Overcoming Hiring Challenges in a Shifting Regulatory Environment

Alan Herrity  | July 14, 2025

Introduction

Since the 2018 findings of Australia’s Royal Commission into misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation, and Financial Services Industries, regulatory reform has continued to accelerate. 

APRA’s mandates, such as CPS 230, CPS 234, AASB 17 and Payday Super — have reshaped how organisations operate. As a result, many organisations have mobilised regulatory programs quickly, often under delivery pressure.

Having supported clients through regulatory transformation since the first wave of post-Royal Commission programs, we’ve seen firsthand how the right hire — made at the right time — can set programs up for success.

Specifically, the need for highly targeted and discreet appointments — at both leadership and program levels with regulatory expertise — has become a strategic priority.

Understanding the Regulatory Hiring Landscape

We’ve seen several reasons why regulatory hiring presents unique challenges:

  • High-demand talent is already engaged. Since 2018, individuals with regulatory program experience have remained in steady demand—often continuously engaged across banking, superannuation, and insurance projects. These candidates are not typically applying for roles; they must be identified, referred, or headhunted directly.


  • Confidentiality is critical. Many of these roles involve approaching talent from competitors, demanding discretion and professionalism.


  • Role clarity evolves. Regulatory programs often begin with high-level roadmaps. In the case of APRA, organisations are expected to proactively define how to meet regulatory milestones. This shifting context demands teams who are adept at managing ambiguity and aligning solutions with regulatory intent.

Hiring delays don’t just slow progress—they can impact program timelines, regulatory milestones, and governance reporting at the board level.

Why a Diagnostic-Led Approach Is Essential

At Momentum Search and Selection, we begin each engagement with a structured diagnostic. It clarifies:

  • The regulatory obligations in scope


  • The program structure and delivery timelines


  • The specific capability and experience required to execute

This diagnostic phase is critical, particularly when briefs are evolving or direction is still emerging.

Many organisations initially turn to large consultancies, but what they often need is something more targeted, a contractor who brings the right crossover. The strongest candidates typically sit in the “Venn diagram“ where practitioner experience meets deep regulatory understanding.

A robust diagnostic doesn’t just define requirements—it provides structure, reduces the risk of mis-hiring, and ensures that each role is designed with intent, even when regulatory mandates are still taking shape.

What a Regulatory Program Team Typically Looks Like

The structure of a high-performing regulatory program team often includes:

  • Executive sponsor with board-level ownership and buy-in


  • Program Director with proven experience leading regulatory transformation


  • Practitioner-level roles such as Project Managers, Business Analysts, Risk Specialists, and Change Managers


  • Specialist contractors who bring both delivery capability and domain expertise

“You need the right executives to lead regulatory transformation. Then, appointing the right Program Director is absolutely key.”

Regulatory Program leaders don’t just look for role clarity—they look for executive and board-level buy-in. Without that, even the best-structured teams struggle to gain momentum. Executive and board-level sponsorship is key. We explore this further in The Key to Executive Search: Aligning Stakeholders from the Outset, where early alignment among senior stakeholders is shown to be a differentiator in search outcomes.

Why Traditional Hiring Models Fall Short

Many organisations attempt to fill regulatory roles through conventional recruitment channels. In our experience, these approaches fall short due to three key assumptions:

  • That suitable candidates are available and applying


  • That a job ad will reach the right people


  • That consultancies can always supply tailored talent for niche regulatory needs

In reality, the best candidates are already delivering value elsewhere. They must be approached directly and discreetly. Partnering with a search firm like Momentum Search and Selection is essential.

The Momentum Search and Selection Approach

Our regulatory hiring methodology is consistent, structured, and outcome-focused. It applies to both permanent and interim roles:

  1. Structured diagnostic to define the problem


  2. Stakeholder alignment and brief development


  3. Market mapping and planning


  4. Discreet outreach through our network and headhunting


  5. Weekly steering meetings for transparency and progress


  6. Presentation of a refined, high-quality shortlist


As we’ve discussed in The Strategic Role of Steering Meetings in Retained Search, this regular cadence ensures transparency, alignment, and momentum across all stakeholders—especially in high-pressure regulatory contexts.

This process instills confidence, transparency, and alignment. Whether the role is interim or permanent, our approach remains consistent—diagnostic-led, discreet, and outcome-focused.

