Common Time Wasters in Executive Search Processes

When an executive search does not go according to plan Companies often blame the market: “Not enough good candidates.” “Wrong timing.” “Talent pipeline is dry.” But here’s the uncomfortable truth: Most failed searches are preventable. They fail because of how the search is: - designed, - led, - and communicated — not because great leaders don’t exist. Here are the top 10 reasons senior-level searches fail — and how to fix them: 1. No Clear Success Profile If you can’t define what success looks like, you’ll reject everyone. Fix: Align on measurable outcomes before you write the job spec. 2. Stakeholder Chaos Hiring committee pulls in 5 directions → mixed signals scare off A-players. Fix: Get total alignment before going to market. 3. Searching for a Unicorn You want “global CEO experience” + “startup scrappiness” + “MBA from Mars.” Fix: Separate must-haves from fantasy requirements. 4. Broken Timelines Expecting a game-changing leader in 30 days is a fantasy. Fix: Build realistic, disciplined timelines into your plan. 5. Candidate Experience = Afterthought Ghosting, slow feedback, endless rounds… your reputation takes the hit. Fix: Treat every candidate like a future brand ambassador. 6. Ignoring Culture “Perfect on paper” fails if they don’t thrive in your environment. Fix: Assess values, leadership style, and stage of growth upfront. 7. Compensation Misfire Budget doesn’t match market reality → you lose your top choice at offer stage. Fix: Benchmark early, avoid late-stage surprises. 8. Failure to Inspire Top leaders have choices — they need to be "sold", not just screened. Fix: Craft a compelling story about why this role matters now. 9. Politics Kill the Process Veto power, shifting priorities, hidden agendas derail momentum. Fix: Get executive buy-in before you search. 10. No Plan After Day 1 Even the “perfect hire” will fail without support. Fix: Build a 90-day onboarding plan from day one. The bottom line: Searches don’t fail because the market is empty. They fail because the process is. Fix the process Attract better leaders Keep them longer. What’s your biggest hiring lesson? Have a great week ahead dear high flyers! ♻️ Share this with your network. #culturematters #aviation #hiring

TOP FRUSTRATIONS OF EXECUTIVE CANDIDATES Employers need leaders and senior execs - so why is the search process for these pros so slow and so full of obstacles? Here are the top complaints of executive-level candidates: According to 2026 hiring trends and career experts, key concerns include: 1. Prolonged Search Timelines and "Black Hole" Applications  Extended Unemployment: Executive searches are taking longer, with many top leaders spending 6–12 months or more securing a role. The "Black Hole": High-level candidates often feel their applications disappear into ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems) and AI-screening tools, never reaching a human. Silence as Response: Candidates frequently encounter long periods of silence, leading to anxiety and a loss of momentum, even after engaging in interviews. 2. Ageism and "Overqualified" Labeling Age Discrimination: Often beginning as early as 40, ageism hits hard at 50+, with older professionals overlooked for "high-energy" cultures or deemed too expensive. Hidden Age Bias: Recruiters may use "overqualified" as code for "too old" or "too expensive" to mask discriminatory hiring practices. Tech Stereotypes: Candidates feel perceived as tech-phobic or inflexible, despite often having more experience adapting to change than younger employees. 3. The Myth of the "High-Touch" Executive Search Disrespectful Process: Contrary to the belief that top-tier roles are high-touch, many executives report poor candidate experiences, including a lack of timely feedback or communication from recruiters. Discreet Hiring: Many top positions are filled internally or through private networking, leaving qualified external candidates fighting for a tiny public market. 4. Identity and Ego Challenges Loss of Identity: Senior leaders, accustomed to being "the boss," can lose their sense of self-worth when forced into a junior-like job-search role. Emotional Toll: The process is often described as overwhelming and emotionally draining, forcing senior professionals to ask for help when they are used to solving all problems themselves. 5. Misalignment of Value and "Role Stretching" Too Broad Scope: Job descriptions often read like they are looking for three different leaders in one, making it difficult to demonstrate you can meet all expectations. "Task vs. Leadership" Gap: Many executives fail because their resume reads like a list of tasks, not a narrative of strategic impact or leadership. 6. "Interim" and "Fractional" Uncertainty Unstable Employment: Many roles are shifting toward temporary, fractional, or consulting positions, which provides income but not the stability senior leaders often seek. 7. The "Outsider" Risk Internal Candidates: Companies often prefer to promote from within for high-level roles, leaving external senior leaders struggling to prove they are worth the risk. If you're stuck in this vortex, DM me and we'll brainstorm. (Let's get you out.)

