Executive Leadership Roles

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲? Of all the topics people ask me about, executive presence is near the top of the list. The challenge with executive presence is that it’s hard to define. It’s not a checklist you can tick off. It’s more like taste or intuition. Some people develop it early. Others build it over time. More often, it’s a lack of context, coaching, or exposure to what “good” looks like. Here’s what I’ve learned over the years, both from getting it wrong and from watching others get it right. 1. 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 People early in their careers often feel the need to prove they know the details. But executive presence isn’t about detail. It’s about clarity. If your message would sound the same to a peer, your manager, and your CEO, you’re not tailoring it enough. Meet your audience where they are. 2. 𝐔𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Executives care about outcomes, strategy, and alignment. One of my teammates once struggled with this. Brilliant at the work, but too deep in the weeds to communicate its impact. With coaching, she learned to reframe her updates, and her influence grew exponentially. 3. 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 Every meeting has an undercurrent: past dynamics, relationships, history. Navigating this well often requires a trusted guide who can explain what’s going on behind the scenes. 4. 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 Just because something is your entire world doesn’t mean others know about it. I’ve had conversations where I assumed someone knew what I was talking about, but they didn't. Context is a gift. Give it freely. 5. 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 Early in my career, I brought problems to my manager. Now, I appreciate the people who bring potential paths forward. It’s not about having the perfect solution. It’s about showing you’re engaged in solving the problem. 6. 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 Every leader is solving a different set of problems. Step into their shoes. Show how your work connects to what’s top of mind for them. This is how you build alignment and earn trust. 7. 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Years ago, a founder cold emailed me. We didn’t know each other, but we were both Duke alums. That one point of connection turned a cold outreach into a real conversation. 8. 𝐃𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 Before you walk into a meeting, ask yourself what outcome you’re trying to drive. Wandering conversations erode credibility. Precision matters. So does preparation. 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 Executive presence isn’t about dominating a room or having all the answers. It’s about clarity, connection, and conviction. And like any muscle, it gets stronger with intentional practice.

26% of your promotion depends on executive presence. But no one explains what those words really mean. "She lacks executive presence" might be the most frustrating feedback ever. Because it's rarely followed by what to actually do about it. I've coached hundreds of leaders through this exact challenge. Here are 7 ways to build executive presence: 1. Practise Strategic Silence ↳ Leaders who listen first command more respect ↳ Ask: "What are your thoughts?" - then pause 2. Simplify Complex Ideas ↳ Complex language often masks insecurity ↳ Replace jargon with everyday language 3. Calibrate Your Reactions ↳ Overreacting undermines your credibility ↳ Ask yourself: "Will this matter in 6 months?" 4. Bring Solutions, Not Just Problems ↳ Leaders are remembered for solving problems ↳ Never raise an issue without at least one solution 5. Own Your Authority ↳ Undermining phrases erase years of hard work ↳ Remove words that weaken your message: "just," "kind of," "I think maybe" 6. Own the Room ↳ Your physical presence speaks before you do ↳ Sit tall and take up your full space at the table 7. Expand Your Influence Beyond Your Role ↳ Broader influence gets you bigger opportunities ↳ Volunteer for cross-functional projects Executive presence isn't about changing who you are. It’s about showing up as your real, confident self. ♻️ Repost to help your network ➕ Follow Dora Vanourek for more

“Does that make sense?" has become an overused phrase by many a brilliant professional in a meeting, presentation, or conversation. We've all asked it (myself included!) - wrapping up an important point by essentially asking permission to have been clear. The thing is, this seemingly helpful check-in, when overused, can actually chip away at your executive presence and make you appear less confident than you truly are. Here's what's really happening when this phrase slips out: instead of owning your communication, you're subtly shifting the burden to your audience. It's like saying, "I'm not sure if I explained that well, so please validate me!" Even when you're just trying to be helpful, this verbal habit, when used repeatedly, can make others wonder if you're truly comfortable with your own expertise. The good news is that there are more effective ways to check for understanding that actually enhance your gravitas. These alternatives not only achieve your goal of ensuring comprehension but do so in a way that reinforces rather than weakens your authority in the room. Instead of "Does that make sense?" try these stronger alternatives: 1. "What questions do you have about what we've covered?" 2. "I'd like to hear your thoughts on what we've discussed." 3. "How do you see this fitting with your objectives?" 4. "What aspects would you like me to elaborate on?" 5. "I welcome your perspective on this approach." Breaking this habit isn't just about changing your words. It’s about embracing your value as a communicator. When you drop the uncertainty from your language, you give others permission to see you as the capable leader you already are. So the next time you feel that familiar phrase bubbling up, pause and choose confidence instead.

