Your chief executive has given notice, the board has agreed to bring in outside help, and three proposals are sitting in front of you. They read almost identically. Each promises a rigorous process, a wide net, and a strong shortlist.
The differences become apparent in what happens before sourcing begins, where candidates come from, how they are assessed, and the advice and support provided throughout the process.
Executive search and recruitment may deliver the same outcome, but the scope and depth of the work are very different. This applies to chief executives and other senior leadership appointments, whether the decision rests with a board, elected council, or selection panel.
So, what should you expect from an executive search firm?
What separates executive search from recruitment
Recruitment is often commissioned to fill a role that has already been defined. Executive search starts further upstream, testing what the role needs to accomplish and not moving forward until decision-makers agree on what they are looking for.
The second difference is how the opportunity is represented. Under pressure to place a candidate, it can be tempting to present a role in its best light and leave the difficulties for the candidate to discover later.
I have never been willing to do that, for practical as much as ethical reasons. What looks like a challenge to one person may be exactly the opportunity the right candidate is looking for. Describing a role honestly, including its constraints and difficulties, helps attract people who are genuinely motivated by the work that needs to be done.
Assessment must also go beyond experience and qualifications. Understanding a candidate’s motivations, values and leadership style helps determine how they might succeed within a particular organization.
The third difference is the scope of the relationship. An executive search firm should act as a trusted advisor throughout the engagement, not simply a supplier of candidates.
In practice, that covers:
- Helping the selection panel establish its evaluation criteria
- Facilitating the interviews and advising on assessment methodology
- Coordinating reference and background checks
- Managing candidate communications throughout
- Extending and negotiating the offer on the client’s behalf
Candidates should also arrive with considerably more behind them than a stack of résumés. By the time they are presented, the search firm should have developed a meaningful understanding of each person’s experience, leadership approach, motivation, career goals and fit with the opportunity, built through multiple conversations, structured interviews, assessment data where appropriate, and other due diligence.
Independent advice matters just as much, particularly when expectations are unrealistic, the panel is not aligned, or a difficult decision has to be made. The firm is responsible for the whole process and not only for the shortlist.
The work that happens before sourcing begins
The first work in a search is getting the selection panel to agree on what it needs. Without alignment at the outset, disagreements may only emerge when a shortlist is presented.
Our executive search process begins with individual interviews with panel members, followed by a facilitated discussion to identify and reconcile differences. Where appropriate, we may also use psychometric profiling to explore differing perspectives on leadership.
This work frequently uncovers assumptions that deserve closer examination:
- Looking for a copy of the departing leader. The organization the next executive will lead may be very different from the one their predecessor inherited.
- Hiring for the immediate problem. A panel may focus on today’s challenges rather than the capabilities required over the next five years.
- Prioritizing experience over leadership style. Experience matters, but it doesn’t tell you much about how someone will work with your board, your executive team or your community.
- Defining the role too narrowly. A strong candidate may bring a perspective that challenges how the position was originally conceived.
A panel that articulates what it wants and tests its thinking through discussion tends to arrive at something more durable than its first answer.
By the time sourcing begins, the panel should have a shared understanding of the role, its desired outcomes, and the criteria against which candidates will be assessed.
Where the candidates actually come from
Ask what proportion of a firm’s candidates typically come from primary research and direct sourcing rather than its existing database or network. The answer can vary considerably, even among executive search firms
Databases and networks are valuable. Any established firm will have both, but they should be a starting point, not the extent of the search.
I don’t believe in simply recycling candidates. If you are paying for executive search, you should expect fresh research to identify people who are right for your particular role, including those who are not actively looking and would never have seen your posting.
This matters even more in a changing employment market. Candidate populations are not static. People move roles, organizations change, new leaders emerge, and someone who was unavailable six months ago may be open to a conversation today. The market for a particular role can change quickly, which is why each search needs fresh research.
At WMC, approximately 90% of our completed searches over the past two years have resulted in appointments through direct sourcing. In the remaining 10%, an internal candidate was successful through the same rigorous assessment process.
Our broader management consulting work also strengthens the search. Our consultants work with organizations across sectors on strategy, organizational effectiveness, leadership development and other management issues, which gives us visibility into what is happening in different markets. We often know which organizations are changing, where leadership talent may be emerging, and who to speak with to expand the reach of the search.
The right candidate is often doing exceptionally well somewhere else, and has no reason to be looking. Reaching that person takes deliberate work.
Objective criteria matter most when there is already a preferred candidate
Written selection criteria, agreed upon before candidates are assessed, provide the foundation for a fair process. They allow a panel to evaluate a preferred internal candidate objectively, without waving them through or overcorrecting against them.
Having someone in mind before a search begins is not necessarily a governance failure. It is natural in organizations where people know each other and have seen colleagues do good work.
The difficulty is that an unstated preference cannot be properly tested, and an untested decision is difficult to explain to those who were unsuccessful.
Criteria established in advance bring fairness and consistency to a decision that may be closely scrutinized. They also protect the preferred candidate, whose appointment is more credible for having been assessed against the same standard as everyone else.
Structured interviews, reference checks and psychometric assessments should all evaluate candidates against those criteria.
This is why we assess internal candidates against the same criteria and with the same rigour as external candidates.
The internal candidate rarely sees it as a formality. A thorough process means they are seen, heard and understood in a decision that matters enormously to them. It also provides meaningful feedback about their leadership, whether or not they are appointed.
We will customize much of the process to fit your organization. We will not customize the parts that keep it fair, because those are the parts that make the outcome hold.
The search does not end at the offer
Signing an offer is not the end of the work. The first several months are an important period in which a new leader establishes relationships, understands expectations, and begins delivering on their mandate.
Our search consultants remain engaged with the executives they place, providing support as they navigate the transition. Many of our consultants have held senior leadership positions themselves and are also trained executive coaches, which informs how we assess candidates and how we support them once they start.
What to take into your next search
Where the candidates come from is only part of the distinction between executive search and recruitment. The preparation counts for as much, so does the rigour of the assessment, and so does the guidance you get while the search is running.
If you carry two questions into your next meeting with an executive search firm, make them these:
Where will the candidates actually come from? Ask how the firm will identify and engage people beyond its existing database and network, particularly those not actively looking for a new opportunity.
What support and guidance will you provide throughout the search? Ask how the firm will help establish criteria, conduct interviews, assess candidates, manage communications, navigate difficult decisions, and negotiate an offer.
The answers will tell you a great deal about what you are actually buying.
A shortlist is the least of what executive search should deliver. What makes the difference is the structure around it and the independent advice that comes with it, which is what helps an organization appoint the right leader for what it needs now and what it intends to become.
More about the sectors and leadership roles our consultants work across is on our experience we offer page.