If you're applying to executive roles on LinkedIn... ...you've already lost. Here's why: Most executives approach their job search like they're still mid-level. That's the problem. At the executive level, the hidden job market isn't just important, it's "everything". Here's what I've learned from placing dozens of executives Why most executive searches fail: → You're applying to posted roles (80% of executive positions never get posted) → You're waiting for recruiters to find you (they're already talking to someone else) → Your network is stale (those connections from 5 years ago? They've moved on) → You're marketing yourself like an IC (executives are hired for strategic impact, not task execution) The executives who win do this differently: ✅ They build relationships 6-12 months before they need them. ✅ They're having coffee with board members, investors, and other execs. not when they need a job, but always. ✅ They position themselves as industry experts. They're writing, speaking, advising. When a role opens, they're already top of mind. ✅ They activate their network strategically. One intro to the right person beats 100 applications. ✅ They know their narrative cold. At this level, you're selling vision, not just experience. The hard truth: - If you're waiting for executive roles to appear on LinkedIn or company career pages, you've already lost. - The real opportunities are happening in board rooms, at industry events, and through trusted referrals. Your next role won't find you. You have to architect the path to it. What's your biggest challenge in the executive job market? Joshua Talreja #ExecutiveSearch #Leadership #CareerAdvancement #CLevel #JobSearch #TechLeadership #ExecutiveJobs

We lost the best Executive Director in the state because of a calendar issue... I had to deliver that news to a client, and it wasn't a fun conversation. We had found the "Unicorn." She had the clinical oversight of a nurse, the financial mind of a Asset Manager, and the outgoing personality that makes families feel at peace the moment they walk through the lobby. The first two interviews were magic. The culture fit was a 10 out of 10... But then, the process hit a snag. Not a background check issue. Not a salary disagreement. The 'snag' was in the form of the VP being at a conference, followed by a weekend, followed by a "let���s circle back on Tuesday" email. By Monday afternoon, she had accepted another offer. My client was stunned. "But Chris, we were going to offer her the job! We just wanted one more person to sign off. Doesn't she know how much we liked her?" I had to be blunt...sometimes, "Wait" is often heard as "No." We talk about the 'labor shortage' in our industry like it’s a weather event we can’t control. But after 28 years in this business, I’ve realized that a lot of what we call a shortage is actually a 'Process Problem.' High-impact leaders...you know...the ones who are going to fix your occupancy and stabilize your staff...are not sitting in the "maybe" pile for two weeks. They aren't waiting for a third-round interview to be scheduled whenever the committee can find a free 30 minutes. The best talent in our industry is currently being recruited by your competitors while they are sitting in your waiting room. Speed isn't just about being fast. In this market, speed is a sign of respect. It’s a signal to the candidate that you are decisive, that your organization is aligned, and that you value their time as much as your own. When you find the right leader, don't wait for the "perfect" time to hire them. The perfect time is the moment you realize they are the one.

