Two assessments, in order.
Most senior FM hiring failures are not caused by poor candidates. They are caused by unclear decision environments. Speed, reach and the size of a talent pool do not compensate for diluted ownership or unclear authority.
So we assess the environment before we assess anyone to put into it. A capable appointment into an unresolved structure is a slower failure, not an avoided one.
Stage one: the organisation
Before recruiting, we test six conditions. This is a structured conversation with the person who owns the appointment, not a form, and it takes under twenty minutes.
- Decision ownership. Is a single named individual accountable for FM outcomes: a person, not a committee?
- Authority under pressure. When risk increases, does decision-making speed up, or slow down?
- Accountability after failure. When something goes wrong, is ownership clear and visible, and applied consistently across seniority?
- Commercial reality. When the budget does not cover the specification, is that addressed openly, or absorbed quietly by the FM function?
- Frontline protection. Are safety, competence and development invested in beyond the compliance minimum?
- Role and authority alignment. Do the decision rights on offer match the outcomes the role is held accountable for?
How we interpret stage one
These findings describe the environment. They are never applied to an individual.
- Leadership Enabled. Authority matches accountability and decisions hold under pressure. The search can proceed.
- Leadership Constrained. Some dilution of authority or accountability. The search may proceed, with the constraint made explicit and disclosed to candidates.
- Leadership Suppressed. Ownership is unclear, avoidance is visible, or urgency is driving speed. The search should not proceed until the structural issue is addressed.
We share this finding with you in writing. It is a description of conditions, not a judgement of your organisation. If you would like a first view before we speak, try the FM Leadership Enablement check.
Stage two: the candidate
Where a search proceeds, each candidate is assessed against six leadership conditions relevant to the appointment. Five are explored through a structured leadership interview; safety, compliance and cost judgement is considered separately where relevant evidence is available.
- Decisions under pressure: a decision made under time pressure that carried real consequence
- Ownership after something goes wrong: a failure under their remit, and what they did
- Deciding on incomplete information: how they proceed when the picture is not complete
- Holding a position with senior stakeholders: a time they said no upward, and what followed
- Working in a political or committee-heavy environment: how they stop pressure distorting decisions
- Safety, compliance and cost: how they handle the trade-off when those conflict
The two sets of six are different on purpose. Stage one is about the organisation; stage two is about the person. We never present them as one list.
What you receive
A written Decision Report for each candidate we recommend. It separates four things, and labels each one, so you can see where our recommendation comes from and where you might reasonably reach a different view:
- Fact: verifiable and checkable
- Observed: what the candidate said in the conversation
- Inference: what we conclude from what was said
- Judgement: our professional view
It also states, in full, what the assessment did not establish. Unresolved questions are an output, not an omission. Each report ends with one recommendation: proceed; proceed subject to named conditions; further evidence required; or do not proceed on current evidence.
We do not score candidates, rank them against one another, or present benchmark statistics. One report covers one candidate.
When we refuse a search
We do not run searches when:
- Accountability is shared but failure is individual
- Speed is being used to relieve pressure, not reduce risk
- Governance gaps are masked by urgency
- Hiring is expected to compensate for unresolved leadership issues
Proceeding in the wrong conditions increases regret, not performance. Pausing early protects candidates, clients and long-term outcomes. Where the question is wider than one role, the FM Talent Scan is often the better first step.
Our position
We do not optimise for volume or speed. We optimise for decision quality under pressure. We own our recommendation. You own the appointment decision.
Talk to Maxwell Stephens
If you are preparing a senior Facilities Management appointment, read how we run executive search, or talk to us before the role goes to market. Call 0207 118 4848.