METHODOLOGYFile · SRX-IM / Rev. March 2026
IMPACT is the diagnostic we run on every engaged mandate, for every C-level, VP and Director hire. It replaces the standard "seventy interview questions and a long list" with seven diagnostic questions — six mapped to the IMPACT acronym, plus a seventh, Durability Under Pressure, that we ask alongside it — and a five-step retained search process that keeps every mandate disciplined, transparent, and time-bound.
Refined across 25+ years of C-level, VP and Director technical placements across APAC and EMEA. Validated against 8 in 10 still in role at 12 months.
v1.0 · Last updated March 2026
The APEX Protocol
Every Sercxi mandate follows a four-phase protocol. Below the protocol sits a five-step operational sequence and a six-dimension assessment rubric — the operational and diagnostic depth that turns the protocol into a placement.
Pattern
Verifiable evidence of high performance and durability under operational pressure.
Trajectory
Career growth rate and adaptability across changing competitive landscapes.
Alignment
Cultural and governance fit with the sponsor's strategic objectives.
Timing
Readiness for leadership matched to the immediate organisational moment.
The protocol is the strategic frame. The five-step sequence below it is how a mandate runs. The six-dimension IMPACT rubric is how the executive asset is scored.
Process Flow
IMPACT Framework applied. Role definition and success criteria established.
Target universe identified. Displacement Index applied to refine sector scope.
Partner-led outreach. No researcher intermediary. Relationship-first approach.
35-day median to shortlist. Assessed against six IMPACT dimensions plus the seventh diagnostic question. Written profiles.
Offer management, onboarding support. 8 in 10 still in role at 12 months, tracked.
IMPACT Framework applied. Role definition and success criteria established.
Target universe identified. Displacement Index applied to refine sector scope.
Partner-led outreach. No researcher intermediary. Relationship-first approach.
35-day median to shortlist. Assessed against six IMPACT dimensions plus the seventh diagnostic question. Written profiles.
Offer management, onboarding support. 8 in 10 still in role at 12 months, tracked.
The Diagnostic
The six wedges are the dimensions that spell IMPACT. A seventh diagnostic question — Durability Under Pressure — is asked alongside the wheel, not inside it. Select a wedge to jump to its detail; the vignette below is the actual finding from a live mandate, anonymised. The instrument is discrete, not smoothed: a question is either surfaced, or it isn't.
The framework
Six dimensions and one integrating question. Applied to every mandate rather than taught as theory.
Integrated
The search aligns to a business objective, not an isolated role requirement.
Methodical
A fixed cadence with predefined checkpoints and written deliverables at each stage.
Precision
Targeted sourcing, machine-assisted and human-verified. No volume tactics.
Accountable
Partner-owned. A single point of contact from brief to placement and beyond.
Collaborative
Stakeholder alignment is built into the process rather than assumed at the outset.
Timely
35 days median to shortlist. Sequenced deadlines, no arbitrary delay.
The integrating question
Would we put our own name behind this appointment in twelve months' time? Where the answer is not yes, the shortlist does not go out.
In practice
Every mandate goes through pre-market assessment. Role definition validated, stakeholders aligned, decision criteria clarified. Where one of those fails, activation is delayed rather than forced.
AI generates the long-list. The mandate partner reviews every profile before any outreach. Precision over volume, and no approach made in your name that you have not sanctioned.
Candidates are assessed for twelve-month retention probability, not skill match alone: history, motivation, and the conditions under which they have previously succeeded or stalled.
Methodology
Seventy questions produce a shortlist. Seven produce a placement.
Our IMPACT methodology is deliberately narrow. Each question is designed to surface a single high-signal data point across six IMPACT dimensions, plus a seventh standalone diagnostic question. Not a checklist - a diagnostic. Seven questions where others ask seventy. Not because we're lazy - because precision requires restraint.
Can this person navigate a matrix organisation's politics while still having the conviction to pull a request? Leaders who operate credibly in both the boardroom and the engineering standup are extraordinarily rare. This is the first filter.
"A CTO candidate's infrastructure philosophy called for an 18-month platform rebuild. The board wanted visible progress in six months. We surfaced this misalignment before the final interview - saving both parties a costly mishire."
Everyone claims to want a transformation. We ask why. The leader motivated by the problem itself - not the title it comes with - is the one who stays through the hard middle.
"A VP Engineering candidate had moved laterally into a failing business unit nobody wanted. When asked why, the answer wasn't narrative polish - it was the technical challenge itself. That pattern repeated across four career decisions. Genuine drive, not resume optimisation."
The ability to make clear decisions with incomplete data. Not recklessness - structured reasoning when the map is still being drawn. In distributed infrastructure and regulated FinTech, this is non-negotiable.
"During a greenfield data centre build, the candidate had committed to a cooling architecture before regulatory approvals were finalised. We assessed how they structured that decision: what they treated as reversible, what they locked in, and what they deferred. The reasoning quality mattered more than the outcome."
Scar tissue from staying when others left. The accumulated wisdom from navigating migrations that went sideways, from rebuilding teams after the wrong hire. This is the strongest predictor of future performance.
"A Head of Platform had overseen a cloud migration that failed spectacularly - and stayed to rebuild. We looked at what they changed the second time: team structure, vendor governance, escalation cadence. The scar tissue was the qualification."
The quiet variable that determines whether a placement transforms an organisation or merely fills a seat. We measure it because hope is not a strategy.