6 to 12+ months... That is how long it takes the average senior executive to land after a search begins. Not because they are unqualified. Not because the market is slow. Because the hiring process for experienced leaders is completely broken and nobody inside it has any incentive to fix it. Companies take 90 days to schedule interviews. Recruiters disappear after round two. Offers fall apart over title semantics while the role sits empty for six months. And the whole time, a qualified person is on the other side of that process watching their savings drain and their confidence erode. This is not a candidate problem. This is a systems problem. The companies screaming about a talent shortage are the same ones running six round interview processes with no feedback, no timeline, and no respect for the person's time. You do not have a talent shortage. You have a process that drives talent away. Fix the process.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘁 $𝟱𝟬𝟬𝗞 𝗼𝗻 𝗮 𝗚𝗖 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱. A company came to me after a failed GC search. They'd engaged another search firm, reviewed candidates for four months, made an offer that fell apart in negotiation, and restarted the process. Total cost in fees, executive time, and delayed legal leadership was approaching $500K. When I discussed the failed search with the company's CHRO, the issue traced back to the original search brief. It was built around a profile rather than a problem. The brief described the ideal candidate in detail: practice area background, employer pedigree, years of in-house experience, industry exposure. It didn't address the specific business challenge the GC would need to solve. The company was entering a period of heavy M&A activity and needed someone who could build an integration playbook while managing a lean team. That context appeared nowhere in the brief. The result was a slate of technically qualified candidates who were wrong for the actual job. Three questions, asked before a single resume is reviewed, prevent this: 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳: • What is the most important business problem this GC will face in the first 12 months? The answer should be specific. "Managing legal risk" is a job description. "Building an integration process for three acquisitions closing within nine months" is a search mandate. • Who are the key internal stakeholders this GC must influence, and what do they expect from legal? A GC hired to partner with a deal-oriented CEO requires a different profile than one hired to serve a compliance-focused board. • What does the legal function look like today, and what needs to change? A GC inheriting a built-out team and a GC building from scratch require different evaluation criteria, even if the title is the same. The most expensive search mistakes happen at the briefing stage. Getting the problem definition right costs nothing. Getting it wrong costs months, money, and momentum. #ExecutiveSearch #GeneralCounsel #RetainedSearch

I need to say this. In South Africa, companies��� brief Specialist Recruiters like myself every week with roles that are “urgent”, “business critical”, “fully approved”, “we’re losing money without this person”. No red flags. No hesitation. The expectation - the recruiter will leave every other role she is working on and prioritize this new role. But when you propose a retained or executive search structure — suddenly there’s resistance. Why? Because often it’s not about filling the role. It’s about: • Comparing CVs • Seeing “what’s out there” • Benchmarking an internal candidate • Testing the market without committing That’s not search. That’s market browsing. Globally, retained search is the standard for leadership and critical hires at all levels. Fees typically sit over 25% of the annual salary and are structured across milestones — because you’re paying for a disciplined process, not for a person. In SA, many businesses still want contingency speed with retained-level depth. Here’s the reality: We don’t get paid for a hire. We get paid for the process — market mapping, passive outreach, screening, protecting your employer brand, managing candidates properly, building your organisation! When a company briefs, insists it’s urgent, but won’t commit — what that often signals is simple: They’re not committed to hiring. And that has consequences: • Reputational damage in the talent market • Candidate fatigue • Wasted internal time • Slower decision-making If the role is truly critical, treat it like one. Let me prioritize you above all other clients working on a contingency basis. Curiosity about the market is fine. But don’t call it urgent hiring.

Enough of the bloated, generic, all-inclusive job descriptions! They're a waste of time for both hiring companies and candidates. Here’s what I’ve often seen while helping CEOs hire execs (though this feedback applies to all levels and hires): Endless, unfocused requirements: 20+ bullet points with many vague and non-essential. Worse, meaningless generic statements find there way in somehow: Phrases like "people motivator" or "self-motivated" which add zero value to the process and waste space and time. On top, often I see a missed opportunity for basic expectations alignment (i.e. the less fun stuff): No negative or filtering statements to help candidates self-select out. Lastly many jobs description are actually not clear. What is your revenue leader focused on - some companies are 90% sales, others need is around lead-gen, elsewhere renewal and expansion is the top priority. What is the key focus of the operations leader? compliance? IT? M&A integration? Does the finance team need to excel in accounting or SaaS metrics? If you answer all-of-the-above, you usually miss an opportunity for more clarity and may not find the best person for the role. To fix this: * Be concise: One page of requirements is plenty. Force yourself to be very selective here. Less is more. * Be specific: Detail exactly what you need, instead of generic or wide descriptions. What expertise will make the biggest impact on the business. * Help candidates self-select: Include statements to deter the wrong fit. Early. Some think high-level descriptions are advantageous, but I disagree. They waste time, obscure the role’s true needs, and hinder recruiters and interviewers. Clarity helps everyone, including you. Actually often, especially you the hiring manger. I've also found it to be very effective in being upfront and clear about your unique business personality and needs. Highlight specifics like “significant travel required” or “calls at odd hours for global coordination.” It’s better for candidates to opt-out early than to hire the wrong person. Streamline your process, save time, and find the right fit faster. The only thing worse than not hiring someone is hiring the wrong person! #management #hiring #culture

