Operations Leaders Are Being Hired To Change The Business, Not Just Run It.

Written by Daniel Daccarett | Group Practice Leader Operations / Associate Director 

---

Functional expertise still matters. But for many senior Operations roles, it is no longer enough. There is a question that comes up with increasing frequency in conversations I have with clients about senior Supply Chain and Operations hires: 

Can this person run the function, and can they change it? 

A few years ago, much of the assessment might have centred on scale and functional experience. Has this person managed a comparable manufacturing footprint? Do they understand manufacturing, supply chain, logistics or procurement at the required level? Have they led and developed a team of this size before? 

Those questions have not disappeared. Strong functional credibility remains essential. But it is no longer enough on its own. 

Organisations are operating in an environment shaped by supply disruption, unpredictable demand, cost pressure, sustainability expectations and rapid digitalisation. At the same time, they are expected to improve service, release working capital and raise productivity. Senior Operations leaders are therefore increasingly appointed because something needs to change, not simply because an established function needs to be maintained. 

They may be asked to redesign a supply network, strengthen manufacturing performance, integrate acquired businesses, introduce IBP or S&OP, improve working capital or create clearer accountability in an organisation that has grown quickly. Increasingly, they must also help the business use technology, data and automation more effectively. 

And they must do all of that while continuing to deliver the day-to-day operation. 

The mandate has become broader 

The profile of a strong Operations leader has expanded because operational decisions now reach far beyond the function itself. 

Inventory is not only a Supply Chain issue. It affects cash, customer service and commercial choices. Forecasting is not simply a planning exercise. It depends on the quality of input and accountability across Sales, Finance and Operations. Network design is not only about cost. It involves resilience, capacity, customer proximity, risk and investment. 

The strongest leaders can move between this strategic picture and the operational detail. They know their KPIs and understand what happens to capacity, cost, quality or service when a decision is made. But they can also step outside their own function. 

They can have the Finance conversation about working capital, challenge Commercial teams on forecasting, work with HR on capability gaps and engage Technology colleagues on what a new system is actually expected to improve. 

That breadth matters because identifying the problem is rarely the most difficult part. Most businesses already know that planning could be better, decisions could be faster, data could be used more effectively and functions could work together more consistently. 

The harder task is turning those ambitions into changes in how the organisation operates every day. 

Transformation cannot happen in isolation 

There is sometimes a tendency to describe transformation as a separate programme running alongside the business. In Operations, that separation is rarely realistic. 

Factories still need to produce. Customers still expect their orders. Safety, quality and service standards do not pause because the business is implementing a new ERP system, integrating an acquisition or redesigning its operating model. 

This creates a particular leadership challenge. The person must improve the business without destabilising the operation that is serving customers and funding the change. 

Kearney’s research points to the execution gap: among organisations with a defined supply chain strategy, only 52% had begun an end-to-end transformation in the preceding 12 months. Skill gaps and organisational inertia were identified as barriers. 

From a leadership perspective, this is where the requirement becomes more demanding. A transformation leader needs to create enough structure to move the organisation forward without adding unnecessary bureaucracy. They need to clarify accountability without creating another layer of process, and challenge established practices without losing the people who understand how the operation really works. 

They also need to make trade-offs. Protecting service may increase inventory. Reducing cost may limit flexibility. Standardising processes may create efficiency but overlook legitimate local differences. Transformation is not a sequence of isolated improvements. It is a series of connected business decisions. 

That combination of operational control, organisational judgement and change leadership is difficult to find. 

Technology makes the leadership question more important 

The same challenge is visible as businesses invest in AI, automation and digitalisation. 

There is understandably considerable attention on tools and systems. But technology alone will not deliver the desired results if the organisation does not change with it. 

A planning platform will not optimise a business if stakeholders do not agree who owns the forecast. Better data will not automatically improve decisions if teams are measured against conflicting objectives. AI will create limited value if it is added to a process that nobody has properly challenged. 

Both Harvard Business Impact's 2026 Global Leadership Study and Deloitte’s research describe a move from AI experimentation towards integration into core operations, alongside the need to rethink work, roles and decision-making to realise value from technology. 

For Operations leaders, technical fluency therefore matters. But adoption matters just as much. 

Can the leader translate an investment into a better way of working? Can they explain what will change and why? Can they align Finance, Commercial, Technology, HR and Operations around the same outcome? Can they ensure that new tools continue to be used after implementation? 

That is often where value is won or lost. A system can provide capability, but leadership determines whether the organisation changes its behaviour. 

Cross-functional influence is central to execution 

Operations leaders have always worked with other functions. What has changed is the extent to which transformation depends on their ability to influence beyond their formal authority. 

Improving working capital requires alignment with Finance. Better forecasting requires constructive challenge with Commercial teams. Capability gaps must be addressed with HR. Technology investment needs a clearly defined operational problem. Decisions about service, margin and inventory require executive agreement. 

A leader can identify the correct operational answer and still fail to deliver it if they cannot build commitment around the change. 

The best candidates make complexity understandable. They connect operational choices to commercial outcomes, establish a clear rhythm for decisions and create ownership across functions rather than allowing transformation to remain an Operations initiative. 

Hiring should start with the change the business needs 

This has important implications for recruitment. 

If a business needs somebody to professionalise the function, that should be explicit from the outset. If the priority is acquisition integration, network redesign, working-capital improvement or the introduction of S&OP across previously independent units, that needs to form part of the mandate from day one. 

Otherwise, companies risk assessing candidates against the job they have today rather than the job they need someone to do. 

Sector experience, functional depth and scale remain relevant. But the assessment must also explore how somebody has delivered change. 

What is different because this person was there? 

What did they improve? How did decision-making change? Which capabilities did they build? How did they maintain performance while transforming the operation? What resistance did they encounter, and how did they bring people with them? 

Those questions reveal more than a list of responsibilities. They show whether a candidate has converted knowledge into measurable and lasting organisational change. 

They also help distinguish between somebody who participated in a transformation and somebody who genuinely led it. Candidates should be able to explain the starting point, the choices they made, the stakeholders they influenced and the operational or commercial result. 

The strongest Operations leaders combine control with change 

Organisations are not moving away from functional competence. If anything, credibility in the operation is what gives a leader permission to challenge it. 

What has changed is the breadth expected on top of that foundation. 

Senior Operations leaders now need to balance performance and transformation. They must understand the detail without becoming trapped in it, use technology without treating it as the answer, and improve individual functions while enabling better decisions across the whole business. 

Functional expertise gets someone into the conversation. The ability to turn that expertise into meaningful, sustainable change is what increasingly sets leaders apart. 

Partner with our Operations search team

Nigel Wright Group connects great people to great opportunities across Operations. Speak with our consultants today and secure the leadership your next phase of growth demands.