If I'm being generous to the director, they've got a lot of experience in this specialty and they are probably familiar with how people bullshit their way into specialty positions when the people interviewing for it don't know different.

It's not unreasonable for them to be involved in hiring decisions for people that report into them; right? Maybe try to get them involved in earlier, so it feels more like collaboration and less like second guessing. If they're an up or down vote, it would be better for them to be involved before an offer; and it would be better if they're in the main loop. You may want to put them towards the end of the day and end the loop early if there's a clear consensus no from early interviews.

As an unrelated 3rd party, I would say, go ahead and lean in and ask for help with the specialty work that needs doing that your team is missing expertise in. If they get roped into doing specialty work and they'd rather be directing, then they're more motivated about finding an acceptable candidate.

Your post looked familiar and by looking at your past submissions I can see that the situation has been brewing for some time. I can understand how you might be feeling at odds with your director's decisions.

Since I don't know you, nor your director I can't judge your relative competencies, especially in the area of your specialty (which would be better if it were actually named). All I can go by is this and your prior submissions.

It appears that the "director" is at least two levels above you in the organization structure. So whether you like it or not, his decisions are going to override yours. That's by virtue of the corporate pecking order.

I also get the impression that you harbor some resentment towards this director. Perhaps you are upset that the director who hired you has been fired with no notice. Perhaps that is an indication that further up the management hierarchy things are even less to your liking. It is also possible that your expertise level in your specialty exceeds that of your director. But he is obviously viewed in a better light than you by the top levels of management.

In one of your previous submissions you mention that you are trapped by 6x share value increase. So if the vesting is such that leaving in the near future is not an option, then your best option is to stop fighting. Try to understand where your director is coming from and instead of confronting, seek out ways to work together until such time you can afford to quit. You don't need to be right all the time. Just keep your exit horizon in sight and until then smile and be a good little team player.

Like anyone new to a leadership role, it seems the director is conducting a kind of audit to both assess the current situation and establish their own footing — even though this is fundamentally a human/relationship-based process.

From what you've described, there are a couple of likely possibilities:

First, the director may still be gathering information to form an informed opinion about the team's capabilities.

Alternatively, they might have already formed an initial impression and are now seeking confirmation through these interviews and interactions.

In either case, I don't think there's anything here that should make you feel discouraged or take it personally. I completely understand that it can weigh on your mind — it's a common and often uncomfortable experience in the workplace. But it's not unusual, and it doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on you or your team's work.

You're going to have to embrace some of your director's approaches at least initially, deliver some wins to show him your team can meet his expectations.

Once you have some wins and build trust you can collaborate more on future projects.

The director has a responsibility to implement his vision that's why they hired him. That will be make or break for his success. Your team is responsible for implementing his vision with some collaboration along the way of course but directors have the autonomy to guide their ship.

Frankly, what you're describing just sounds normal to me after a decade+ at BigCo, and you just have to lean into it, embrace it.

It's completely normal to have a formal interviewing process / loop with feedback forms and debrief sessions and stuff... but for candidates that pass that, they just earn a meeting/interview with the big boss who then singlehandedly makes the decision regardless of all the earlier feedback from lower level folks, and occasionally hires people they've worked with before completely bypassing the formal interview process + everybody else.

It's also completely normal for big bosses to be in the weeds of the work and people two or three levels below them, either directly, or by telling managers under them exactly what to do with their reports.

Essentially, the interviewing process and org chart / reporting lines are just there for show, and to fool naive folks, but actually it's totally normal for decisions to be made outside of the process, or by higher folks directly driving things several levels under them.

I think you just have to embrace it, work directly with the director and everyone else and earn their trust, and don't expect to ever have autonomy/authority over anything in a company that you don't own.

Time for a frank and open conversation with your director. Get his concerns first.

This is going to sound harsh, but please read it as offered in good faith. Also, the obvious caveat is that I don't know you or your director so these are generalizations not specifics.

>> My interview is dedicated to assessing candidates' facility and depth with this specialty.

Technical ability is one part of hiring. It's an important part sure, but as an employer I'm looking far beyond "ability to do the task." You note that he's specifically checking to see if the person is a "good fit".

When down in the weeds, it can be hard to understand the different boxes a candidate ticks. For example, if most of our team leader and junior manager appointments come from internal promotions, then I'm looking for potential in those spaces.

Your director may be looking for people with ambition. Or he may consider previous employment patterns (for us, we like long-term employees so candidates who job hob every couple years are usually a cause for concern.) Each company will have different criteria.

You don't go into detail here about your hiring experience, or your awareness of company goals beyond this specialization, or indeed if your earlier candidates were accepted or rejected.

>> I'm sensing what seems like some amount of distrust from the director about me and my team's capability to hire good candidates for this specialty

Trust is an interesting quality. We naturally feel we shoild be trusted by default, we naturally distrust others until trust is validated.

Any new director starts from a trust of zero. Your actions either build, or erode, that trust. Since the consequences of a bad hire fall on his shoulders not yours, he is wise to at least interview your approvals.

Your reaction to a veto, or even a pass, will help build trust. After he sees the candidate have a conversation with him. Try and glean what he liked, what he didn't like, and so on. There's a reason he's a director, and you are not.

Each interaction you have with him is an opportunity to learn. He is balancing variables above your pay grade, learning what those variables are, and how to factor them into your decision making is what builds trust.

Lastly, I'll point out that trust is not transferable. Your old director may have had complete faith in you. That counts for nothing. You have to build trust with this director from scratch.

Trust flows both ways. The more you trust your new director, and adapt to his requirements the faster the trust is built. The faster you adapt to him, the easier it is for him to understand your commitment. The more you dig into the new mindset (ideally by communicating directly with him) the more you adopt that mindset the easier it is to build trust.

As a new "boss" at any level, the worst situation is employees still hankering after the old boss, resistant to change, unwilling to move forward. The quicker you let go of the old baggage the faster your new trusts can be built.

You need to decide who's train you are on. And then get on. Or get off.

[dead]