The fee is paid
The leadership impact comes later or does it?
Organisations hire executives to acquire or improve the capabilities their strategy demands. That could mean entering new markets, leading transformation or improving commercial performance. The search model is organised around securing an appointment. The company’s expectation reaches further: seeing those capabilities established and delivering. Is it time to bring these expectations closer together?
Share
The search is complete.
How long before the business has what it paid for?
The expectations behind an executive appointment can be immense. A growth ambition needs fresh momentum. A transformation needs traction. A missing strength needs to become part of how the business works. Then the announcement raises the stakes: internally, a new chapter; externally, a signal of intent. The new leader can be cast as the new hero before they start.
Behind that story sit two different expectations. The search firm has been engaged to secure an appointment. The company is investing in what that leader will enable the organisation to do. The fee may already be paid while the team, decisions and ways of working needed to deliver that promise are still taking shape. Is it time the commercial model reflected more of the outcome the company is actually seeking?
One appointment.
Two definitions of success.
For the hiring company, success means acquiring or improving something the organisation needs: the ability to enter a new market, execute a transformation or deliver stronger commercial performance. The executive is the means through which that change is expected to happen.
The conventional search model brings research, access, assessment and advice together around securing the appointment. Its fees pay for that search work; they are not generally contingent on the organisational change that follows. Published retained-search terms illustrate how billing can begin well before the leader joins. [1]
The search firm is paid for the appointment. The company is investing in what happens because of it.
The appointment is a milestone. Delivering the desired outcome takes longer.
Paid for the appointment.
Still waiting for the impact.
months, on average, to get the senior leadership team right in Russell Reynolds’ CEO transition research, discussed in 2024. [6]
of external executive hires were considered failures by HR in DDI’s 2021 Leadership Transitions research. [7]
Time to readiness and the risk of disappointment deserve a place in both the contract and the conversation about the placement. The company is investing in what the leader will enable it to do. Should the search proposition follow that expectation further into delivery?
Separate studies and measures. Team formation is one condition for delivery, not a universal readiness period. DDI’s figure is an HR assessment, not a first-12-month failure or departure rate. Full sources below.
Both expectations have a legitimate basis. Research and judgement have value before a leader starts; organisational impact depends on the mandate, the team, resources and Board support as well as the individual. Bringing the expectations closer means agreeing what must change, what progress should look like and how the adviser will remain involved beyond the appointment.
Other advisory models already recognise that connection. Procurement and supply chain consultancy Efficio’s published terms provide for charges calculated by reference to savings; ERA offers savings-linked arrangements. The UK Government’s Consultancy Playbook also recognises payment by results and fees at risk. They provide a basis for asking how a proportion of search reward could follow agreed progress, alongside payment for the work of securing the leader. [4, 5, 8]
Time to readiness should be part of the proposition: when will the leader, their team and the organisation be equipped to deliver the intended change? The answer should shape the assessment, integration support, review points and commercial terms from the outset. The opportunity is to bring the search firm’s definition of success closer to the company’s.
Talent intelligence has become a capability
that organisations can own.
Talent intelligence can bring a broader, more structured view of the external leadership market into strategic decisions. inBeta, for example, describes its Optics offering as leadership intelligence built from corporate disclosures and other verifiable sources, with human-checked evidence to inform talent, planning and succession. [2]
The differentiator extends beyond access to an AI interface. Proprietary matching and ranking models, the quality and coverage of the data, and the way signals are interpreted can determine whether a platform produces useful intelligence. A ranked profile is a research lead; fit still needs to be tested through human judgement, evidence and the organisation’s context.
Organisations can use external intelligence to retain market knowledge, revisit earlier research and nurture relationships between appointments. The opportunity is to make market insight a continuing input to leadership decisions, with the organisation owning the question, the relationships and the follow-through. Intelligence then serves the evolving business need, rather than being exhausted in a single appointment.
The buying decision is shifting from access to names towards the quality of intelligence, judgement and delivery.
Search firms are also investing in technology and broader advisory services. The opportunity for employers is to examine which activities genuinely require external expertise, and which should become a lasting internal asset.
Signs of an executive exit should trigger a decision,
not an urgent reconnection with the talent market.
Signs of an executive exit should activate an informed choice, supported by continuing insight into internal successors and the external market. They should not restart a cycle of research, outreach and assessment from scratch. External leadership pipelines can be built around future business needs and critical roles while the incumbent is still in place. Research can establish the relevant markets, identify potential successors and inform development or hiring choices before urgency narrows the options.
