Talent partners often default to asking, "How many searches have you done exactly like this one?" This is the wrong question. A better measure of a search firm's value is their ability to navigate a difficult, ambiguous search and find the right candidate, demonstrating true hunting and problem-solving skills.
Related Insights
When hiring, top firms like McKinsey value a candidate's ability to articulate a deliberate, logical problem-solving process as much as their past successes. Having a structured method shows you can reliably tackle novel challenges, whereas simply pointing to past wins might suggest luck or context-specific success.
Public company boards often hire CEOs using fuzzy adjectives like 'leader.' A better method is to first define 3-5 key strategic goals, creating a 'scorecard of success,' and then find a candidate whose track record specifically matches those objectives.
Treat hiring as a compounding flywheel. A new employee should not only be a great contributor but also make the company more attractive to future A-players, whether through their network, reputation, or interview presence. This focus on recruiting potential ensures talent density increases over time.
Clients get the best results from search firms when the relationship is a partnership of peers, not a vendor transaction. A great recruiter pushes back on a hiring manager's flawed assumptions or resume biases, bringing candidates to the table that might otherwise be overlooked.
Hiring managers often dismiss strong candidates by making snap judgments based on a resume. Focusing on the person behind the paper—their drive, skills, and potential—frequently reveals that the initially overlooked individual is the perfect fit for the role, according to executive search partner Mitch McDermott.
Boards often default to replacing outgoing members with identical profiles, like a former CEO. An effective search professional must have the "intestinal fortitude" to challenge this, analyze the board's future strategic gaps, and propose candidates who fill those specific needs, which naturally surfaces more diverse talent.
For high-level leadership roles, skip hypothetical case studies. Instead, present candidates with your company's actual, current problems. The worst-case scenario is free, high-quality consulting. The best case is finding someone who can not only devise a solution but also implement it, making the interview process far more valuable.
Ineffective interviews try to catch candidates failing. A better approach models a collaborative rally: see how they handle challenging questions and if they can return the ball effectively. The goal is to simulate real-world problem-solving, not just grill them under pressure.
The story of interviewing 600 developers to find one CTO highlights a key lesson: high-volume interviewing isn't just about finding one person. It's about developing pattern recognition. By speaking with dozens of candidates for a single role, you rapidly tune your ability to distinguish between mediocre and exceptional talent.
Most VCs fail at talent support by simply matching logos on a resume to a portfolio company. A better model is to first embed operators (e.g., fractional sales leaders) into the startup. This provides the deep, nuanced context required to find candidates who fit the specific business and culture, leading to better hiring outcomes.
