GET IN TOUCH

Moving from Tactical to Strategic: How to Position Yourself for Head of Supply Chain and Director Roles

If you’re a supply chain leader looking for that that next step into a ‘Head Of’ or Director level position you may need to adjust the way you present yourself in your CV and in interviews.

I speak with leaders working across the supply chain every week who have the experience, the track record, and the capability to move up to the next level in their career, yet their CVs and the way they talk about their work/achievements sometimes keeps them perceived as more operational rather than strategic. Let me share what I’ve learned about making that critical shift.

The Core Problem: Tactical Language in a Strategic World

When I review CVs from candidates trying to move into a more senior supply chain position, I often see the same pattern. They describe what they did rather than why it mattered. They list responsibilities instead of outcomes. They focus on processes rather than the wider business impact.

Hiring managers looking for Heads Of Supply Chain or Directors aren’t just searching for someone who can manage inventory levels or negotiate with suppliers. They often assume you can do that if you’ve gotten to your level of seniority. They want someone who can connect supply chain decisions to the bottom line, to growth strategy, to risk management across the entire organisation.

What Needs to Change

Your CV Language

For example, instead of writing things like:

  • “Managed a team of 15 warehouse operatives”
  • “Responsible for procurement across three categories”
  • “Oversaw logistics operations for UK distribution”

Consider writing things like:

  • “Reduced operating costs by £x annually through warehouse restructuring, directly contributing to a 3% improvement in gross margin”
  • “Led procurement strategy that secured supply continuity during global shortages, protecting £x in revenue”
  • “Redesigned UK distribution network, cutting delivery times by 40% and improving customer retention by 12%”

The difference? Business impact. Every line on your CV should ideally answer the question: “So what did that mean for the company?”

Your CV shouldn’t read like a job description or a long list of things you are responsible in your position. It should position you as a commercial leader who specialises in supply chain.

Think about including:

  • Strategic achievements tied to business outcomes – think %, £, growth
  • Cross-functional experience that shows you can work beyond your department and connect with the whole business
  • Your approach to risk mitigation and business continuity – where you have addressed a potential disruption before it became a crisis
  • Evidence of wider business thinking, not just supply chain metrics

Wider Business Impact

  • Collaboration with finance on working capital and cash flow
  • Partnership with sales and marketing on demand planning
  • Work with IT on systems and digital transformation
  • Engagement with the board or executive team on strategy

Finally, Technology and Continuous Improvement

More now than ever with so many conversations around AI senior supply chain roles increasingly require candidates who understand how technology drives competitive advantage. Be specific about your tech stack experience:

  • Which ERP systems have you worked with?
  • What planning and forecasting tools have you implemented or used?
  • How have you used data and analytics to drive decisions?
  • What improvements have you delivered through technology investment?

At director level, you’ll need to be able to demonstrate ‘value creation’ and the impact your decisions had both in a board room and across the business. The last few years have made supply chain risk a board-level concern, hiring managers are looking for candidates who are able to undergo regular scrutiny from the board and be hold their own in quite pressurised environments.  Candidates who can demonstrate sophisticated thinking about supplier diversification, contingency planning, and building resilient operations and can communicate this eloquently often have a significant advantage. When you’re in interviews or networking conversations, the same principles apply. Senior hiring managers want to hear you speak the language of the boardroom.

Repositioning yourself from a tactical operator to a strategic leader isn’t about exaggerating or pretending to be something you’re not. It’s about reframing the genuine value you’ve already delivered in terms that resonate with senior hiring managers.

Take an hour this week to review your CV with fresh eyes. For every bullet point, ask yourself: “Does this show business impact? Does this demonstrate strategic thinking? Would a CEO find this interesting?”

If the answer is no, it’s worth considering a rewrite.

Looking for guidance on your next career move in supply chain?  If you’d like to talk through your CV, your positioning, or the current market for senior supply chain talent, get in touch. I’m always happy to have a conversation.

Why More Businesses Are Building In-House Digital Marketing Teams

Over the past 18 months, I’ve noticed a clear shift in how businesses approach digital marketing. Where the default used to be outsourcing to agencies, more founders and hiring managers are now building dedicated in-house teams.

This isn’t just a hiring trend. It reflects a broader change in how organisations view marketing: not as a service to outsource, but as a core function that directly drives growth.

For years, agencies played a crucial role in helping companies navigate digital channels like SEO, paid media, and content marketing. But as digital has become central to growth strategies, many businesses are recognising the value of having that expertise sitting internally.


Why Companies Are Moving Away from Agency-First Models

There are a few consistent reasons I hear when speaking to founders and marketing leaders who are bringing digital capabilities in-house.

