Hiring the wrong executive is expensive. But the problem often starts before you interview the first candidate.
Modern data, technology, and AI mandates have changed considerably.
Yet much of executive search still starts with a familiar process: define the title, update the job description, identify target companies, and search for people with comparable experience.
That assumes we already know what kind of leader we need.
Often, we don't.
A company with a fairly mature data organization needs a very different leader from one operating in chaos.
A high-potential organization that has struggled to convert investment into value needs something different again.
And a greenfield mandate requires another type of leader altogether.
That is why I believe the situation should define the search.
Is this a Fairly Mature, Chaotic, High-Potential, or Greenfield environment?
Does the situation call for more of a Maintainer, Fixer, Visionary, Starter, Diplomat, or Networker?
And how do we know?
That last question is important.
When the people defining and assessing the role have never operated in it, evaluating candidates primarily through titles, companies, career history, and interviews can only take you so far.
Practitioner judgment needs to play a bigger role in executive search.
I wrote about this in detail in my latest article, including how we are approaching leadership search differently through Datapreneurs, why internal talent should be evaluated alongside the external market, and why the process should continue into the leader's transition rather than ending when the offer is accepted.
Modern Leadership Mandates Need a Different Executive Search Model.
Would welcome your thoughts, particularly from leaders who have hired for or stepped into these roles.
Wish you most and more…
#𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗗𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘆 | Brought to you by Corpsulting™️. Judgment, close to the work, when it matters most.