When someone says they’re looking for a new role, I usually want to understand what they’re hoping will be different. Sometimes it’s salary. Sometimes it’s flexibility or the kind of business they want to work in. But I also want to know whether they’re looking to leave their current workplace, or whether they simply can’t see their next step there. Those are two different conversations. Someone can enjoy their job, get along well with their team and still feel ready for more. The difficulty comes when neither they nor their manager has a clear idea of what that “more” could look like. More responsibility isn’t always progression Think about a logistics coordinator who has become a reliable point of contact for customers, transport providers and the wider team. They know how to handle delivery exceptions. They help newer colleagues, or when something needs sorting out, people turn to them. Over time, they take on more. Perhaps they might prepare reports, cover parts of their manager’s role or help resolve more complex issues. But has their role actually developed, or have they just become the person everyone relies on? That’s a distinction worth making. Being trusted with more work can feel positive at first. But if there’s no conversation about what it means for their development, recognition or future, it may not feel like a step forward. Not everyone wants to manage a team When talking about progression, it’s easy to think about moving into management. But that isn’t necessarily always what the person wants. A coordinator might want to move towards planning. Someone in customer service might be interested in supply chain analysis. A purchasing officer might want greater involvement in supplier relationships and commercial decisions. Before assuming the next step would be a team leader role, I’d rather ask what part of the work they want to do more of. Do they want to lead people? Build specialist knowledge? Work on improvements? Have more input into decisions? The answer matters when we’re discussing a new opportunity. A bigger title won’t necessarily give someone the development they’re looking for. What does “room to grow” actually mean? This is also something I’d want to explore with a client as well. If a role offers development, what could that look like in practice? Could the person contribute to a system implementation, learn more about inventory planning, take ownership of a reporting process or work alongside another part of the business? There doesn’t need to be a guaranteed promotion or a fully mapped-out career path. But there should be something tangible behind the conversation. I’d rather explain an opportunity clearly, including its limits, than describe it as having “plenty of room to grow” without being able to say what that means. The conversation doesn’t have to wait for a vacancy For a business, this is worth thinking about before someone decides to leave. A useful starting point might be: “What would you like to learn or become more involved in over the next year?” That’s different from asking whether they’re happy. Someone may be happy with the team and still feel that their development has stalled. The business might not be able to offer everything they want. There may be no management vacancy, and some responsibilities may need to stay where they are. But having the conversation gives both sides a clearer understanding of what’s possible, rather than leaving the employee to work it out alone. For me, the important question isn’t always whether someone is ready for a bigger job, It’s whether there’s a meaningful next step, or simply more work in the role they already have.

A candidate applies with a CV that mirrors the job description. Their written responses are clear, confident and full of the right language. In a virtual interview, every answer sounds considered. It could be an excellent candidate. It could also be someone relying heavily on AI to shape their application and feed them answers in real time. The challenge for employers isn’t to guess which one it is. It’s to find out whether the experience and capability behind the words are real. I don’t think using AI to improve a CV is a problem. It can help people explain genuine experience more clearly. But there’s a difference between presenting your strengths well and presenting skills you can’t demonstrate. That difference is harder to see when both applications and virtual interviews can be supported by prompts. The Australian Public Service Commission’s guidance makes a similar distinction: assess the candidate’s demonstrated capability, not the polish of their application, and validate important claims through questions, practical assessment and references.  This is where a good recruitment professional adds value. We don’t just scan for keywords or decide that a polished answer sounds convincing. We look at the detail behind it. What did the candidate personally do? Why did they make that decision? What happened when things didn’t go to plan? Can they talk through the same experience when the conversation moves away from a prepared answer? A virtual interview can still reveal a great deal when it becomes a genuine conversation rather than a sequence of rehearsed questions. If someone describes leading a project, for example, I want to understand their contribution, the decisions they owned and what they learned. Then I want to see whether that account holds together across the interview, a relevant work task and a reference check. Targeted follow-ups and corroboration give us stronger evidence than a first impression alone. Just as importantly, we need to be fair. A well-written CV is not proof of AI misuse, and a candidate who pauses to think is not necessarily reading a generated answer. Trying to “catch” AI from someone’s writing style or interview manner risks getting it wrong. The better approach is to give candidates a reasonable opportunity to show what they know and to check claims consistently. AI has made it easier to sound like the right person for a role. It hasn’t made it easier to be that person. For employers, the value of a recruitment partner is no longer just getting through a stack of applications. It’s knowing which claims to explore, which questions to ask and how to distinguish a convincing presentation from capability that will stand up in the role. That’s the part of recruitment we can’t afford to skip!