Cost efficiency over time
Agencies can make sense early on, but as marketing activity scales, retainer fees and project costs can quickly add up. Hiring internally often becomes more cost-effective in the long term.

Brand intimacy
Even the best agencies work across multiple clients. In-house marketers are embedded in the business, working closely with sales teams, product teams, and customers. That proximity leads to deeper insight and stronger messaging.

Speed and agility
Campaign changes, new ideas, and performance optimisations can happen far more quickly when the team sits internally. There’s no briefing process or waiting for external timelines.

Data ownership
Keeping marketing data and performance insights within the business allows companies to build long-term strategic knowledge rather than relying on external interpretation.


What Modern In-House Marketing Teams Look Like

As companies bring more capability in-house, the structure of marketing teams is also evolving. Instead of broad generalist roles, many businesses are building smaller teams of specialists who directly influence growth.

Some of the most common hires I’m seeing include:

  • Performance Marketing Managers managing paid social and PPC budgets
  • SEO and Content Specialists driving organic visibility
  • Marketing Automation Experts building email and CRM journeys
  • Data Analysts measuring campaign performance and ROI

This reflects a broader shift toward data-led, performance-driven marketing teams.


The Rise of the Hybrid Model

Interestingly, most businesses aren’t abandoning agencies altogether.

Instead, they’re adopting a hybrid approach: bringing strategy and day-to-day execution in-house while continuing to partner with agencies for specialist projects, creative campaigns, or additional capacity.

This gives companies greater control over their marketing function while still allowing them to access external expertise when needed.


The Real Benefits of Building In-House

When companies successfully transition to in-house marketing teams, several advantages tend to emerge.

Deeper customer understanding
In-house teams have direct exposure to customer feedback, sales conversations, and product development. This often leads to marketing that resonates more authentically with the target audience.

Consistent brand voice
When the same team creates content week after week, a clearer and more recognisable brand voice naturally develops.

Faster learning cycles
Internal teams can monitor performance daily, run experiments quickly, and adjust strategies without waiting on external reporting cycles.

Stronger talent ownership
Talented marketers often want to build something meaningful rather than simply service multiple client accounts. Offering ownership over a brand’s growth can attract and retain ambitious professionals.


Building an In-House Marketing Team: Where to Start

For businesses considering this transition, the most successful approach is often to start by identifying the biggest gap in their current marketing setup.

Some practical starting points include:

  • Hiring around your biggest marketing pain point first
  • Prioritising potential and adaptability over perfect experience
  • Investing in the right tools and platforms from the start
  • Defining clear performance metrics for new hires

Building a strong in-house team takes time, but when done well, it can become one of the most valuable growth drivers within the organisation.


Final Thoughts

Not every business needs a full internal marketing team. For some organisations, agency partnerships will always play an important role.

However, for companies where digital marketing sits at the centre of their growth strategy, bringing those capabilities in-house is becoming an increasingly attractive option.

The businesses I see thriving are those treating digital marketing not as a service to outsource, but as a core competency to build and develop internally.

RELATED ARTICLES

How AI is Raising the Bar in Customer Success

The customer success manager position I recruit for today looks remarkably different from the role I was filling just two years ago. AI has fundamentally changed what companies expect from their CS teams, and if you’re working in this space or hiring for it, this shift affects you directly.

Performance Reporting Has Changed Forever

One of the most significant transformations I’ve witnessed is in how customer success managers handle reporting. Traditionally, CSMs spent considerable time pulling data, creating spreadsheets, and building performance reports for clients. That work consumed hours each week.

Now? AI handles it.

Modern customer success platforms generate accurate insight reports automatically. The data is more dynamic, updating in real-time rather than sitting in static monthly summaries. AI tools can:

  • Identify at-risk accounts before a human spots the warning signs
  • Predict churn probability with impressive accuracy
  • Surface upsell opportunities based on usage patterns
  • Create customised client reports in minutes rather than hours

This isn’t a small change. It’s a complete overhaul of how the operational side of customer success functions.

The Shift Toward a Commercial Focus

Here’s what fascinates me about this evolution: as AI takes over the analytical and reporting functions, the customer success role is becoming increasingly commercial.

The CSMs I place in roles today are expected to:

  • Drive revenue growth through strategic account expansion
  • Build genuine relationships that technology simply cannot replicate
  • Identify commercial opportunities and act on them confidently
  • Collaborate closely with sales rather than operate as a separate function

Companies want customer success managers who understand business growth, not just client satisfaction metrics. The soft skills matter more than ever because the hard skills around data analysis are being handled elsewhere.

