Leadership gap
A departing Head left a 14-person department needing daily leadership and technical escalation.
Selected work sample · Organisational redesign
Turning a leadership gap into a stronger operating model
I replaced a planned like-for-like hire with one accountable Operations model spanning the release journey.
1 weekProposal made before the vacancy was published
6 unitsIntegrated under one accountable owner
≈50%Lower monthly cost run rate over 18 months
01 / Context
The departure exposed a wider ownership problem.
Default response
Recruit an external replacement for the same functional role.
Structural issue
Separate teams owned steps, but nobody owned the release outcome.
Customer-side evidence
Lost hand-offs and late escalations became delayed releases and artist complaints.Approx. 300,000 active artists and labelsSix operating units
02 / Strategic decision
Replace the structure, not the vacancy.
Within one week, before HR published the vacancy, I proposed a different operating model.
- Avoid external recruitment and onboarding time
- Give the COO one point of accountability
- Develop proven internal operators into Team Leads
The COO approved the proposal during the outgoing Head’s notice period. Planned leave reduced the effective handover to approximately two weeks.
03 / Execution
A practical operating system, built around the work.
Four moves connected structure, workflow, data and Product execution.
Map
Document the full release journey and expose the missing end-to-end owner.
Measure
Define Delivery Time, lead time and a 21-day target, supported by weekly reporting.
Delegate
Appoint internal Team Leads and transfer ownership of workload, systems and KPI accuracy.
Prevent
Turn Operations evidence into Product priorities, clearer guidance and earlier testing.
Artist feedback+Operations data→Roughly 1 in 3 Product initiatives reserved for an Operations priority
04 / Impact
Lower cost. Faster flow. Better quality.
≈50%
reduction in the monthly Operations cost run rate over 18 months, according to Finance reporting.
Headcount moved from approximately 30 to 15 through voluntary departures and roles not being backfilled. There were no layoffs. All six units remained active while reported volumes increased.
Operational change
Before and after, at a glance
Bar lengths compare change within each measure, not across measures.
Before10 days
After1 to 2 days
Paid release registration to aggregator submission, reached within two months.
Before5 min
After1 min
Average internal review time within six months.
Before3.0 / 5
After4.5 / 5
Customer-reported score within six months.
BeforeApprox. 7
AfterApprox. 2
Within six months. First Reply Time also improved from approximately 48 hours to 24 hours or less.
1 to 2 days → 15 days
Delivery lead time
Average time between aggregator acceptance and scheduled publication, reached within two months against a 21-day target.
−40%
Preventable errors
Field Update Requests and copyright-infringement claims each declined within six months. Aggregator tickets caused by pre-release errors fell by approximately 40% within eight months.
3 weeks → 2 weeks
Localisation turnaround
Average turnaround improved by approximately 30% within two months. Video-platform issue resolution also improved from approximately 15 days to 5 days within six months.
Figures are retrospective and rounded. Results were delivered with the Operations teams and cross-functional Product and Engineering partners.
05 / What this demonstrates
Judgment that carries through to execution.
Strategic judgment
Reframed a replacement hire as an operating-model decision.
Ownership
Acted within one week, before the vacancy was published.
Organisational design
Created clear accountability across six operating units.
Cross-functional leadership
Converted Operations evidence into shared Product priorities.
Talent development
Built responsibility through Team Leads, Seniors and guilds.
End-to-end execution
Connected structure, workflow, data and measurable outcomes.