The ‘Altitude’ Gap: Ehsan Ali Au on Why Senior Candidates Miss Director Roles

In a recent LinkedIn post, Ehsan Ali Au explores a common pitfall that senior professionals encounter when interviewing for high-level roles, particularly at the Director level. He highlights how candidates, despite possessing significant experience and managing large-scale projects, can fail to secure offers due to a misalignment in how they present their achievements – a concept he terms the “altitude” of their communication.

Au recounts the experience of a strong candidate who reached the final round for a Director position at a Big 4 bank, only to be rejected with the feedback, “Strong candidate. Just went with someone who was a better fit.” This candidate had managed a $14 million transformation involving six workstreams and high visibility. However, when asked to describe the program, her response focused on execution details rather than strategic impact.

“I managed timelines, coordinated stakeholders, and delivered within scope and budget.”

According to Ehsan Ali Au, while factually correct, this description operates at the “wrong altitude.” Drawing on his 12 years of experience in Australian enterprise IT, Au observes that this pattern is prevalent among senior professionals whose profiles are often filtered out not due to a lack of experience, but because their self-presentation doesn’t match the expected level of strategic thinking for the role.

Understanding Role Altitude

Au elaborates on how different roles require distinct communication altitudes, suggesting a progression in what hiring managers look for:

• Developer: “What did you build?”
• Senior Manager: “What did you deliver?”
• Director: “What did you change?”
• Head / VP: “What did you make possible?”

He emphasizes that the underlying work might be the same, but the framing and perspective must shift dramatically to align with the seniority and responsibilities of the target role. The candidate in his example, despite managing a substantial transformation, was perceived as a “delivery manager” rather than a “strategic leader” because her narrative focused on the mechanics of delivery rather than the organizational change and lasting impact.

The Impact of Misaligned Perception

The consequences of this “altitude” misstep can be significant, Au points out. Once a perception is formed, it’s incredibly difficult to correct, especially in competitive hiring processes. He notes that interviewers often use diplomatic language to reject candidates who don’t fit the perceived level of seniority or strategic capability.

“Strong candidate, but…” → “Not quite what we’re looking for.” → “Better fit elsewhere.”

This can lead candidates to doubt their own readiness, believing they are not senior enough, when in reality, as Au argues, they are simply being “interpreted at the wrong level.” He contrasts the candidate’s initial response with what a Director-level answer might sound like, focusing on the lasting change and organizational impact.

Crafting a Director-Level Narrative

Ehsan Ali Au provides an example of how the same project could be framed at a higher altitude:

“I rebuilt how the bank executes change. Six workstreams. $14M delivered on time. But more importantly, we left behind a framework the organisation is still using two years later.”

This reframing shifts the focus from the execution of tasks to the strategic change and sustained value delivered to the organization. Au’s analysis underscores the critical importance for senior professionals to understand the specific ‘altitude’ expected for the roles they are pursuing and to tailor their communication accordingly to effectively convey their strategic impact and leadership capabilities.