In January 2003, six months after my son Alexander was born, I started a recruitment business and named it after him. At the time, I couldn’t have known what Alexander Appointments would become. I only knew that I wanted to build something I believed in, and that how we treated people would matter just as much as the work we did. I had come to recruitment by way of accounting. As a management accountant, I’d learned to understand a business through its numbers. But what stayed with me was what happened after the reports were finished: the conversations, the decisions, and the people asked to carry them out. Moving into recruitment gave me a different perspective on where business needs and people’s lives come together. My husband Daniel and I co-founded Alexander Appointments in 2003. In the early years, we both worked across the business, doing what needed to be done. As the company grew, so did the team and the responsibilities we shared. More than two decades on, I’m proud of the recruitment business we’ve built, and grateful for what those years have taught us both personally and professionally. Here are some of the many lessons 23 years of AA has taught us… A hire is never just a hire.. For an employer, it might be the person who helps a team find its footing, brings a different perspective, or gives a leader the confidence to move forward. For a candidate, it might be a chance to grow, to be better supported, or simply to be seen for what they can contribute next. Neither side can be understood properly from a job description or a résumé alone. That’s why I’ve always believed in taking the time to ask the right questions. What does this team really need? What is making the role difficult? What matters to the person considering it, and what would make the move worthwhile? Sometimes the most useful thing we can do is challenge a brief before we begin a search to help a candidate better see an opportunity or concern more clearly and even help clients ensure they evaluate what their team really needs in a candidate. How we chose to work Recruitment can reward individual ownership: my client, my candidate, my placement. We chose to establish a more collaborative approach. A lead consultant remains close to the relationship, while the wider team shares its knowledge and supports the search. It’s never been about making one person the hero. It is about giving clients and candidates the benefit of more people thinking carefully about the outcome. Of course, building a business over this many years changes you. You learn that good intentions need to show up in ordinary moments: returning a call, being honest when a role is not right, listening when someone is uncertain, and following through when a conversation becomes difficult. Trust is rarely earned in a single impressive moment. It is built in those smaller ones, over time. Today, Alexander Appointments works with organisations and professionals across the private and public sectors. I’m grateful for the clients who have trusted us with decisions that matter to their teams, for the candidates who have shared their ambitions and doubts with us, and for the colleagues who have shaped this business alongside us. The story has always belonged to more than just the founders. So what comes next? I want us to keep growing in the ways that matter, not simply by doing more, but by becoming more useful to the people who place their trust in us. That means helping employers think beyond a vacancy. It also means giving candidates an honest picture of an opportunity and room to make their own decisions, while giving our own people the support and freedom to do thoughtful work. The world of work will keep changing. Roles will change, the expectations will change, and the tools we use will change. We need to remain curious and willing to adapt. But I hope we never lose the instinct to pause, listen, and remember the person on each side of the conversation. Alexander Appointments began with a name that means the world to me, and the legacy I hope we leave is one that’s larger than a name: people who feel respected, teams made stronger, and relationships that last well beyond an appointment. This is still the business I want to build!

One thing I’ve seen consistently across supply chain and logistics is that a high-performing person is often viewed as the obvious next manager. It makes sense on paper. They know the operation, understand the systems and get results. They’re reliable under pressure and usually the person others turn to when something needs sorting out. So, when a team leader, supervisor, planner or coordinator role becomes available, they’re often the first person considered. But being excellent at the job doesn’t automatically mean someone wants to manage people, or that they’ve been given the support to do it well. A good operator and a good manager aren’t always the same thing Some people genuinely want to lead teams. They enjoy coaching others, setting direction, managing performance and taking responsibility for the wider operation. Others do their best work when they’re solving complex problems, improving processes, keeping customers happy, managing inventory, working through a difficult transport issue, or making sure the plan is delivered. Both of these are valuable. The problem comes when a promotion is treated as the only way for someone to progress, earn more or gain recognition. I’ve spoken with many strong supply chain professionals who’ve stepped into leadership roles because it felt like the next logical move. Some thrive. Others find themselves pulled away from the work they were best at and into people management, performance conversations, rostering, conflict resolution and administration they were never properly prepared for. That doesn’t mean they’ve failed. It may simply mean the role wasn’t the right fit. Leadership needs more than operational credibility Operational experience is important. A manager who understands the pace, pressure and practical realities of supply chain will always have more credibility with their team. But leadership also calls for a different set of skills. It means communicating clearly when the pressure is on. It means supporting people with different personalities and experience levels. It means handling difficult conversations, setting expectations, delegating effectively and creating an environment where people feel comfortable asking questions or raising concerns early. In a busy warehouse, transport operation or planning function, those things can be the difference between a team that simply gets through the day and one that performs well consistently. The strongest leaders I see aren’t necessarily the loudest people in the room or the most technically experienced. They’re often the ones who stay calm, make people feel heard, set clear direction and understand when their team needs support. Career progression shouldn’t be one-size-fits-all For employers, there’s a real opportunity to think more broadly about career pathways. Not every capable employee needs to become a people manager to progress. Some may be better suited to senior technical, continuous-improvement, planning, systems, inventory, project or specialist roles. These pathways matter because they allow businesses to retain valuable knowledge and reward capability without forcing people into a role that doesn’t play to their strengths. It also helps avoid a common risk: losing an excellent operator and gaining an under-supported manager. For candidates, it’s worth being honest with yourself before accepting a leadership opportunity. Ask what the role genuinely involves day to day. How much of the job is operational versus people leadership? What support, training and mentoring will be available? Is there a team structure around you? And, importantly, do you actually enjoy helping other people perform at their best? There’s no right answer. A career doesn’t have to move in one direction. The best outcome is the right fit A well-earned promotion should feel like an opportunity, not a test of whether someone can cope without enough support. The best supply chain teams create room for both strong leaders and strong specialists. They recognise that managing people is a capability in its own right, not simply the next step after performing well in an operational role. In my experience, the most successful appointments happen when businesses look beyond who has done the job best so far and consider who has the interest, support and potential to lead well.