"A Chief Data Officer candidate rejected a board's preferred vendor after conducting their own evaluation. They presented the counter-case, absorbed the political cost, and were proven right eighteen months later. Conviction with evidence - not stubbornness."
How a leader builds credibility across functions, levels, and time zones simultaneously. Trust built in Singapore does not automatically transfer to Amsterdam. We look for leaders who understand that distinction.
"A regional CTO joining from outside the company achieved buy-in from a sceptical engineering team within 60 days. We mapped how: weekly technical deep-dives, transparent decision logs, and one deliberately vulnerable admission about what they didn't know. Speed-to-trust as a measurable capability."
How a leader performs beyond the honeymoon period. Not rehearsed answers - the quality of resilience when the initial goodwill fades and the real operating conditions set in. This is what separates candidates who endure from candidates who merely arrive.
"When asked how they would approach an AI workload they had never encountered, the candidate didn't bluff. They described the diagnostic process: what analogies they would test, what they would measure first, and, critically, when they would stop and hire someone who knew more. That reasoning process was the signal."
Can this person navigate a matrix organisation's politics while still having the conviction to pull a request? Leaders who operate credibly in both the boardroom and the engineering standup are extraordinarily rare. This is the first filter.
"A CTO candidate's infrastructure philosophy called for an 18-month platform rebuild. The board wanted visible progress in six months. We surfaced this misalignment before the final interview - saving both parties a costly mishire."
Everyone claims to want a transformation. We ask why. The leader motivated by the problem itself - not the title it comes with - is the one who stays through the hard middle.
"A VP Engineering candidate had moved laterally into a failing business unit nobody wanted. When asked why, the answer wasn't narrative polish - it was the technical challenge itself. That pattern repeated across four career decisions. Genuine drive, not resume optimisation."
The ability to make clear decisions with incomplete data. Not recklessness - structured reasoning when the map is still being drawn. In distributed infrastructure and regulated FinTech, this is non-negotiable.
"During a greenfield data centre build, the candidate had committed to a cooling architecture before regulatory approvals were finalised. We assessed how they structured that decision: what they treated as reversible, what they locked in, and what they deferred. The reasoning quality mattered more than the outcome."
Scar tissue from staying when others left. The accumulated wisdom from navigating migrations that went sideways, from rebuilding teams after the wrong hire. This is the strongest predictor of future performance.
"A Head of Platform had overseen a cloud migration that failed spectacularly - and stayed to rebuild. We looked at what they changed the second time: team structure, vendor governance, escalation cadence. The scar tissue was the qualification."
The quiet variable that determines whether a placement transforms an organisation or merely fills a seat. We measure it because hope is not a strategy.
"A Chief Data Officer candidate rejected a board's preferred vendor after conducting their own evaluation. They presented the counter-case, absorbed the political cost, and were proven right eighteen months later. Conviction with evidence - not stubbornness."
How a leader builds credibility across functions, levels, and time zones simultaneously. Trust built in Singapore does not automatically transfer to Amsterdam. We look for leaders who understand that distinction.
"A regional CTO joining from outside the company achieved buy-in from a sceptical engineering team within 60 days. We mapped how: weekly technical deep-dives, transparent decision logs, and one deliberately vulnerable admission about what they didn't know. Speed-to-trust as a measurable capability."
How a leader performs beyond the honeymoon period. Not rehearsed answers - the quality of resilience when the initial goodwill fades and the real operating conditions set in. This is what separates candidates who endure from candidates who merely arrive.
"When asked how they would approach an AI workload they had never encountered, the candidate didn't bluff. They described the diagnostic process: what analogies they would test, what they would measure first, and, critically, when they would stop and hire someone who knew more. That reasoning process was the signal."
The full methodology - diagnostic logic, sourcing, and post-placement governance - is documented in one place.
Explore the full methodology →Origin & Validation
IMPACT was refined across a quarter-century of engaged technical executive placements across APAC and EMEA — the mandates that make up Sercxi's operating history.
The seven questions are the ones that survived. Earlier iterations of the diagnostic carried additional axes that proved redundant against the four observable outcomes we track post-placement: twelve-month retention, first-90-day integration, counter-offer defection, and mandate completion. Questions that did not move those outcomes were retired.
The instrument is validated against 8 in 10 still in role at 12 months — well above the industry aggregate of ~60% at 18 months. The scale is discrete, the cadence is quarterly, and the version history is public.
The four upfront gates, the five-stage process, the Day 0 to Day 80 sprint, and the named deliverables at each checkpoint — all live on the Practice page.
Want the one-page summary?
Download the IMPACT Framework brief - a board-ready PDF that explains the six IMPACT dimensions, the seventh diagnostic question, and how we apply them across mandate types.
Cite this framework
Sercxi (2026). IMPACT: A Diagnostic for Technical Leadership Placement. Methodology Whitepaper v1.0. Sercxi Executive Search.
A redacted one-page scorecard from a completed mandate. Names, employer, and identifying detail removed. What remains is the shape of the assessment: the seven diagnostic questions, the calibrated evidence, and the recommendation grade. Delivered by email. No calendar link, no follow-up sequence.
One email · Redacted PDF · No follow-up sequence
Thirty minutes with the founder, scoped to your live or planned mandate. We will walk through how each dimension applies, what it surfaces, and whether IMPACT is the right diagnostic for the role you are about to commission.
Secure calendar allocation — active or impending cross-border mandates only.
Confidential · 30 minutes · Partner-led · For active or planned mandates