“Interim management is often the faster path to capability—especially when regulatory timelines are fixed and non-negotiable.”

In one recent engagement, we delivered a curated shortlist of three highly qualified candidates — sourced from our network and presented within weeks — each vetted for regulatory expertise, cultural fit, and execution capability.

Regulatory Hiring Beyond Financial Services

We are seeing in the energy sector the NEM Reform Program—established by AEMO—is driving demand for regulatory talent. This initiative supports the post-2025 reforms and requires utilities to deliver on energy market mandates with precision and accountability.

Across sectors, we’re seeing increasing demand for senior talent with regulatory expertise in areas such as:

  • Operational risk


  • Cyber resilience (e.g., under CPS 234)


  • Data governance and privacy

These roles require professionals who can interpret evolving regulatory expectations and translate them into operational outcomes within complex environments.

Human-Centric Leadership Is Critical

Our experience working with clients confirms what many already know: these programs are hard work. They're not easy—and they come with real pressure due to the impact they have on the organisation.

Beyond technical skill sets, leaders need to be comfortable working with ambiguity, showing strong direction, and supporting their teams under demanding conditions.

The most effective leaders build trust and resilience while delivering under scrutiny. Humanistic leadership is a critical success factor in regulatory transformation.

Conclusion

Hiring for regulatory transformation isn’t transactional—it’s strategic. It demands discretion, clarity, and real-world understanding of how to execute under regulatory oversight.

Momentum Search and Selection partners with organisations across financial services, energy, and beyond to secure the right people for high-impact roles—the first time.

For a confidential conversation, contact me directly at alan@momentumsearch.com.au

