Global Head of Agentic Automation Capability
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It says "e.g." meaning those are examples, not exclusive? Probably we should only output those headings if content exists. The Person could be considered part of Requirements or Qualifications? Might be better to include as a separate section? But not in list; maybe we should ignore or incorporate into Requirements. The instruction: "Use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It suggests those are typical headings; we can also use others if needed? It says "use for section headings (e.g. ...)" implies we should use those headings when appropriate; but we can also use other headings if needed? Safer to stick to those headings. The Person content could be placed under Requirements or Qualifications. Since there is a "Qualifications" heading in examples, we could put The Person under Qualifications. However the posting already has a Requirements section with bullet list; The Person is separate descriptive traits. Could treat as Qualifications. We'll output sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications (for The Person). Benefits: posting says "A comprehensive benefits package will be provided and discussed during the interview process." That's a statement about benefits but not specific. According to rule: never create Benefits section unless posting actually states them. It does state that a comprehensive benefits package will be provided, but not details. Is that enough? It says "A comprehensive benefits package will be provided and discussed during the interview process." That's a statement about benefits existing. Might be considered stating benefits, albeit vague. The rule: "never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them." It does state benefits exist, so we can include Benefits section with that sentence. Pay: there is a sentence about pay range: "This range represents a good-faith estimate at the time of posting and is subject to periodic review. The final offer will be based on factors such as the candidate’s skills, qualifications, experience, and the cost of labor in the specific geographic location where the work will be performed, in accordance with applicable pay transparency laws." That's a statement about pay but not actual numbers. It states that there is a range (though not given). It mentions pay transparency laws. So we could include Pay section with that sentence. Schedule: posting includes "Location and Travel Global, full time. Base location flexible within our operating regions. Native or C2 proficiency in English. Willingness to travel as the role requires, to client sites, partner events and our regional teams." That's about location/travel, not schedule. No explicit schedule (e.g., full-time). It says full time. That could be schedule. It says "Global, full time." So schedule: full time. We could include Schedule section with that. However rule: "never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them." It does state full time, so schedule exists. We'll include.
We must not repeat job title as heading. Not include Job ID etc. Remove boilerplate: EEO, privacy notice, etc. Also remove duplicated lines, application instructions. We'll keep substantive info.
We need to preserve all substantive information; do not invent or summarize away detail. So we need to keep all details from About the Role, Responsibilities (including subpoints), Requirements, The Person (as Qualifications), Benefits statement, Pay statement, Schedule (full time). Also location and travel maybe could be part of Schedule? But schedule section is for schedule; location/travel could be separate? Not in list; maybe we could incorporate location/travel into About the role or Responsibilities? But we have to preserve all substantive info; we could add a
for section headings (e.g. ...)" implies we should use those headings when appropriate; but we can also use other headings if needed? Safer to stick to those headings. The Person content could be placed under Requirements or Qualifications. Since there is a "Qualifications" heading in examples, we could put The Person under Qualifications. However the posting already has a Requirements section with bullet list; The Person is separate descriptive traits. Could treat as Qualifications. We'll output sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications (for The Person). Benefits: posting says "A comprehensive benefits package will be provided and discussed during the interview process." That's a statement about benefits but not specific. According to rule: never create Benefits section unless posting actually states them. It does state that a comprehensive benefits package will be provided, but not details. Is that enough? It says "A comprehensive benefits package will be provided and discussed during the interview process." That's a statement about benefits existing. Might be considered stating benefits, albeit vague. The rule: "never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them." It does state benefits exist, so we can include Benefits section with that sentence. Pay: there is a sentence about pay range: "This range represents a good-faith estimate at the time of posting and is subject to periodic review. The final offer will be based on factors such as the candidate’s skills, qualifications, experience, and the cost of labor in the specific geographic location where the work will be performed, in accordance with applicable pay transparency laws." That's a statement about pay but not actual numbers. It states that there is a range (though not given). It mentions pay transparency laws. So we could include Pay section with that sentence. Schedule: posting includes "Location and Travel Global, full time. Base location flexible within our operating regions. Native or C2 proficiency in English. Willingness to travel as the role requires, to client sites, partner events and our regional teams." That's about location/travel, not schedule. No explicit schedule (e.g., full-time). It says full time. That could be schedule. It says "Global, full time." So schedule: full time. We could include Schedule section with that. However rule: "never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them." It does state full time, so schedule exists. We'll include. We must not repeat job title as heading. Not include Job ID etc. Remove boilerplate: EEO, privacy notice, etc. Also remove duplicated lines, application instructions. We'll keep substantive info. We need to preserve all substantive information; do not invent or summarize away detail. So we need to keep all details from About the Role, Responsibilities (including subpoints), Requirements, The Person (as Qualifications), Benefits statement, Pay statement, Schedule (full time). Also location and travel maybe could be part of Schedule? But schedule section is for schedule; location/travel could be separate? Not in list; maybe we could incorporate location/travel into About the role or Responsibilities? But we have to preserve all substantive info; we could add a
under About the role for location/travel? However About the role already has a paragraph; we could add another paragraph after it. But we must not invent headings not in list unless needed. Could add a
for location/travel under About the role? Might be okay. But better to keep location/travel as a separate paragraph under About the role? The instruction: "Use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It doesn't forbid other headings, but suggests using those. To be safe, we can include location/travel as a
under About the role after the initial paragraph. Or we could create a separate section "Location and Travel" but not in list; risk. I'll incorporate into About the role as an additional paragraph. Now we need to output only HTML fragment, no /, no markdown. We'll structure:
About the role
Roboyo AI is a category shaper in Applied AI and Agentic Automation. ... (the initial paragraph up to "About the Role") Actually the "About the Role" heading is separate; we need to include the content under About the role heading (the paragraph after "About the Role"). The initial paragraph before "About the Role" is generic company description; we should include that as part of About the role? Probably yes. The instructions: "Do NOT repeat the job title as a heading (the page already shows it)". The job title is "Global Head of Agentic Automation Capability". The page already shows it, so we don't repeat. The About the role section should contain the description after that heading. But we can also include the earlier company description as part of About the role; it's substantive. We'll include it. Thus
About the role
Roboyo AI is a category shaper in Applied AI and Agentic Automation. We help leading enterprises move from automation projects and AI experiments into governed, production-grade systems that execute real work across workflows, processes, products and services. Our heritage is in scaled enterprise automation; our future is Applied AI and Agentic Automation: autonomous agents, AI engineering squads, process orchestration, data and knowledge foundations, and human-in-the-loop governance embedded deeply into how our clients operate. We are not here to sell AI theatre. We are here to turn AI into working systems, measurable outcomes and repeatable transformation programs.