“HR Business Partner” is one of those titles that sounds wonderfully clear, until you start trying to compare two of them… On paper, two people may both be HRBPs. They may have similar years of experience, recognisable employers and similar responsibilities, yet one may have been a trusted adviser to an executive team through a major transformation, while another has spent most of their time managing complex employee relations matters across a large and dispersed workforce. Neither is necessarily “better”. But they are not automatically comparable. That’s the problem with job titles: they give us a label, but not necessarily the story. The reality behind the title Two HR Business Partners can have entirely different levels of exposure depending on the environment they work in. One may support 150 people in a growing business, working closely with the CEO and taking broad responsibility for recruitment, performance, engagement, policies, and leadership support. Another may support 2,000 employees across multiple sites, navigating enterprise agreements, union consultation, investigations, performance matters and operational workforce challenges. Both roles build valuable capability. But not necessarily the same capability. A title alone cannot tell you: The size and nature of the workforce someone supports. The complexity of their ER or IR environment. Whether they advise executive leaders or primarily support frontline managers. Whether they are working in a mature HR function or building the basics from scratch. Whether the business is stable, scaling, restructuring or operating in a highly regulated environment. The detail matters because the environment shapes the experience. For candidates Your title shouldn’t be expected to do all the work for you. If you are an HRBP, People Partner, Senior HR Adviser or HR Manager, make the scale and complexity of your role clear. Explain the workforce you support, the leaders you work with, the type of employee relations exposure you have had, and the business challenges you have helped solve. For example, “HR Business Partner responsible for generalist HR support” tells us very little. But “HR Business Partner supporting 850 employees across a multi-site operational portfolio, advising regional leaders on complex ER matters, workforce planning, performance and organisational change” gives a much clearer picture. Same title. Very different story. For hiring managers Recruiting by title alone can mean missing excellent candidates or appointing someone whose experience looks right but is not quite aligned to the role. Instead of simply asking, “Have they been an HR Business Partner before?”, it’s worth asking: What workforce have they supported? What people challenges have they managed? Who have they influenced? What level of ER complexity have they handled? Does their business environment resemble ours in scale, pace and maturity? The strongest hire isn’t always the person with the most familiar title or the closest industry background; it’s the person whose experience best matches the challenges your business needs solved. The takeaway Titles are useful. They help us benchmark roles and careers. But they’re only the starting point. For candidates, the opportunity is to explain the substance behind your title. For clients, it’s about looking beyond the label to understand the scale, complexity, and impact of someone’s experience. So, two people can both be HR Business Partners, but the work they’ve done and the value they can bring may be entirely different.

People don’t always leave for more money. Sometimes they leave because no one asked. I’ve had this conversation more times than I can count. A candidate calls and says they’ve resigned. I never assume it is about money. Sometimes it is. Let’s be honest, salary matters, particularly when the cost of living is putting pressure on everyone these days. But often, that isn’t the real reason. When you ask a few more questions, a different story often comes out… “I hadn’t had a proper conversation with my manager in over a year.” “I didn’t know what my next step looked like.” “I kept taking on more, but nothing ever changed.” Most good people don’t wake up one day and decide to leave. It usually happens gradually. They stop putting their hand up. They contribute a little less in meetings or they become harder to engage with. They may also start taking calls from recruiters they would have ignored six months earlier. And by the time an employer notices, they’re often already mentally gone. Retention isn't just about annual reviews, counteroffers, or trying to match a salary when someone resigns. By then, it can often be too late. It’s about the conversations in between. The simple ones… How are you really going? What is working for you here? What is frustrating you? What do you want to learn next? Where do you see yourself going? These aren’t difficult questions. But they do require time, consistency and genuine interest. For leaders, the challenge is not waiting until someone is visibly unhappy or handing in their notice. Ask before you need to ask. These aren’t difficult questions. But they do take time, consistency and a genuine interest in the people around you. Not every issue can be fixed. Not every frustration has an immediate answer. But being acknowledged, having an honest conversation and knowing that someone understands what is not working can go a long way. In our business, we know there are times our consultants are doing more than they should be. We also try to be open about that. They know we are working on changing systems, bringing in additional support and looking at ways to make things better. It doesn’t fix everything overnight, but I think people appreciate knowing they’re being heard and that something is being done. The challenge for leaders is not waiting until someone is visibly unhappy or handing in their notice. Ask before you need to ask. For employees, don’t wait silently for someone to map out your future either. Be clear about what you want, what you need and where you might feel stuck. The best retention strategy is not always another pay rise. Sometimes it is making sure good people feel seen before someone else does.