Only 32% of directors in Spencer Stuart’s 2024 survey reported that their Board had reviewed information about possible external CEO talent options in the preceding 12 months. [3]
The survey covered 797 directors on US public and private company boards. It does not establish how many FTSE 100 companies maintain external leadership pipelines, or whether the remaining respondents waited for an executive exit. It does provide a focused prompt: how regularly is external talent intelligence informing succession decisions?
A useful pipeline is maintained, tested and linked to strategy. Its value lies in reducing the distance between a future leadership need and the organisation being ready to meet it. It includes an assessment of likely readiness and interest, with appropriate consent, clear ownership and a rhythm for refreshing the evidence. A market insight report only becomes valuable through the decisions and relationships it supports.
Build what you should own.
Optimise what you buy.
Forthworks helps organisations decide where to build in-house executive search and research expertise, where traditional executive search adds most value and where its use can be optimised. Role type, seniority, hiring frequency, market access and the strength of the internal team shape those choices.
For internal executive search teams, Forthworks builds the skills and ways of working needed to use talent intelligence successfully: framing the business question, interpreting market signals, developing relationships and turning research into informed hiring and succession decisions.
That intelligence is integrated with executive assessment and onboarding. Evidence from the market informs what to test; assessment findings shape the transition plan; onboarding connects the leader’s mandate with the team, resources and relationships needed to deliver.
Where an external search partner is the right choice, Forthworks helps sharpen the brief, clarify the division of work and align assessment, support and commercial expectations with the outcome sought. The result is a joined-up model for leadership hiring and succession, with clear ownership from the first market insight through to readiness and delivery.
Explore leadership hiring & assessmentAre you buying an appointment or building the leadership your strategy needs?
Discuss your executive hiring modelEvidence, interpretation & sources
The proposals on outcome-aligned fees, internal delivery and proactive pipelines are Forthworks’ commercial perspective. Firm disclosures describe general terms, not every search engagement. The CEO team-formation finding is a specific research measure, not a universal time to readiness or a measure of business impact delivered. No claim is made that a majority of FTSE 100 companies use a particular hiring model.
- Heidrick & Struggles, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 31 March 2025, note 3. Describes compensation-linked retainers, billing in thirds over three months from acceptance of the search contract, and a replacement guarantee subject to conditions. Acceptance here means the client accepting the search mandate, not the candidate accepting a job.
- inBeta, Optics leadership intelligence. Provider description of structured external-market evidence, corporate disclosure research, leadership heat maps and succession support. This describes the offering, not independent validation of hiring outcomes or a claim about widespread FTSE 100 adoption.
- Spencer Stuart, Director Pulse Survey: CEO Succession 2024. Survey of 797 directors on US public and private company boards. The 32% finding concerns review of external CEO options during the preceding 12 months; it is not a measure of FTSE 100 pipeline adoption.
- UK Government, The Consultancy Playbook, updated 6 November 2026, pricing mechanisms. Recognises payment by results and hybrid fees-at-risk models, with supplier risk calibrated to its influence over outcomes.
- ERA Group, FAQs. Describes savings-linked fees alongside fixed, staged and hybrid options. Published by ERA’s South African website; individual engagement terms and markets may differ.
- Michael Wong, interview with Ty Wiggins, With CEO Turnover Rising to Record Levels, How Can Incoming, Existing Executives Build a Sustainable Role?, Pharmaceutical Executive, 28 June 2024. Wiggins, Russell Reynolds Associates’ CEO & Executive Transition Practice lead, reports an average 9.2 months to get the senior leadership team right, citing Russell Reynolds’ 2024 CEO transition research. This is a team-formation milestone, not a universal readiness period or a measure of business impact delivered.
- Matt Paese, DDI, Private Struggle: Why Executive Transitions Continue to Fail, 19 May 2021. Reports findings from DDI’s Leadership Transitions Report 2021: HR considered 47% of external executive hires failures, compared with 35% of internal promotions. These are respondent assessments, not a first-year departure rate or a measure limited to FTSE companies. The wider research included 2,102 HR executives and 15,787 leaders; these totals are not the external executive-hire subsample.
- Efficio Ltd, UK Terms and Conditions, clauses 3.1.2 and 8.13. Provides for agreed savings measurement and charges calculated against negotiated, recognised, anticipated or achievable savings, alongside other charging arrangements. This is evidence of savings-linked pricing, not a claim that every fee is payable only after realised savings. Individual engagement letters determine the terms.