As Global Head of Agentic Automation Capability at Roboyo, you will lead our largest capability and own the flagship offering that defines us in the market. You inherit a global automation capability with real scale: experienced practitioners, deep client relationships and a revenue base built over years of enterprise delivery. Your mandate is to carry that base forward and change what it sells. The process and workflow mastery already inside these teams is the hardest part of agentic to buy, and the reason enterprises pick us over a model provider or a systems integrator. Converting it, without breaking the business that funds the conversion, is the job. Working closely with market leadership, sales and our partners, you will own what Roboyo sells in agentic: the offering and its P&L, the IP and assets behind it, the pricing architecture and the risk we carry on outcome-based work, the platforms it builds on, our global partner relationships, and the capability to deliver it at scale. You will lead the highest stakes pre-sales personally and turn our strongest delivery into reusable IP. We are looking for an experienced leader with a deep client network who combines expertise in workflow and process with commercial and technical ownership. Someone who attracts top-tier talent to run agentic consulting engagements and deliver systems that reach production and stay accountable. The window for this is open now. Enterprises are moving from pilots to production, and very few firms hold frontier partnerships and deep process heritage at the same time. This is a chance to define a category rather than catch up to one.
Location and Travel: Global, full time. Base location flexible within our operating regions. Native or C2 proficiency in English. Willingness to travel as the role requires, to client sites, partner events and our regional teams.
Then Responsibilities:Responsibilities
- The offering and its economics: Hold global P&L accountability for the agentic capability, its revenue growth, delivery economics, pricing architecture and the risk envelope on outcome-based work. Own the agentic offer shelf and back it with what wins: offering materials, demos, reference architectures, assets, accelerators and pricing guidance. Act as gatekeeper for commercial and delivery governance on major agentic proposals, holding the line on margin, scope and deliverability before we commit. Protect the automation revenue that funds the pivot while converting it, so the base stays healthy as the mix shifts.
- Sales and go to market: Lead pre-sales personally where the deal is largest, most complex or most novel. Own global partner and platform relationships across our frontier AI partnerships and our established automation vendors, including co-sell, joint positioning and our certification standing. Serve as an external ambassador for Roboyo, carrying our IP and point of view into the market through thought leadership, analyst conversations and published client stories. Work as one with market leadership and the other capability leads, so clients buy one Roboyo rather than a set of service lines.
- Engineering standard, methodology and IP: Define the autonomy thresholds, evaluation standards and guardrails for what we are willing to put into production. Own the delivery methodology for agentic work, from discovery through production and into measured client value. Decide our platforms and tooling, and which assets get built. Convert our strongest delivery work into reusable IP, and market and technology shifts into propositions clients will buy. Turn advances in AI-assisted engineering into leverage inside our own delivery, so we build faster and at better economics than the market.
- People and capability: Set and uphold the standard for who delivers this work, from hiring through development pathways and certification depth. Own the pathway that takes our automation community into agentic: cohorts, credentials, enablement and a practitioner community that carries the standard between regions. Own global demand and capacity planning for the capability, including how bench time is invested. Act as tollgate for key hires and promotions, and give the feedback that makes our careers framework real. Escalate the risks that matter to the executive early, with a recommendation attached.
- The First Six Months: Flagship offer, pricing and assets live in market, and sellers can sell them without you in the room. An automation community that knows what it is becoming: the pathway to agentic defined and communicated, a first cohort already delivering agentic work for clients, and a practitioner community live and seen as the go-to place for knowledge sharing, learning and best practice. Methodology defined and embedded with teams, so agentic work reaches production and its value is measured at client P&L level. Partner standing on track, with certification targets met and joint case studies published for each partnership that requires them. One proprietary asset or piece of IP for the offering in production, embedded into the sales motion and delivery. A baseline for agentic delivery economics established and reported, with a credible plan for where margin goes next.
Requirements
- 15+ years in automation and digital transformation, including a minimum of 5 years at Director or VP level leading globally distributed teams.
- Full P&L ownership of an automation or AI practice, with accountability for revenue, margin and pricing.
- A proven track record delivering enterprise-scale intelligent automation programmes end-to-end, from