Leadership intelligence for consequential decisions.
What RHOMB does
RHOMB tests the judgement behind a consequential people decision - an appointment, a succession, a promotion, a change to a leadership team, an acquisition - by establishing what the evidence actually supports. Initially within UK logistics, distribution and supply chain.
It starts with the question
Every piece of work starts with a decision someone is about to make, written as a question.
For example:
-
Should we appoint this person as CEO?
-
Do we need to recruit externally, or is the answer already inside the business?
-
Which of these internal successors is the better risk?
-
Does this executive's reputation stand up when you look at what actually happened?
-
What leadership risk are we taking on if we buy this company?
The question decides what matters. We don't run everyone through the same report.
What we look at
Record
Roles, scope, dates, reporting lines, the companies themselves, ownership changes, results and events - reconstructed from sources, each with its provenance kept.
Circumstances
What was happening around the person at the time. A £50m revenue increase in a buoyant, acquisition-led market means something different from the same increase in a contraction. Inheriting a strategy is different from creating one.
Attribution
Where they were directly accountable, where they contributed, and where they were present. Being in post when something happened is not the same as causing it.
Comparison
People in the market who made a similar move, chosen for actual scope and circumstance rather than matching job titles, and what happened to them. A business-unit director inside a £2bn group can be a better comparison for the CEO of a £200m company than another CEO.
Contradictions
Where the public account, the CV and the numbers disagree. We keep those rather than tidy them away.
What you get back
A direct answer to the question
What we found, which evidence matters and which doesn't, the strongest case for and against, the contradictions, the comparable cases, what we couldn't establish, and what would change the view. Where it needs to travel round a board, it comes as a deck as well.
We don't make the decision.
Measures, where they help
RHOMB has its own measures. We use them where they sharpen the answer, never in place of the evidence.
Market positioning
What the market has already evidenced about someone: the scale, governance level and accountability they have actually been trusted with. Not what the CV says.
Contextual fit
How the conditions behind their record compare with the conditions of the role in question: ownership, business phase, scale, mandate, pressure.
The gap between the two
Whether someone looks under-used, correctly placed, or carrying more risk than a decision accounts for.
People are compared on actual scope rather than title.
Why it's different
Psychometrics measure personality.
Executive search has a placement to complete.
Consulting sells programmes.
Background screening confirms someone held the title on the dates they said.
None of them is set up to answer what a board or an investor is actually asking:
"Does this person's record stand up, and what does it mean here?"
The record builds with the work
RHOMB holds a connected record of the UK logistics market; people, roles, companies, ownership and events, each with its source.
Each question we answer adds to it, so the comparable cases improve over time.
What a client tells us is treated differently. It stays confidential to that client, is never presented as public evidence, and isn't used in work for anyone else.