Most PE CFO mandates right now aren’t about finance. They’re about value creation under pressure. Across our current searches, three clear patterns are emerging. First, platform CFOs for buy-and-build strategies. International consolidation. Integration. Repeatable M&A playbooks. Technical depth still matters, but only if it translates into execution. Second, exit-ready CFO upgrades. Strong assets, performing well… but not yet “exit-grade” from a finance perspective. The brief is increasingly commercial: improve reporting quality, sharpen MI, partner with the CEO, and drive enterprise value ahead of process. Third, day-one CFOs for new platforms. Working alongside CEOs and M&A leads to build from scratch. Not just running finance, but designing how the business scales through acquisition. Below that, the pattern continues. Office of the CFO roles are being pulled closer to investors. FP&A leaders plugged directly into funds. Divisional FDs operating as hands-on operators inside complex group structures. Reporting isn’t a hygiene factor anymore. It’s a value lever. And on the interim side. Integration specialists. PE-backed SaaS operators who understand churn, CAC and data. Finance leaders who can step in 12 months pre-exit and move the dial quickly. The common thread is clear. Funds are hiring finance leaders who can change outcomes under pressure.

Now that Women's Day is approaching, I'm preparing to hear sentences like: "Women are very well placed to lead because they are naturally blessed with attributes like compassion, ability to multi-task, sensitivity and communication skills" This is dangerous. Leadership is not chromosomal. Women must stop saying things like this - they do themselves a big disservice: 1. The moment you accept that women are naturally more empathetic, collaborative, and good at multi-tasking, you've conceded the underlying premise - that gender determines personality traits and capabilities. 2. Once that premise is accepted, you can't selectively apply it only to the flattering attributes. The same logic that gives women "natural compassion" gives men "natural decisiveness." The same framework that makes women "natural multi-taskers" makes them "naturally" less suited to single-minded strategic focus. You can't accept one half of this argument and reject the other half. 3. What makes it worse is that the traits typically assigned to women in these lists - empathy, collaboration, sensitivity - are almost always traits that describe supportive rather than commanding roles. Nobody says women are naturally better at holding people accountable, making unpopular calls, or driving hard negotiations. The "flattering" stereotypes quietly keep women in a particular lane. 4. Though well-intentioned, this framing reinforces the same bias it claims to counter. It says women deserve leadership not because they're equally capable of the full range of leadership behaviours, but because they bring a specific feminine quality that balances out male leadership. That's a consolation prize dressed up as a compliment. The reality: there are risk-hungry women and risk-averse men, confrontational women and consensus-seeking men, visionary women and operational men. Leadership style is shaped by experience, culture, values and choice - not by chromosomes. It is time to retire this framing. #women #leadership #genderbias

🎬 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹: 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗢𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲! 🎬 Last week, I joined a Zoom session with a group of senior professionals. These were bright, experienced individuals, each with a wealth of knowledge to share. Yet, I noticed behaviors that would make any leader 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘦. I’ve always believed in showing up 100%—whether in person or online. “𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙪𝙥 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚.” 𝘼𝙣𝙣𝙚 𝙋𝙝𝙚𝙮 Now, “anywhere” is increasingly online. Yet, in this Zoom room of high achievers, I saw 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 that I would never tolerate from my own team. These behaviors can directly impact 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺. Here are the three major pitfalls I witnessed—ones that every leader must avoid: 🎬 𝟭. 𝗖𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮 𝗢𝗳𝗳 = 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗢𝗳𝗳 We’re beyond the “Skype days” of audio-only calls. Not turning on your camera sends an unintended message: “I’m here, but not really.” In video meetings, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 —being fully present means being seen. Leaders who leave their cameras off miss out on respect and recognition. In a sea of black screens, how can anyone remember or value your contributions? 🎬 𝟮. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱-𝗢𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲 Believe it or not, framing matters! Many appeared only as foreheads on the screen. Presenting yourself from chest level up makes a big difference. Virtual meetings limit your body language, which makes up 55% of your communitarian. 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 is key to project your look, gesture, and confidence. 🎬 𝟯. 𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗠𝗜𝗔 Executive presence is how you engage, contribute, and uplift. When you’re in the meeting, be in the meeting. Use the chat, raise your hand, contribute actively. 𝘉𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 —show you’re present and that your input matters. Great leaders don’t just log in; they make their presence known. 🎬 𝙉𝙤 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 = 𝙣𝙤 𝙚𝙭𝙚𝙘𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 As a leader of top-performance teams, I hold these standards close. 𝘚𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦. 3 Tips to Strengthen Your Online Executive Presence: • ✅ Dress the Part: Show respect for your role and the audience. • ✅ Create Good Lighting & Framing: Find the right angle, with an appropriate background • ✅ Engage Authentically: Be active in the conversation —leave people remembering you. How you show up online impacts everything. So, own your presence—it’s how leaders set the tone, inspire respect, and stay memorable. What’s your best tip for staying visible online? #ExecutivePresence #Leadership #Professionalism #VirtualPresence #Zoom #Speaker #Trainer #Coach

