Ripping Up the old jd: What Production Leadership Actually Needs in 2026
I'm currently working on two senior production leadership searches. The agencies couldn't be more different; one is a large group, significant scale, complex internal structure; the other is a pure independent, leaner, with a very particular creative identity to protect. Different pressures, different cultures, different definitions of what success looks like in the role.
And yet both of them have arrived at the same place: the production lead job description they've used before doesn't work anymore.
This piece is my attempt to think through why and what it means for how these searches need to be approached.
Why the old template fails
The job description most agencies have been working from was built around a specific kind of production excellence. TVC primarily, also stills, and social and branded content, as things evolved away from telly. The best person for that brief was someone who had grown up in that TVC world, who understood it instinctively, who had the relationships and the judgment that came from years of living inside it.
That experience is still valuable. It doesn't become worthless just because the landscape has changed. But the pace of change is the point. The job description that was right three years ago is already out of date. Production’s role has moved faster than the brief has,
The production leader who can navigate what agencies actually need right now has to think across formats and disciplines simultaneously, understand how AI is genuinely changing the workflow rather than how it sounds in a press release, connect production decisions upstream to what clients measure downstream, and resource effectively when the brief asks for everything in six weeks/days/hours.
Who should be in the room before the search begins?
What I suggest, before a single candidate is considered, is that the conversation about what this role requires involves more people . Not another bloomin’ committee, not group-think; research.
The default is a conversation between the CEO and the CCO. Sometimes the CSO. Occasionally the CFO. They shape the brief, decide what they're looking for, and go looking for it. They make a brief that reflects what each of them needs from production, which is real and important, but incomplete.
What about everyone else?
The existing production team should be consulted. Not as a courtesy, but because they hold intelligence that nobody in that initial conversation has, i.e., what's actually missing? What would make the department better? What kind of leadership would make the best people want to stay? That conversation is rarely had.
External partners — the production companies, post houses, talent agents, and specialist collaborators who work alongside the agency's production team every day, have a view on what the relationship is and what it could be. They don’t need a power veto here; they don’t make the decision, but their opinion is industry-relevant.
And clients. The most forward-thinking agencies I work with understand that the right production leader isn't just an internal appointment; they're part of what the agency offers. A production leader with genuine expertise and genuine authority can be a real ally to a client, someone they trust to give them an honest production perspective rather than just managing their expectations. That’s real influence for your business. But you won't know to look for it if you don't ask the client what they actually value.
Looking past the TVC
Both of the searches I'm working on have asked me to look past the obvious candidate pool. Not to ignore it (experience in the industry is irreplaceable) and the inside knowledge of how production actually works in advertising is not something you can fake. But to look past the idea that the best candidate is necessarily the most decorated person in the most senior production role at the most prominent competitor.
There are people running production at significant independents: in advertising, in tech, in marketing, who have built something genuinely different. Who has had to be creative about resource and process, and how you maintain craft ambition without a holding company's infrastructure behind you. Some people have crossed between disciplines, between agency and brand-side and back, who carry a perspective that the traditional path doesn't produce. There are people whose careers look slightly unusual on paper but who, when you understand what they've actually done, are operating at exactly the level this role demands.
The current hiring pattern tends toward the familiar. Same shortlists, same assumptions, same pool of names. That's understandable as familiarity feels like safety when the stakes are high. But if the brief has genuinely changed, the search needs to change with it.
What I look for.
It’s time to be honest - It’s the question of whether the organisation is genuinely ready for a production leader with real authority; someone who will challenge assumptions, push back on decisions, and expect to be in the room when strategy is being shaped, not just asked “what will this cost”
And not every agency is ready for that. That is completely fine. What isn't fine is promising it and not empowering it.
I have known several production leaders who were handed a blank piece of paper and asked to write their own job description. How flattering! Told the role was theirs to define. They arrived full of energy and ambition, ready to build something. And what they found, gradually, was that the agency couldn’t really deliver that sort of empowerment. The authority wasn't there. The seat at the table turned out to be a seat near the table. The promises made in the interview room didn't survive contact with the existing hierarchy. The agency lost a good person. The person lost time and momentum that they won't get back.
That is what an honest brief prevents. Part of my job is being willing to ask the uncomfortable questions before the search begins; to push the leadership team to be clear with themselves about what they are genuinely offering, so that the person who takes the role knows exactly what they are walking into. Make us more money is ok! Get us more awards is ok! Make us more money AND get us more awards is ok! BUT SAY THAT.
That means acknowledging all the stakeholders who will be affected by this hire, including the ones who aren't usually in the room. It means building a framework for what good looks like - commercially, creatively, strategically, culturally - and then assessing candidates against something real rather than against vibes and availability.
One thing worth considering, and something I'd encourage any organisation making this hire to think about seriously, is the use of structured psychometric assessment. A couple of years ago, I was involved in a senior leadership search for a creative technology company that used this properly - not a personality quiz or a culture-fit checkbox, but a scientifically validated process mapped directly against the specific abilities the role demanded. The insight it produced was genuinely useful, both for comparing candidates against something objective and for giving the successful hire a clear picture of where they were strong and where they'd need support from day one. For a role of this seriousness, it's worth the investment. The data gathered through the process should become the foundation for how the new leader is onboarded and supported. They should arrive knowing where they're strong and where they'll need room to grow. The organisation should know the same.
An open question
What I know is that the searches I'm working on right now feel different from the ones I was working on five years ago. Getting the brief ship shape is genuinely harder. The landscape is more complex, the expectations are higher, and the margin for error on a hire at this level is smaller.
What I'm finding is that the organisations willing to question their own assumptions and willing to consult more widely, look further afield, and be honest about what they actually need, tend to end up in a better place.
That thinking is the good bit - it's why both of the very different organisations I'm working with right now have ended up, from completely different starting points, deciding to rip up the template.