Alan Herrity 
Director 
Momentum Search and Selection 

December 15, 2025
Case Study - Multi-Hire Program Managers (x3)
By Alan Herrity December 11, 2025
The best steering committees never need to steer. When a major transformation program runs smoothly, this is not by accident. It is by design. Steering committees play a vital role in governance, visibility and key decision making. They exist to align projects & programs with business strategy, oversee delivery, resolve major issues, and make the high-level decisions that shape direction and investment. When they work well, they give leaders confidence that complex initiatives are under control and moving towards their intended outcomes. My view is that the most effective steering committees are often those with the least fuss. They don’t spend their time firefighting or unpicking surprises. This is not the intent of a steering committee. The focus is on validating progress, endorsing key decisions, and providing strategic guidance — because the real work has already been done. The program leader’s real art The difference lies in the quality of program leadership. The hard work is done in the lead up to the steering committee, this means: Alignment. Stakeholders are engaged early, with shared understanding of priorities, scope, and success measures. Anticipation. Issues are surfaced and resolved at working level, rather than escalating unnecessarily. Knowing when to escalate to remove roadblocks is key to success. Clarity. The project/program narrative is consistent, transparent, and grounded in evidence — so there are no surprises. When these fundamentals are in place, the steering committee becomes what it was always intended to be: a forum for strategic direction, not operational repair and firefighting. Governance at its best A well-run steering committee confirms that the ship’s on course, the crew is competent, and the captain has control. The conversation becomes higher value — focused on trade-offs, strategic risks, and emerging opportunities rather than tactical blockers. That’s governance at its best: fit for purpose and effective, challenging but supportive. What it says about leadership Program leaders who reach this level of maturity focus on alignment, clarity, and trust. They create an environment where the steering committee’s confidence is earned, not requested. When a steering committee spends its time on decisions rather than disagreements, you know the program is being led — not just managed. Please contact Alan Herrity to explore this topic further.
By Alan Herrity November 25, 2025
A conversation with an executive recently reframed something many boards are still grappling with. The real blind spot in boardrooms isn’t just a lack of technical understanding. It’s the confidence to interpret technology investments through a strategic lens — how they enable the business, improve risk, and ultimately strengthen customer experience. If a board sees a $50 million cloud program purely as IT infrastructure, the conversation is already heading in the wrong direction. The strategic case for technology is, in effect, the case for digital transformation. That means understanding how the change reshapes process performance, customer visibility, and operational resilience. As that executive put it, a true digital transformation “exposes your process performance to your customers.” It’s a useful test: if your customers could see exactly how your processes work, would they still choose you? That’s the difference between technology as cost and technology as capability. Technology Fluency Isn’t About Technical Depth Boards don’t need more technologists. They need directors who can recognise what technology enables — growth, speed, resilience, and transparency. That has always been the requirement. The gap today is that these decisions now sit at the centre of strategy rather than the periphery. Digitally fluent boards Link investment to strategy, not infrastructure Differentiate between modernisation and transformation Understand customer impact as clearly as cost impact Assess risk in operational, cultural, and technology terms Where boards struggle is usually not with the technology itself, but with context. They miss how decisions play out culturally — the hidden signals in execution that determine whether a transformation will land. As one executive in my network put it, “the distance between the board and where the work happens means cultural signals get lost.” His view is right; culture remains one of the quietest destroyers of transformation success. The Strategic Value of Technology Leaders on Boards This is where experienced Technology Executives add real value. However, not as technical custodians. The strongest candidates position themselves as enablers of strategy, stewards of risk, and commercial contributors who can translate complexity into clarity. They can articulate why a transformation matters, how it links to the operating model, and what the organisation needs to do to ensure customers feel the benefit. They don’t talk about platforms first; they talk about outcomes. The best ones move comfortably between strategy, execution and culture. They can explain the positive impact on the P&L in ways that resonate with non-technical colleagues. That’s what differentiates a board-ready technology leader from one who’s simply senior in their function. Boards Need to Close Their Own Blind Spots Technology Executives bring essential perspective, but the responsibility doesn’t sit with them alone. Boards need to identify where their blind spots are — whether that’s digital capability, data literacy, transformation oversight, or cultural interpretation — and close them. A digitally fluent board isn’t one with a single expert. It’s one in which the full group can challenge assumptions, interrogate investment cases, and understand how transformation affects customers, risk, and strategy. When they do lead a major transformation, the job isn’t finished when the program ends. The most effective boards review, assess, and learn. Continuous change means there’s no moment for relief. If a board feels the work is “done”, that’s usually the signal that it’s time to evolve again. What This Means for Technology Executives Preparing for Board Roles For leaders aiming to step into governance roles, the expectation has shifted. Position yourself as someone who: Enables strategy, rather than represents a function Understands risk in operational and technology terms Can show a clear link between transformation and commercial outcomes Brings the cultural awareness to read execution signals early Boards don’t need technologists. They need technology-literate strategists with the experience to make change investable and the judgement to ensure it succeeds. Closing the Gap Business models, customer expectations, and technology capability will continue to move at pace. The organisations that thrive will be those whose boards understand how technology shapes value — not as a technical discipline, but as a strategic one. For many boards, that shift is still underway. For Technology Executives, it’s a clear opening to contribute where the business needs clarity most. If both sides step towards each other, the blind spot closes.  Please contact Alan Herrity to explore this topic further.
By Alan Herrity November 11, 2025
The Quiet Crossroads Every Transformation Leader Reaches You’ve been offered a lateral move. You might feel that it’s a step back. Your mentor says take it. You’re torn. That tension — perceived progress versus pragmatism — is one I see often. Recently, a CIO I know asked me about the pros and cons of a sideways step. On paper, it can look like a setback. In reality, it can set the stage for the next big leap. “Careers aren’t ladders anymore. They’re landscapes - and the best leaders learn to navigate them". Four Real Ways Careers Move Forward Careers rarely move in straight lines. In truth, there are four ways to grow — each valid in its own season.
By Alan Herrity November 10, 2025
Case Study - General Manager - IT Project Services
By Alan Herrity November 10, 2025
Case Study - General Manager, Transformation & Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO)
By Alan Herrity November 10, 2025
Case Study - Head of Transformation
By Shazamme System User October 24, 2025
Case Study - Program Director – Confidential Initiative
Two businessmen discussing ideas with light bulbs symbolizing innovation and strategy
By Alan Herrity August 21, 2025
Recently, I had lunch with a Senior Transformation Executive who'd been a candidate in a Momentum Search and Selection-led search late last year. While he didn’t land that particular role, we stayed in touch and often discussed different opportunities. Today, he’s thriving in a new opportunity — and he credited some of our conversations as a key part of his journey.
Professionals building personal branding strategies and networking for career growth
By Alan Herrity August 21, 2025
Back in 1997, McKinsey coined the phrase 'The War for Talent'. That war hasn’t gone away—however, it has evolved. In today’s digital world dominated by smartphones, platforms like LinkedIn, and an endless stream of content. With many of the candidates I represent, it increasingly feels like we’re in a war for personal branding.