wants to change. If you are hiring someone to introduce more consistency, say where that consistency is needed and who will support it. A new leader should not discover after joining that the group wants standardisation but the local businesses have been promised complete independence.
When comparing candidates, judge their fit with the actual operating model. A polished presentation about strategy is useful only if they can translate it into the decisions the business needs them to make.
Before finalising the brief, ask the local managing director and the relevant group leader to describe a difficult decision this person will face. If their answers point in different directions, resolve the accountabilities now. The candidate cannot fix a disagreement about their authority simply by being good at the job.