The Search Launches. The Results Disappoint. The Level Was Wrong from the Start.
One of the most common and least discussed failure modes in construction and facilities executive search is the level problem: an organization defines a senior leadership role as a Director search, invests weeks or months running a process against that profile, and then discovers that the candidates who can actually solve the problem they are trying to solve are Vice Presidents. By the time the mismatch becomes visible, the organization has lost time, damaged its reputation in the candidate market, and is often no closer to a hire than when it started.
The reverse also occurs, though less frequently. An organization scopes a role as a VP search, sets compensation at that level, and interviews candidates who are significantly more senior than the actual scope of the role requires, producing a slate of overqualified executives who will be frustrated in the job within a year.
Both versions of this problem have the same root cause: the title in the job description does not reflect the actual scope, authority, and organizational impact of the role. This post explains how to diagnose the level problem before a search launches and what to do if you discover it mid-process.
Why the Level Problem Is More Common Than It Appears
Titles Are Often Set by Organizational Convention, Not Role Reality
In many organizations, the title assigned to a leadership role reflects precedent more than current need. If the previous occupant was a Director, the replacement is titled Director. If the compensation band is at a Director level in the HR system, the job description says Director. The fact that the organization’s capital program has tripled, the team has grown from four to twelve, or the reporting structure has shifted to include three additional functions is not automatically reflected in a title review.
This is particularly common in higher education, healthcare, and nonprofit organizations where compensation and title structures are managed through formal grading systems that do not move as quickly as operational realities. A Director of Facilities at an institution that has undergone a major capital program expansion may now be accountable for the scope that a VP of Facilities would manage at a peer institution. The title has not changed. The actual demands of the role have.
Budget Constraints Create Wishful Thinking About Candidate Availability
The second common driver of the level problem is financial. An organization needs a senior leader who can operate at the VP level but has a Director-level budget. The rational response would be to adjust the budget or adjust the scope. The common response is to title the role as Director and hope that the right candidate will accept a Director title and Director compensation for VP-level work.
This strategy occasionally works, usually for candidates who are earlier in their career progression and are willing to accept a below-market title for a strong developmental opportunity. It almost never works for experienced executives who have already operated at the VP level. Those candidates recognize the mismatch quickly, and most will either decline to engage or withdraw when the scope and compensation become clear. The result is a process that cycles through first-round conversations without ever generating a viable finalist.
Internal Stakeholders Have Different Views of What the Role Should Be
A third driver is organizational misalignment. The CHRO defines the role as a Director because that is what the previous occupant was. The CFO wants a VP because the capital program demands it. The CEO is uncertain and is deferring to HR. The result is a job description that contains VP-level responsibilities but a Director title and Director compensation, because no one has resolved the internal disagreement before the search launched.
Candidates who are briefed on the role by a search firm can often detect this ambiguity from the first conversation. When the scope sounds like a VP role but the title and compensation are Director, an experienced candidate typically assumes one of two things: either the organization does not understand its own needs, or it is trying to get VP-level performance at Director-level cost. Neither interpretation is encouraging, and both reduce engagement from the strongest candidates.
How to Diagnose the Level Before the Search Launches
Benchmark the Scope Against Peer Organizations
The most direct diagnostic is a market comparison. Look at organizations of similar size, type, and complexity in your sector and identify what title they use for the leader who performs the equivalent function. If peer institutions title the equivalent role as VP of Facilities and you are planning to search for a Director of Facilities, that gap deserves a direct explanation before the search launches. Sometimes the gap reflects a legitimate organizational difference. Often it reflects the precedent and budget dynamics described above.
A search firm with genuine sector expertise can run this diagnostic quickly. Understanding what peer organizations are paying and titling for equivalent scopes is core to what a specialized recruiter does, and that information should inform the role definition before the search brief is written, not after the first round of candidates declines to advance.
Test the Scope Against the Compensation Range
A second diagnostic is a simple scope-to-compensation alignment check. List the five most consequential decisions this leader will make in the first twelve months. List the budget they will control, the team they will manage, the stakeholders they will report to and partner with, and the projects they will oversee. Then ask: does the compensation range we have budgeted attract candidates who have made decisions of this consequence before?
If the answer is no, the problem is visible. The scope is VP-level. The compensation is Director-level. The search will not produce the hire the organization needs without resolving that gap. It is a solvable problem, but it has to be solved before the search launches, not after six weeks of disappointing candidate conversations.
Ask the Search Firm Directly Before You Start
One of the most valuable conversations in any search process is a direct question to the search firm before the brief is finalized: given what we are asking this leader to do, are we searching at the right level? A firm with honest sector expertise will tell you if the scope and the title are misaligned. They may also tell you that the compensation range will limit the candidate pool in ways the organization has not anticipated.
This conversation is most valuable when it happens before the search is publicly launched and before internal stakeholders are anchored to a specific title and compensation range. After a job posting has been circulated and internal approvals have been obtained, changing the level becomes politically and procedurally complex. Before any of that happens, it is a straightforward conversation.
What to Do If You Discover the Level Problem Mid-Search
If a search has been running for four to six weeks and is not producing viable finalists, the level question should be the first diagnostic, ahead of candidate pool size or search firm performance. Are the candidates who are declining to advance doing so because the compensation is below their current level? Are the candidates who are advancing those who are earlier in their careers than the role actually requires? If the answer to either question is yes, the level problem is likely the root cause.
The practical response is to pause, redefine the role explicitly, obtain the internal approvals needed to adjust title and compensation if required, and relaunch with a corrected brief. This is uncomfortable, particularly if the original search consumed significant internal time and attention. But it is significantly less costly than continuing a misaligned search, hiring a candidate who is not suited to the scope, and managing the consequences of that mis-hire twelve months later.
How Real8 Group Approaches Level Definition
At Real8 Group, the intake conversation with every new search client includes an explicit discussion of role scope, organizational context, and how the level we are searching at compares to peer organizations in the sector. If we see a level mismatch at the outset, we say so directly. Our goal is not to start a search process; it is to produce a hire that works. Starting with the right level is foundational to that outcome.
If you are planning a senior construction or facilities leadership search and want a candid assessment of whether you are scoping it at the right level, we are glad to have that conversation. Visit real8group.com/how-we-work to learn more about our process, or reach out directly at real8group.com/contact. When you are ready to start, visit real8group.com/finding-talent.
Real8 Group is a specialized executive search firm serving the real estate, construction, engineering, and facilities operations sectors across the U.S.
