What Do Boards Get Wrong About Executive Search?

Boards play a critical role in shaping leadership outcomes, yet many still approach executive search with assumptions formed decades ago. Those assumptions often feel safe, proven, and aligned with governance norms, but they increasingly fail to reflect how leadership hiring actually works today. In fast-moving, regulated, and talent-constrained environments, the gap between expectation and reality can quietly undermine results. The issue is rarely intent; it’s perspective.

Why Traditional Views on Executive Search Persist

Traditional views persist largely because executive search has long followed a status quo. Boards inherit norms from prior roles, prior companies, and prior advisors, many of whom succeeded under very different market conditions. When a model has worked before, it becomes embedded as “best practice,” even if the underlying dynamics have changed. Over time, repetition hardens into belief.

There is also a governance dynamic at play. Retained search models feel aligned with fiduciary responsibility because they are familiar, structured, and branded as premium. For boards, especially those balancing risk and reputation, familiarity can feel safer than experimentation. The problem is that safety in process does not always translate to effectiveness in outcome, particularly when leadership needs are evolving faster than processes.

The Cost Misconception: Fees vs. Value

One of the most common misunderstandings boards hold is equating higher fees with higher value. Executive search fees are often viewed as a necessary premium, rather than something to be examined for efficiency and return. This mindset can obscure whether the structure of the engagement actually serves the company’s needs or simply reflects industry convention. Cost becomes a proxy for rigor, rather than a measure of results.

• Large upfront retainers are often assumed to guarantee priority, yet they do not necessarily correlate with speed or candidate quality
• Percentage-based fees can incentivize higher compensation packages rather than better-fit leadership outcomes
• Fixed models can limit flexibility when role definitions evolve mid-search
• Boards rarely see how much time is actually spent on sourcing versus administration
• Value is frequently judged by brand recognition, not by measurable hiring impact

Over-Emphasis on Brand Names and Retained Search Models

Many boards place disproportionate weight on well-known search firm brands, assuming reputation ensures superior execution. While brand-name firms can bring credibility, they often rely on standardized processes designed for scale rather than following a nuanced approach. This can be problematic for companies with specialized needs, emerging business models, or complex healthcare dynamics. Brand recognition does not automatically translate to adaptability or depth of engagement.

Boards Can Underestimate the Importance of Speed In Hiring

Speed is often discussed in executive hiring, but rarely treated as a strategic variable. Boards may intellectually value urgency while structurally approving processes that slow decisions down. In competitive leadership markets, delays compound risk: candidates disengage, internal teams lose momentum, and strategic initiatives stall. Particularly in healthcare, where regulatory and operational pressures are constant, time lost in hiring is rarely neutral.

The Transparency Problem: What Boards Don’t See in the Search Process

Most boards only see executive search at a high level: kickoff meetings, shortlists, and final interviews. What happens between those moments is largely opaque. This lack of visibility makes it difficult for boards to assess whether a search is being actively driven or passively managed. Without transparency, it’s easy to confuse motion with progress.

This opacity also limits accountability. When boards don’t see how candidates are sourced, screened, and assessed, they can’t easily evaluate whether the approach aligns with the company’s actual priorities. The search becomes a black box, trusted but unexamined. Over time, this distance can lead to misalignment between what boards think they are buying and what they are actually getting.

The Limitations of Traditional Search Models for Today’s Leadership Needs

Today’s leadership roles are more fluid, cross-functional, and context-dependent than in the past. Traditional search models were built for static roles with clearly defined success profiles. They struggle when companies need leaders who can scale, adapt, or operate across clinical, operational, and commercial domains. As leadership complexity increases, rigid search structures can become a constraint rather than a support.

When Hourly & Flexible Models Outperform Traditional Approaches

Flexible, hourly-based search models challenge long-held assumptions about how executive hiring should work. Instead of locking companies into a predefined process, these models allow the search effort to flex with real-time needs. Boards gain the ability to adjust scope, pace, and focus without renegotiating entire engagements. This adaptability can be particularly valuable in healthcare environments where priorities shift quickly.

These models also tend to create closer working relationships between search partners and internal stakeholders. Because effort is directly tied to activity, not just outcomes, there is often greater transparency and collaboration. Boards and executives can see where time is being spent and why decisions are being made. The result is often a more informed, less performative search process. 

Ultimately, this results in:

• Greater visibility into sourcing, outreach, and candidate evaluation
• Ability to scale effort up or down as role clarity evolves
• Reduced misalignment between incentives and hiring outcomes
• Faster iteration when market feedback challenges initial assumptions
• More direct collaboration between boards, executives, and search partners

What Boards Should Focus On Instead

Rather than defaulting to legacy models, boards should focus on alignment, adaptability, and evidence. The key questions should not be based solely on past reputation, but on who is most invested in understanding the business and its leadership gaps. Boards should seek clarity on how search partners operate day-to-day, how they measure progress, and how they adjust when assumptions prove false. Process should serve strategy, not the other way around.

How to Align the Board’s Expectations With Modern Search Best Practices

Alignment starts with reframing executive search as an operating partnership rather than a transactional service. Boards benefit from setting expectations early in the process for transparency, communication, and flexibility. This includes agreeing on how progress will be reported, how market feedback will be incorporated, and how success will be defined beyond simply “making a hire.”

It also requires boards to be open to models that differ from those they’ve used before. Modern search best practices prioritize responsiveness, data-informed decision-making, and collaboration. When boards align their expectations with these realities, they create space for better outcomes. The goal is not to abandon rigor, but to apply it where it actually matters.

Conclusion: A Smarter Executive Search Strategy for Better Outcomes

Executive search has changed. The most effective boards recognize that leadership hiring is too important to rely solely on tradition or reputation. By questioning legacy models and embracing more transparent, flexible approaches, boards can materially improve outcomes. And in a landscape as complex as today’s, it’s worth remembering that executive hiring is not something boards have to navigate alone.

If you want to learn more about how hourly search-as-a-service works and how it can benefit your board’s next hire, we invite you to schedule a call with a member of our leadership team.

‍