What This Means for Your Career

If you’re a customer success professional, ignoring AI isn’t an option. The managers I speak with are actively looking for candidates who understand how these tools work and can use them strategically.

This doesn’t mean you need to become a technical expert. It means you should understand:

  • Which AI tools are common in your sector
  • How to interpret and act on AI-generated insights
  • Where human judgement adds value that automation cannot

Interview Questions You Should Prepare For

When preparing for interviews, hiring managers want to assess your awareness of AI and adaptability to it.

Expect questions like:

  • “How have you used AI tools to improve customer outcomes?”
  • “What role do you see AI playing in customer success over the next three years?”
  • “Tell me about a time you identified an insight from data that an automated system missed”
  • “How do you balance automation with personal client relationships?”

Having thoughtful, specific answers ready will set you apart from candidates who haven’t considered this shift.

For Hiring Managers: Testing AI Knowledge

If you’re recruiting customer success talent, I’d encourage you to build AI awareness into your interview process. Ask candidates about their experience with customer success platforms, their views on automation in client relationships, and how they see the role evolving. Strong candidates will demonstrate that they see AI as a tool that frees them up to do more meaningful work, not as a threat to their position.

The customer success landscape is changing quickly, and the professionals who thrive will be those who adapt their skill set accordingly. Whether you’re actively job searching or simply want to stay ahead of market trends, understanding this shift is essential.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on how AI is affecting your customer success work. If you’re exploring new opportunities in this space or looking to hire CS talent who understands this evolving landscape, get in touch. I’m always happy to share what I’m seeing in the market and discuss how I might help.

 

Are Amazon Salaries Outpacing Commercial Ownership?

A look at how compensation expectations are shifting in the Amazon hiring market

Over the past few years, I’ve had countless conversations with hiring managers, founders and Amazon professionals about one recurring theme: salary expectations versus commercial accountability. It’s a topic that sparks genuine debate, and I think it deserves a balanced, honest exploration.

The Salary Surge: What Happened Between 2020 and 2023

Between 2020 and 2023, Amazon became mission-critical for brands across the board. Whether you were running a D2C business, leading an aggregator portfolio, or managing an Amazon-first brand, the platform moved from “nice to have” to “essential revenue driver” almost overnight.

The result? Demand for Amazon talent surged, competition for experienced hires intensified, and salaries rose sharply, particularly at mid to senior level.

Fast forward to today, and the landscape looks different. With increased margin pressure and more disciplined financial oversight, leadership teams are reassessing return on investment when it comes to senior hires.

The compensation conversation has shifted. It’s no longer simply about platform experience. It’s about measurable commercial impact.

Not All Amazon Experience Equals Full Commercial Ownership

Here’s something I’ve observed repeatedly: many Amazon professionals have genuinely strong channel exposure. They’ve managed PPC campaigns, optimised catalogues, led international expansion projects, and delivered impressive revenue growth.

However, fewer roles have historically included:

  • Full P&L accountability
  • Margin ownership and profitability targets
  • Inventory and supply chain influence
  • Cross-functional commercial decision-making

This isn’t a criticism of individuals. In most cases, it’s simply a structural limitation of the role itself. Many Amazon positions were designed around channel execution rather than end-to-end commercial leadership.

The challenge arises when salaries move into senior brackets. At that level, expectations around commercial literacy and ownership increase accordingly, and rightly so.

Is This a Skill Gap or an Exposure Gap?

I’ve heard several leaders question whether there’s a skill gap at current salary levels. My honest take? The issue is often more nuanced than that.

The reality may be that professionals are being paid at a senior level before being given true end-to-end ownership. They’ve not had the opportunity to demonstrate margin impact or make the kind of commercial decisions that justify senior compensation, simply because their previous roles didn’t allow for it.

At the same time, brands are becoming more financially disciplined and outcome-driven. They’re asking harder questions about what they’re getting for their investment in senior Amazon hires.

This creates a mismatch that benefits no one.

What This Means for Amazon Professionals and Hiring Leaders

For Amazon professionals, the path forward is clear: those who can demonstrate margin impact, profitability improvements and genuine commercial decision-making will continue to command strong compensation. The market still values this expertise highly.

For hiring leaders, it’s worth reflecting on whether the roles you’re creating genuinely offer the commercial ownership you’re expecting. If you’re hiring at a senior salary but limiting the scope of responsibility, you may be setting both parties up for frustration.

The Real Question

Rather than asking, “Are Amazon professionals being paid too much?” I think the more constructive question is:

Are salaries aligned with measurable commercial ownership, on both sides of the table?

It’s a question that invites honest reflection from candidates and clients alike.