How We Work
Palio operates with a small number of explicit constraints:
-
We take on a limited number of engagements at any one time
-
All work is delivered directly by the founder
-
Engagements are structured to remain intact after placement
-
Accountability does not end when an offer is signed
These constraints exist to protect outcomes — not to scale activity.
Where accountability usually breaks down
In most executive search engagements, accountability is implicitly time-bound.
It is strongest during the search process itself and weakens rapidly once an offer is accepted.
This is not because firms lack competence or intent.
It is because the commercial and operating models are designed around process completion, not outcome delivery.
As a result:
-
Responsibility peaks during interviews and negotiation
-
Risk is assumed to transfer at start date
-
Early signs of misalignment are treated as “normal settling”
-
Intervention becomes awkward once formal obligations have ended
By the time under-performance is undeniable, the original engagement has already closed and responsibility has quietly shifted back to the client.
This pattern is common, predictable, and rarely discussed openly.
How accountability is treated differently
Accountability in Palio engagements is not tied to milestones in the hiring process.
It is tied to what happens after the hire begins.
This changes how engagements are structured from the outset:
-
Success is defined in advance, in operational terms, not retrospectively
-
Engagements are designed to remain active beyond start date
-
Early signs of misalignment are surfaced and addressed rather than normalised
-
Responsibility does not end at offer acceptance
This is not a matter of intent or effort.
It is a matter of design.
Accountability structures only hold when they are explicit, reciprocal, and supported by both parties. For that reason, this way of working is applied selectively and only where conditions support it.
What this requires in practice
Accountability cannot be sustained unilaterally.
For this structure to hold, certain conditions must be present on both sides of the engagement.
In practice, this means:
-
Success criteria are agreed in advance and treated as authoritative
-
Decision ownership is explicit and consistent
-
Engagement pace reflects alignment readiness rather than external pressure
-
Early concerns are addressed directly rather than deferred
-
Intervention remains possible after the hire begins
When these conditions are not present, accountability mechanisms lose meaning and are not offered.
This is why Palio engagements are selective by design.
How this is applied
This page describes the principles that govern accountability once an engagement begins.
It is not intended to enumerate every mechanism that may apply in every situation.
Specific commitments are structured only after context, decision authority, and success criteria are clear. This ensures accountability remains operational rather than symbolic, and retains meaning when pressure appears.
Closing frame
This page exists to clarify how accountability is governed once an engagement begins.
It does not replace conversation, nor does it attempt to summarise every possible scenario. Its role is to make explicit the principles that shape responsibility under pressure.
Whether this way of working is appropriate depends on context. When it is, the structure described here becomes operational rather than theoretical.