The automotive industry is no stranger to complexity. What has changed is the nature of that complexity, and with it, the profile of the leaders required to navigate it.
Most OEMs are now firmly in the mid-stage of transformation: meaningful EV volumes are in market, software-defined vehicle (SDV) platforms are under development, and large-scale restructuring is underway. Yet relatively few are truly prepared for what comes next: a late-stage reality defined by EV-first portfolios, production-grade SDV platforms, and the managed sunset of internal combustion.
There is, of course, a spectrum. Many Chinese EV-native OEMs are already operating in this late stage, unencumbered by legacy architectures. By contrast, most established Western OEMs remain mid-transition—balancing two worlds at once.
This creates a set of leadership demands shaped by what might be called the Three Vs:
- Variability of markets (market maturity, competitive intensity, regulatory environments, capital flows)
- Volatility of events (regulation, geopolitics, demand cycles)
- Velocity of change (technology development, product iteration, competitive shifts)
Across OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers, the most difficult C-suite appointments are no longer defined by hierarchy or title. They are defined by tension: between legacy engineering and software, between capital discipline and transformation, between globalisation and geopolitical fragmentation.
The result is a growing mismatch between the roles that need to be filled, and the leaders available to fill them.
Where scarcity is most acute
The most consistently difficult role to appoint is the Chief Software or Information & Digital Officer. Not because the mandate is unclear, if anything, it is too broad, but because truly credible candidates are vanishingly rare.
Automotive businesses now require deep expertise in software platforms, data architecture, cybersecurity and over-the-air capability. Yet these capabilities must be deployed within an environment shaped by safety-critical engineering, long product cycles and heavy regulation. Leaders from technology companies often underestimate this reality; those from within automotive are too often rebadged as “digital” without having built or scaled software at meaningful scale.
Boards, in practice, are searching for something more nuanced: individuals who have scaled software in complex, constrained environments, who can attract talent into non-native cultures, and who possess the political acuity to reshape organisations that were not designed for them.
A similar tension defines the evolving role of the Chief Technology or Engineering Officer. Historically one of the most stable positions in the sector, it is now among the most exposed.
The modern CTO must simultaneously oversee electrified platforms, battery strategy, software-defined vehicle architectures and advanced driver systems—all while managing the managed decline of internal combustion. Very few leaders have operated credibly across both physical (mechanical) and virtual (software) domains, let alone led the transition between them. Boards face an uncomfortable trade-off: promote from within and risk underweighting software or hire externally and risk organisational rejection.
Less visible, but no less critical, is the growing difficulty of appointing Chief Supply Chain and Procurement leaders. What was once a function focused on cost optimisation through globalisation has become a strategic nerve centre.
Geopolitical exposure, particularly to China and the US, the securing of critical minerals, ESG compliance, and the fragility of semiconductor supply have fundamentally reshaped the role. Leaders must now think in terms of resilience and risk as much as efficiency. Traditional automotive profiles often lack this broader lens, while external candidates struggle to grasp the scale and intricacy of OEM supply networks.
The Chief Financial Officer role has also shifted, though more subtly. It is not always difficult to fill, but it is increasingly difficult to fill well.
Automotive CFOs are now required to manage parallel business models: legacy internal combustion and emerging electrified platforms, each with different economics, timelines and risk profiles. They must navigate volatile regulation, uncertain incentives and sustained margin pressure, while maintaining investor confidence. The rarest individuals are those who can fund transformation without constraining it—balancing capital discipline with strategic optionality.
Alongside this, the role of the Chief Human Resources Officer has moved firmly into the centre of transformation. Large-scale reskilling, workforce rationalisation, cultural change and leadership pipeline redesign are no longer adjacent concerns; they are core to enterprise value.
Yet few CHROs have led both deep restructuring and large-scale talent reinvention, particularly in unionised, safety-critical environments. The consequence is often underestimated: a weak CHRO can slow transformation more effectively than a weak technologist.
Finally, the Chief Sustainability or ESG Officer role is only difficult to fill when organisations are serious about it.
In automotive, sustainability is not a communications exercise. It spans lifecycle emissions, battery recycling, regulatory compliance, and capital allocation decisions. The role demands fluency across engineering, finance, legal and public affairs—an intersection where genuinely credible leaders remain scarce.
What this reveals about the market
Across these roles, a clear pattern emerges. The hardest positions to fill are those that require leaders to operate across domains that have historically been separate: industrial and digital, operational and geopolitical, financial and technological.
They also tend to challenge existing power structures, which raises the bar further. It is not enough to be technically capable; these leaders must be able to influence, rewire and, at times, confront deeply embedded organisational norms.
Perhaps most importantly, failure in these roles is highly visible—and highly consequential. The margin for error is small, and the cost of getting it wrong, or delaying the inevitable, is significant.
How leading boards are responding
The more thoughtful boards are adjusting their approach accordingly.
Rather than searching for perfect external hires, many are investing earlier in internal development, building “shadow successors” who can grow into these roles over time. Others are redefining roles more frequently, acknowledging that a job description written two years ago is unlikely to remain fit for purpose in a market moving at this pace.
There is also a growing acceptance of imperfect solutions: overlapping mandates between technology and digital leaders, or temporary dual incumbencies that allow capability to be built in situ. In parallel, partnerships and ecosystems are being used to offset gaps that cannot be filled quickly through hiring alone.
What sits beneath all of this is a shift in mindset. The question is no longer simply who can do the job. It is who can evolve with it.
A closing thought
The uncomfortable reality for many automotive organisations is this: the leaders required for the late stage of transformation are not the same as those who successfully navigated the early and mid stages.
The critical question, therefore, is not whether you can fill today’s roles. It is whether your leadership bench is being built for the version of the industry that is fast approaching, or the one that is already disappearing.
To discuss this further please contact Jim Berriman.