A vague or overcrowded position profile is the silent killer of PE-backed hire. Here's what I see far too often: "We want a strategic CFO... who also enjoys getting into the weeds." "We need a VP of Sales... who can run demand gen, build RevOps from scratch, driver detailed analytics, close enterprise deals--and do it solo. No team for the first 18-24 months." "The CEO must have scaled $10M to $250M, led two 3x+ exits (including an S-1), raised institutional capital, and ideally grew up in the Deep South to ‘connect’ with founders." "Must-haves for this role: M&A, integrations, NetSuite, SaaS, consumer, fintech, Ivy League, MBA, low ego, proven leadership… and ideally fluent Mandarin. (It’s a U.S. residential services roll-up, but one of our Partners is from China, so, hey, why not?)" These Frankenstein specs can get internal buy-in… But they get zero traction in the market. Why? A). These candidates likely don't really exist. B). Even if they did, the spec will turn them off. Clarity wins. Start with: - Why are we hiring this person? What do they need to achieve, and how does this move the thesis forward? - Who truly needs to weigh in? Not who wants to. Who actually owns the outcome? - What are the measurable outcomes? Think 6/12/18/24-month milestones. - What support do they have--or need--to succeed? Team, budget, tech, mandate? This exercise will help you discover what is actually important to build out your scorecard AND what skills / experiences / traits the right candidate will possess. Hash this out early. Or wait until your search partner comes up empty after 6 months. (Pro tip: good search partners will push back on broken specs. Y ou want that.) Everything else? Noise. And noise kills speed. #ExecutiveSearch #PrivateEquity #RetainedSearch #HiringStrategy #Leadership #GVentures

The new CFO didn’t meet expectations. The “perfect hire” we spent months reviewing, praising, and onboarding turned out to be… not so perfect. Months of progress? Lost. What are the common mistakes that lead to this ? I recently had a reflective discussion with a client about this, and I wanted to share some thoughts with you. Let me know what you think. ✖︎ Mistake 1: Focusing too much on the resume An MBA from INSEAD. Ex-McKinsey. A Unicorn on their CV. It sounds great—and it is. But leadership isn’t about where they’ve been. It’s about how they think, adapt, and inspire. We soms get distracted by the shiny credentials. ✖︎ Mistake 2: Hiring for the role, not the reality The brief says, “We need a strategist.” But what if the client really needs an operational leader to fix processes and deliver results? Sometimes we rush past the deep kickoff or skip involving all the stakeholders, even though they have different priorities and needs. ✖︎ Mistake 3: Ignoring the team dynamic You hire a star performer and place them in a team of cautious collaborators. What happens? Not much. Ideally, we’d start every search by doing a team assessment with the client to understand their real needs. But in the name of speed, we skip it too often. ✖︎ Mistake 4: Overlooking hidden biases Hiring committees (and yes, me too) love the “familiar” choice. The safe hire who can start delivering tomorrow. But what about cultural fit, career goals, or personal circumstances? We don’t always push hard enough to challenge these biases. ↳ What can we do to avoid all this ? ✓ Ask the uneasy questions ✓ Avoid the easy traps mentioned above ✓ Be fast but not rushed ✓ Apply strict processes ✓ Spend more time understanding the client’s needs and context ✓ Communicate often and openly throughout the search. Because the cost of failure is more than we can afford. Have a great day! 😊