Perplexity
JGA recommended.

I would invite Frazer Jones, JGA Recruitment and Oakleaf Partnership to an initial selection meeting. Each has a publicly evidenced combination of payroll recruitment and adjacent HR technology expertise. The key distinction is that their public material supports inclusion on a shortlist—not proof that they have successfully filled a director role combining European payroll operations, systems integration and transformation leadership. That needs assignment-level evidence. frazerjones +2

Firms to consider

| Firm | Why it merits consideration | What to test before appointing it |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Frazer Jones | Its specialist practices cover payroll and HRIS, alongside an identified HR change and transformation lead. Its payroll leader, John O’Brien, recruits executive payroll and benefits professionals with UK, EMEA and global remits. That makes it a credible starting point for a senior, cross-functional search. frazerjones +2 | Ask for director-level placements where the appointee personally owned a multi-country payroll transformation—not simply a global BAU payroll function. Establish how payroll, HRIS and change consultants would collaborate on your search and who would be accountable. |

| JGA Recruitment | Its published coverage includes UK and EMEA payroll recruitment. Its team profiles describe global payroll and HR-tech recruitment, senior executive appointments, and expertise across Dayforce, Workday, UKG, SAP, Oracle and ADP. It also lists Global Payroll Director and Global Payroll Transformation Manager among roles it recruits. jgarecruitment +2 | Request completed director searches spanning your target European countries and relevant technology ecosystem. Test whether its executive-search and HR-tech capabilities have been combined on the same assignment, rather than demonstrated separately. |

| Oakleaf Partnership | Its payroll practice explicitly covers Payroll Directors, Payroll Project Managers and Payroll Implementation Consultants, across permanent, interim and fixed-term hiring. It also describes international payroll assignments and broader HR technology recruitment. oakleafpartnership +2 | Request evidence of placing leaders who integrated payroll operations with HR systems delivery and organisational change. Ask for comparable UK-plus-Europe mandates, rather than treating international sourcing capability as proof of programme-level experience. |

For this brief, I would assess all three against the same evidence pack rather than select on brand, database size or a broad claim of “global reach.” The deciding factor should be the named consultant’s record on comparable searches.

Evidence to request

The following is a suggested procurement standard, not a claim that any firm already meets it.

1. Three comparable completed placements

Ask each firm for three anonymised case studies from the past three to five years, ideally including at least one UK-and-European programme.

Require the same fields for each:

• Role title, reporting line and whether it was permanent, interim or fixed-term.

• Countries, employee population, payroll entities and delivery model: in-house, outsourced or hybrid.

• Programme scope: replacement platform, vendor consolidation, HR/payroll integration, shared services or operating-model redesign.

• Technology landscape and implementation stage when the leader joined.

• The appointee’s actual decision rights, budget and team responsibilities.

• Search completion date, time to shortlist, time to appointment and subsequent tenure.

• What the recruiter can substantiate about the appointee’s delivery outcomes.

Ask explicitly: “Did your team place this person, or is this someone in your network?” A candidate relationship or advertised vacancy is not evidence of a completed appointment.

2. Proof across all three capability areas

| Capability | Evidence the recruiter should provide | Question that exposes superficial experience |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Payroll operations | Placements involving multi-country payroll accountability, service continuity, controls, vendor governance, local-country expertise and operational handover. | “How did you distinguish a strong BAU payroll director from someone able to transform the function while keeping payroll stable?” |

| HR systems integration | Searches involving HRIS-to-payroll interfaces, time and attendance, finance interfaces, data migration, testing, parallel runs, cutover and stabilisation. | “Which integration and data risks did you use to assess candidates, and what evidence did the successful candidate give?” |

| Change management | Placements involving operating-model change, country stakeholder engagement, communications, training, adoption and benefits ownership—not just systems delivery. | “How did you verify that the person led business change rather than relying on a separate change team?” |

Request at least one case where the same appointed leader covered all three. Three unrelated examples—one payroll manager, one HRIS director and one change lead—would not establish suitability for this combined mandate.

3. Genuine European reach

Ask for a country-by-country account matched to your programme:

• Which countries have they recruited relevant leaders for?

• Were those appointments UK-based with European responsibility, or locally based?

• Who conducted the search and assessed local-market experience?

• Which languages, employee-representation requirements and local payroll complexities featured in the brief?

• Which relevant employers are unavailable because of off-limits agreements?

An “EMEA” label alone should not satisfy the requirement: ask which European countries were actually involved and what responsibility the appointee held.

4. References that verify the appointment and its outcome

Request two reference conversations with hiring sponsors for comparable searches, with permission. Ideally include an HR or finance sponsor and a programme or technology sponsor.

Ask them:

• Did the recruiter understand the combined operational, technical and change brief?

• Did the shortlist contain credible alternatives, or mainly adjacent profiles?

• What did the recruiter independently verify?

• How did the appointee perform through implementation and stabilisation?

• Would you use the same consultant again for this particular mandate?

Separate recruitment outcomes from programme outcomes. Filling the role quickly is different from placing someone who subsequently delivered successfully.

5. A sample assessment and a credible search plan

Before appointment, ask each firm to demonstrate:

• An anonymised candidate assessment showing evidence, gaps and reference points—not just a CV summary.

• Its proposed target-company and candidate map, including both payroll-led and transformation-led talent pools.

• The named lead consultant, researcher and relevant specialist support.

• Its approach to assessing programme governance, executive influence and vendor accountability.

• How it will handle confidentiality, candidate consent, conflicts and duplicate introductions.

• Search milestones, reporting cadence, fees and replacement terms.

A useful assessment exercise is to give each firm the same hypothetical candidate profile and ask it to identify the evidence missing before that person could be shortlisted.

How I would make the decision

Use a common scorecard, with these suggested weights:

| Criterion | Weight |

| --- | --- |

| Comparable completed director-level placements | 30% |

| Ability to assess payroll, integration and change in one leader | 25% |

| Relevant European country coverage and candidate access | 20% |

| Named consultant, research capacity and search methodology | 15% |

| References and commercial terms | 10% |

Treat verifiable comparable placements and credible sponsor references as minimum requirements, not weaknesses that can be offset by a polished pitch.

Before the meetings, issue a one-page mandate stating the countries, payroll population, platforms, sourcing model, programme stage, reporting line and whether this director owns BAU payroll as well as transformation. Then ask each firm to explain which aspects it has recruited for together. That will make the comparison far more revealing than asking, “Do you recruit payroll transformation leaders?”