When women lead, too often the whisper is that they’ve ‘slept their way to the top.’ Men don’t face this. Their success is measured in results, not rumours. Claire Bradbury, COO of Salford Red Devils, has resigned after allegedly being told by the club’s owners she should “sleep with someone at the Rugby Football League” to fix problems the club was facing. https://lnkd.in/eUhPePFR Let’s be clear: this is misogyny, not management. And it’s not the first time we’ve seen this toxic trope weaponised against women leaders. - The #MeToo movement, sparked in part by Harvey Weinstein’s abuses, exposed how often women were told — explicitly or implicitly — that their careers depended on sex. - In 2019, Tomi Lahren accused then-Senator Kamala Harris of “sleeping her way to the top.” - In the same year, Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, Inc. became a landmark case after false rumours that an employee had advanced by sleeping with her boss - she eventually won $725,000 in damages. Our own research last year found more than half of women (55%) believe women in their workplace are still at risk of sexual harassment, and a quarter have personally witnessed it in just the last five years. This gendered double standard doesn’t just undermine women’s credibility - it discredits their competence and erodes trust in their leadership. In workplaces where women are already underrepresented, especially in male-dominated industries, these stereotypes send a damaging signal: no matter how talented or qualified, women will still be reduced to gossip instead of being judged on their results. 👉 Businesses can and must do better. That starts with: 1. Zero tolerance policies on sexist or misogynistic language. 2. Mandatory training to tackle bias and stereotypes that fuel these tropes. 3. Robust reporting and whistleblowing protections so women feel safe to speak up without retaliation. Claire’s resignation is more than a sports story. It’s a workplace story. And unless organisations are prepared to confront this culture head-on, talented women will keep being driven out of leadership. #Leadership #GenderEquality #WorkplaceCulture

I've placed 100+ senior executives. One interview question predicts who lasts year one and who's gone in 18 months. The question is this. "Tell me about a decision you made in your last role that you would make again exactly the same way, knowing what you know now." It sounds simple. It's not. McKinsey & Company's CEO Excellence research lays out something most boards underweight. The biggest predictor of CEO success isn't IQ, network, or pedigree. It's the relationship a leader has with their own decisions under pressure. How they hold conviction. How they hold doubt. How they hold both at the same time. From my seat in executive search, the answers fall into three buckets. The first is the candidate who can't think of one. They list decisions, then immediately add what they'd do differently. Every decision becomes a learning. Sounds humble. Often signals something else. The leader who can't defend a single past decision under pressure usually can't defend their current ones either. Boards smell that quickly. The second is the candidate who defends every decision. Nothing they did was wrong. The market was wrong. The team was wrong. The board was wrong. That's the other failure mode. Confidence without calibration. The third is the candidate who answers crisply. Names a specific decision. Acknowledges it cost them something. Then explains, with conviction, why the principle behind it still holds. Those leaders survive year one. They survive year three. They tend to build mandates that compound. The question matters because it surfaces something every board needs to know but rarely tests for. Can this person hold a controversial position when the room turns against them. Will they own the call six months later when the data isn't yet conclusive. In FMCG specifically, where pricing decisions, portfolio cuts, and talent moves rarely show their full impact within a quarter, this matters more than almost anything else on a CV. What's the single decision you'd make again exactly the same way? If the answer comes slowly, that's worth sitting with. #ExecutiveSearch #Leadership #CEOTransition #FMCG

New research analyzing 20,000+ articles covering 750 CEOs across the FTSE 100, S&P 500, and Euronext 100 reveals how deeply embedded our societal perceptions about leadership remain. The findings illuminate the unconscious biases that continue to shape perceptions of women CEOs. Three patterns particularly stood out to me: 1. Women CEO departures receive almost twice the coverage of male departures—and with notably higher negative sentiment 2. Men CEOs are twice as likely to be described as "innovators," while women are 72% more likely to be labeled "inspirational" 3. Women CEOs face what we call the Ambition/Confidence Double Bind—viewed as either "too ambitious" or "not ambitious enough" Having advised boards on CEO succession for decades now, I’ve seen firsthand how these perceptions create real barriers. When just 11% of CEO appointments at major public companies are women, we must examine how our collective assumptions about leadership capability shape - and limit - opportunities. You can read the full report here: https://bit.ly/4ih4CgF #Leadership #WomenInLeadership #CEO