Let's Talk →M Search Methodology
The FACT Framework
M Search's candidate evaluation methodology for GTM leadership in PE-backed and VC-backed software. Four dimensions, each assessed against the specific mandate — not the generic role.
Fit
Ability
Credibility
Team
Why Standard Evaluation Fails GTM Leadership Searches
Most executive search processes evaluate candidates on credentials and experience. They ask whether the candidate has held the title before, whether they have the right logos on their resume, and whether they interviewed well. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for a successful GTM leadership hire.
The GTM leadership failures M Search has observed most often share a common pattern: the candidate had strong credentials, performed well in interviews, and had done the job before — just not this version of the job. They fit the title but not the mandate. They had the ability to do a different version of the role but not this one. They had credibility in their prior context but couldn't establish it in the new one. Or they had a track record of strong individual performance but consistently struggled to build a team that operated without them.
The FACT Framework exists to assess all four dimensions specifically — against the mandate, not the title.
Fit
Does this candidate fit the specific mandate — not the generic role title? Fit in a PE-backed company means something precise: the person can operate under board-level financial scrutiny, understands hold period dynamics, and has calibrated expectations about what the first 90 days actually require. A candidate with strong credentials who has only worked in large, mature organizations may have zero fit for a PE portco that needs a GTM leader to build, not manage.
Assessment Signals
- —Has navigated PE or VC board relationships directly
- —Understands the relationship between GTM execution and investment return
- —Compensation expectations match the company stage and equity structure
- —Geographic and logistical fit with the company's operating model
- —Cultural alignment with CEO and founding team
Ability
Can this candidate actually do the specific job this company needs done? Ability is not a proxy for seniority or pedigree. A CRO who scaled a sales team from 50 to 500 reps at a Series D company may have zero ability to stand up a sales function from scratch at a Series B. Ability must be assessed against the specific mandate, not the abstract job title.
Assessment Signals
- —Track record of doing the specific thing this mandate requires
- —Evidence of building vs. scaling vs. optimizing (match to company stage)
- —Demonstrated domain knowledge in this specific market or buyer type
- —Ability to define ICP from first principles, not just inherit a playbook
- —Cross-functional credibility — can work effectively with product and marketing
Credibility
Will this person be taken seriously by the people who matter — board members, operating partners, direct reports, and key customers? Credibility is distinct from credentials. It is assessed through how candidates talk about their work, how they handle challenge questions, and how they describe failures. A candidate who can walk a board through a revenue miss and articulate exactly what went wrong and what they changed has more credibility than one who has only presented in good quarters.
Assessment Signals
- —Can give specific, honest accounts of what went wrong in prior roles
- —References from operating partners or board members who worked with them closely
- —Depth of conviction in their GTM philosophy — not just pattern-matching
- —How they describe building and losing trust with direct reports
- —Track record of being the person CEOs call when the motion breaks
Team
What will this person do with the team they inherit, and what kind of team will they build? Team is the dimension most commonly underweighted in executive search. A GTM leader who joins and immediately replaces key people — without diagnosing whether those people are the problem — causes more damage than the hire was supposed to fix. Conversely, a leader who is too loyal to an underperforming team stalls the company. The ability to read a team accurately and act on that reading is a specific, assessable skill.
Assessment Signals
- —Philosophy on inheriting vs. rebuilding a team
- —How they have handled underperforming direct reports in the past
- —Track record of developing people who weren't initially strong
- —Ability to attract strong candidates into their org (recruiting is a GTM skill)
- —How direct reports describe working for them
How the Framework Is Applied
The FACT Framework is applied across three stages of the M Search process. In the mandate definition phase, each dimension is translated into specific evaluation criteria for the particular search. In the candidate assessment phase, structured interview questions and reference conversations are designed to surface evidence on each dimension. In the presentation phase, candidates are assessed against all four dimensions with specific evidence, not just a ranking.
The framework is particularly valuable in situations where there is a trade-off between dimensions — a candidate with exceptional Ability who has a clear gap in Team, or a candidate with strong Fit and Credibility who has only done a partial version of the required Ability. Making those trade-offs explicit allows clients and Graham to make a genuinely informed hire rather than defaulting to the candidate who performed best in interviews.
At 90 Days: What the Framework Predicts
The FACT Framework was designed to predict 90-day performance, not interview performance. A hire who scores well on all four dimensions should be independently surfacing issues the board already knew existed — a sign they are seeing clearly. They should have a fact-based assessment completed, an agreed action plan with cross-functional sign-off, and the right peer relationships already forming.
The most common 90-day failure modes map directly onto FACT dimension gaps. A leader who gets into fix mode before understanding context (Fit gap). A leader who copy-pastes their last company's playbook without adapting it (Ability gap). A leader whose direct reports aren't buying in (Team gap). A leader who can't establish credibility with the board because they can't speak the language of the investors (Credibility gap).
Getting these right before the hire is made is the only way to avoid them.
Running a GTM leadership search?
Book a 30-minute call with Graham to discuss how the FACT Framework applies to your specific mandate.
Book a Call with Graham
Graham Locklear
Founder & CEO, M Search
Graham developed the FACT Framework over a decade of GTM leadership searches. It is the evaluation methodology used in every M Search engagement.