In 2026, a strong supply chain candidate is rarely choosing a position on salary alone. Across logistics, procurement, planning and operations, candidates are looking closely at the full picture: the leadership team, business direction, systems, development opportunities and whether the role is genuinely set up for success. And it’s not about being difficult, it’s about making an informed career decision. Beyond the salary A competitive salary will attract attention, but it is only one part of the conversation. Candidates want to know: Who they will report to and how that leader operates Why the position is available What success looks like in the first 6 to 12 months Whether they will have the authority, tools, and support to deliver Is the business is investing in systems, data, and process improvement? How the role could potentially develop over time These questions all matter because experienced candidates understand that the day-to-day reality of a role is what will likely determine whether it becomes a successful long-term move. Honest stories build trust No business is perfect, and most candidates don’t expect them to be. Many are attracted to opportunities involving growth, improvement, transformation, or operational change. They may be excited by the chance to improve planning, strengthen supplier relationships, build a team, or introduce better ways of working. But they generally do want the full story from the outset. If there are system limitations, competing stakeholder priorities, or a challenging performance agenda, it’s better to be clear about it. The right candidate may see this as an opportunity, provided there is a realistic plan, leadership backing, and the scope to make a difference. Is the role achievable? One of the most important questions candidates ask is often an unspoken one: Can I actually succeed here? They’re assessing whether expectations are realistic, whether the responsibility matches the authority and whether the business is prepared to support the outcomes it wants. A well-written position description is important, but a transparent recruitment conversation is more valuable. It gives candidates a clear view of the opportunity, the challenges, and what will be expected once they join. A two-way conversation Recruitment has always been a two-way process. Employers assess capability, experience, and fit and candidates assess the leadership, culture, stability and the credibility of the opportunity. The organisations that attract and retain strong supply chain talent are not necessarily those with the most polished pitch. They’re the ones that communicate clearly, answer questions openly and give candidates confidence that the role is both meaningful and achievable. 

AI is changing the way many workplaces operate. From automating administration to supporting reporting, recruitment and customer service, the potential efficiency gains are clear. But efficiency alone doesn’t necessarily create a better employee experience. A new tool may save time, and better data may support faster decisions, but if people are unclear about what is changing, concerned about their role, or unsupported by their manager, the benefits can very quickly be outweighed by uncertainty. That’s why AI shouldn’t be treated purely as a technology rollout. It’s also a people and change conversation. The difference is in the approach. The organisations getting this right aren’t simply introducing new tools and expecting people to adapt. They’re clear about why the change is happening, what it will mean day to day and where employees can ask questions. They involve people early, listen to practical concerns and give managers the information they need to lead with confidence. It doesn’t always require a large change program. Often, it starts with a few simple questions: Which roles and tasks will genuinely change? Where might people need more clarity or reassurance? Are managers confident discussing the change with their teams? How will we gather feedback once the technology is in use? These conversations can be easy to overlook when there is pressure to implement quickly. But they often determine whether a change is embraced or resisted. Managers matter. When change is announced, managers are usually the first people employees turn to. They don’t need to have every answer, but they do need enough understanding to communicate clearly, listen properly, and know when further support is needed. Without that, even a well-intended rollout can create mixed messages and unnecessary anxiety. This is where taking a step back can be valuable. Looking at role impacts, manager readiness, and employee communication alongside the technology itself can help businesses introduce change in a more considered way. What candidates notice. Candidates are also asking more thoughtful questions about technology, flexibility, culture, and the future of work. It’s becoming less about whether an organisation uses AI, and more about how it uses it. Does it remove repetitive tasks and create space for more meaningful work? Is training available? Are employees involved in shaping new ways of working? Is there a clear and fair approach to using data and technology? The answers can say a great deal about an organisation’s culture and leadership. Technology still needs people. AI can create real opportunity. It can improve access to information, reduce manual work and give people more time to focus on work that requires judgement, relationships, and human connection. But it doesn’t replace clear communication, good leadership or thoughtful people practices. The best outcomes come when technology is introduced with clarity, capability and trust, not simply speed.