I'll know it when I see it
Debbie Morrison • June 29, 2021

I'll know it when I see it


Have you said this to yourself from time to time, maybe when you’ve been house-hunting, or car shopping, or looking for a new shade of paint for a room redecoration? That’s fair; sometimes you just need to sit in the driver’s seat, or see the colour on the wall before you really know.


But what about when you’ve been in the market to hire someone new?


People in hiring positions use the word ‘fit’ a lot. We tend to use it to describe how we think someone would be a good or bad addition to a team, or the company as a whole. It also usually refers to something other than the technical qualifications, or the tangible experience, that a candidate brings to the table. Something a bit more nebulous, difficult to put our finger on. In fact, in many cases, it leans towards intuition. Something that we’ll know, when we see it.


To be sure, intuition does play a role in hiring. We all base decisions in part on gut feel; sometimes we’re right, sometimes less so. To minimize instances of the latter, it pays to give thought – before going to market – what constitutes a good fit for the position in question, and what preferences and attributes a person might have if they are a good fit. If you can articulate these elements, you’ll be able to give clearer direction to people helping you hire (meaning more interviews with better candidates) and you’ll give your ‘gut’ more and better information to help you in your decisions.


Here are three of the most important considerations to guide you, each building on the last.


Structure


Some organisations operate with a very high level of process. Hierarchies are rigid, and multi-layered. Decisions are made in a strict and consistent manner, each one documented thoroughly. Employees have clear and detailed instructions, and are expected to follow them to the letter. Other companies run more loosely, with employees trusted to make the right decisions and do the right thing. Management structures are flatter, if they exist at all. There’s more experimentation, more decisions made on the fly. Neither of these is inherently better or worse; companies evolve their own way of being over time, based on what works best for them. Each of these offers a very different experience for employees, though, and demands different things from them. The better you understand where on this sphere you are, the better able you’ll be to hire people who work best at your level of structure and process.


Dependence


Closely related to structure is the level of dependence or independence employees have from management and supervision. In some positions, employees may go days or even weeks without a conversation of any kind with a supervisor; it’s expected that they know their job and that they’ll do it. In these positions, employee performance is measured more by results than by process. In other positions, an employee may have ongoing communication throughout every work day with their supervisor. That manager may closely monitor the work being done, and provide constant direction and feedback to the employee. This dynamic can be very different from one position to another within the same organization, so the right fit may change from one hire to the next. Hiring an employee into one kind of position who works best in the opposite could – and often does – lead to poor performance and an early departure.


Culture


Beyond the relationship between an employee and their direct supervisor is the culture of the organisation overall. While structure and process are contributors to this, a culture goes beyond those mechanics. Some workplaces are as quiet as a library; employees have their heads down at their work, phone conversations are hushed, and any meetings are held behind closed doors. The work itself is more individual in nature, and at the end of the day employees go home, not socializing – in groups, at least – outside work. Other workplaces have a culture that’s far more social. New sales or other accomplishments are celebrated loudly by ringing bells or blowing air horns. Work may be more collaborative, all hands on deck. Conversations about work, and life in general, happen at the water cooler and just about everywhere else. Employees routinely get together after work for casual drinks, or for more organized Events-with-a-capital-E on weekends. While it’s possible for a quieter, more introverted employee to do good work in an extraverted organization (and vice versa), employees will be happier – and stay longer – in an organisation that aligns with their own personality and preferences.


When you know how these attributes show up in your organisation, you can put that information to work for you in every hire. This knowledge allows you to design great questions to ask each candidate, and their answers will give you a better understanding of how well they’d fit in to the position you’re hiring for. More data, less intuition.


Reflecting on how these aspects manifest in your organisation will make things clearer for the recruiters you work with, provide better questions to ask in interviews, and ultimately help you – and your gut – make better decisions when it comes to making the hire.


Want to know more? Get in touch and let's talk.



A woman is holding two bottles of cosmetics in her hands.
By John Elliott April 21, 2025
Australia’s health, wellness, and supplements sector isn’t just growing. It’s exploding. From functional drinks to adaptogenic gummies, wellness brands have gone from niche to mainstream in record time. The industry is now worth over $5.6 billion, up from $4.7 billion in 2020 — a 19% growth in just three years. IBISWorld projects continued expansion with a CAGR of 5.3% through 2028. But behind the glossy packaging and influencer campaigns, something else is happening: the regulators have arrived. And most wellness brands? They’re underprepared. From Trend to Target The boom brought founders, fitness coaches, nutritionists, and marketing entrepreneurs into the supplement space. What many built was impressive. But what most forgot was how fast wellness moves from enthusiasm to enforcement. With more than 40 infringement notices and administrative sanctions in Q1 alone, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) strengthened enforcement of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code in early 2024. Prominent companies were named in public. Soon after, the ACCC revised its guidelines for influencer marketing disclosures and launched a campaign against the use of pseudoscientific terminology in product marketing. TGA head Professor Anthony Lawler noted in March 2024: “We’re seeing an unacceptably high level of non-compliance, particularly around unsubstantiated therapeutic claims.” In short: credibility is the new battleground. Why Sales-First Leadership is Failing Too many brands are still led by executives whose playbooks were built on community engagement, retail hustle, and Instagram fluency. That got them early traction. But it won’t keep them compliant — or protect them from an investor exodus when the lawsuits begin. The biggest risks now are not formulation errors. They’re: Claims breaches Compliance negligence Advertising missteps Unqualified health endorsements Reputational collapse through regulatory exposure And these aren’t theoretical. The TGA pulled 197 listed medicines from the market in 2023 alone — a 42% increase on the previous year — due to non-compliant claims or sponsor breaches. What the Next Wellness Leader Looks Like This is where many boards and founders face a difficult transition. The next generation of leadership in wellness isn’t defined by hustle. It’s defined by: Deep regulatory fluency Cross-functional commercial leadership (eComm, retail, pharma, FMCG) Reputation management under pressure Ability to scale with scrutiny, not just speed The leadership profiles now needed aren’t coming out of marketing agencies — they’re coming out of pharmaceuticals, healthtech, and functional food. They’ve sat on regulatory committees. They’ve built compliance-first commercial strategies. They understand how to win trust, not just impressions. Yes, this might feel like a shift away from the founder-led energy that made these brands exciting. But it’s not about slowing down. It’s about making sure you’re still standing when the music stops. Where the Gaps Are The underlying problem isn’t just non-compliance. It's immaturity in structural leadership. The majority of wellness brands haven't developed: An accountable governance structure; a scalable compliance architecture; a risk-aware marketing culture; and any significant succession planning beyond the founder. In fact, a 2023 survey by Complementary Medicines Australia found that only 22% of wellness businesses had dedicated compliance leadership at executive level, and just 14% had formal succession plans in place. This isn’t sustainable — not at scale, and certainly not under scrutiny. Final Thought The wellness boom isn’t over. But the rules have changed. Rapid growth is no longer enough. The brands that win from here will be those with: A compliance culture baked in Leadership teams built for complexity A board that sees regulation not as a barrier, but a brand advantage Those who don’t? They could be one audit away from crisis.
A Farmer walking through a barn, using a laptop with cows eating hay nearby.
By John Elliott April 17, 2025
Australia’s meat sector is facing a leadership vacuum. Explore the hidden crisis behind staffing, succession, and ESG risk in food manufacturing.