Welcome to Part 4 of our Eliot Insights Series, where we explore the issues, trends, and leadership themes shaping the insurance industry.
In this edition, we speak with Zoe Bazley about leadership expectations, common misconceptions around senior talent, and what drives successful executive search partnerships.
Zoe shares her perspective on why the “perfect” candidate often doesn’t exist, how organisations can get more value from the search process, and the leadership behaviours that are becoming non-negotiable as we move into 2026. She also discusses how hybrid working models are expanding access to leadership talent, the importance of diversity of thought in reducing groupthink, and why looking beyond the CV is critical to making long-term leadership appointments.
Question 1
What are some common misconceptions companies have about the available talent pool when they initiate a search?
ZB: That the unicorn they’re looking for always exists, or that they are necessarily going to be the ultimate best option. When they do, we believe we’re in the strongest position to find them, but sometimes the desired product mix, combined with experience level, location, personality or culture fit, leadership capabilities, and salary, stands in the way.
Having a clear vision of what is needed or desired from the appointment is valuable, but being open-minded also allows us to think more laterally about people who may not have the most traditional experience on paper, but who will be able to bring the qualities and overall outcomes needed in a different, often more effective way.
This is particularly important for clients and leaders who seek to eradicate or minimise groupthink. Diversity needs to include diversity of thought and experience, and that may not look like the most obvious profile at first glance.
Question 2
What distinguishes clients who get the most value out of the search partnership process?
ZB: Those who give feedback, both positive and constructive. Whether that’s after Eliot presentations, update calls, or interviews, the more information we have to understand why something or someone does or doesn’t fit with the client’s expectations or needs, the more we can use this to steer the rest of the process with immediate effect.
Clients frequently pivot quite heavily over the course of the search. One of the benefits of search processes is the opportunity to uncover exactly what it is that you need and want from the appointment. Sometimes that ends up looking different from what you originally thought, and that is totally fine from a search perspective.
Being open and forthcoming about what you’re thinking and why is the best way we can make informed, tailored decisions to help you reach that vision.
Question 3
Based on your conversations and research, what leadership behaviours are becoming non-negotiable in 2026?
ZB: We are seeing more and more recognition that just because someone is exceptional at their job doesn’t mean they’ll make an effective leader.
Leadership and people management demand an entirely separate set of skills to execution, and hiring managers are seeking these skills out, on behalf of the team, more proactively and without compromise than previously.
Some senior professionals don’t want to be leaders of people, and that’s totally fine, but for those that do, it’s no longer good enough to simply be the best at your job.
Question 4
When reviewing the careers of standout leaders, what patterns or choices tend to show up consistently?
ZB: Firstly, sticking around when things get difficult. Sometimes that means shouldering the blame internally to protect the team. Sometimes it means having difficult conversations with your team when things get tough. Often, it’s both.
We’ve seen a promising theme of accountability in more recent years, especially amongst younger leaders who are more recently stepping into leadership positions. After making certain decisions about a book, portfolio, or strategy, they want to see those decisions through and deal with the consequences, good or bad. They are setting an example to their team about taking calculated risks and supporting their people through what is usually a consequence of that leader’s choices.
Secondly, transparency. It is, of course, unrealistic to expect leaders to share every intimate detail of company strategy with every employee, but when we speak to people about the best leaders they’ve experienced, they consistently note the importance of understanding their role in the bigger picture and recognising where they are adding value by tying themselves directly to the organisation’s vision or priorities.
This remains true across all functions, not just commercial. IT, operations, claims, HR, and actuarial all play integral roles in allowing the company to reach its goals, and each member of those functions is more productive, engaged, and more likely to be retained if they understand from their managers and leaders what their contribution is, or can be.
Question 5
How is the rise of hybrid and cross-border teams changing the types of leaders companies ask you to identify?
ZB: It has encouraged leaders to build trust with their employees and encourages employees to earn that trust back.
Leaders are subsequently required to build and promote a culture that values outcomes and productivity over timesheets, and to treat their teams as competent adults.
Critically, beyond affecting the types of leaders that are most successful in embracing a hybrid way of working, it is also opening up access to a pool of many more credible options for whom it previously wouldn’t have been feasible, such as parents of young children, people living further away, those with full or complex schedules outside of their day jobs, people with disabilities, et cetera.
This ties back to breaking down groupthink and extending opportunities to people whose current barriers to entry have nothing to do with their credibility or capabilities.
Question 6
What part of the research and execution process do you find the most intellectually rewarding, and why?
ZB: I think it’s working out who the best candidate is from a people perspective. We will frequently end up with fairly long lists of people who would be suitable on paper: who understands their market the best, who has generated the most revenue, who has led the most effective TOM transformations, and who has the most transferable experience.
But whittling that list down to who our top choice or choices would be for this particular mandate, for this particular client, is the most interesting part for me.
Maybe they’re highly ambitious and have a track record of aggressive growth and could double GWP exceptionally quickly. But if we’re working with a more risk-averse client who is looking for a steady next few years, with focuses and priorities other than aggressive growth, they may be perfect for something else but not quite right for this role from a longer-term strategy perspective, and would perhaps themselves feel disillusioned and unsatisfied.
It’s this part of the research that enables us to really get to know the candidates and their perception in the market, and then, to the best of our ability, match client and candidate, all things truly considered.
It is also the most enjoyable part of the research process, as uncovering these more nuanced details requires us to engage heavily with our network to speak with candidates’ former colleagues, leaders, reports, key stakeholders, and clients, in order to build out a well-rounded picture of them beyond their CV.
