The Situation
A Series B SaaS company in the US had been searching for a VP-level leader for a revenue-critical seat for over four months. Two search firms had been engaged sequentially — both operating on contingency. Both failed to deliver a shortlist the CEO would move forward on. The role had been reposted three times. Internal recruiting had attempted and stalled. The mandate was at risk of destabilising a key business unit.
The CEO came to Majhi Group as a last resort, with one condition: no more wasted months. The total comp for the role was $275,000.
The core problem wasn't sourcing. Both prior firms had access to the same LinkedIn Recruiter seat, the same databases, the same job boards. The failure was upstream — a role brief that hadn't been properly defined, and a vetting process that wasn't filtering for the right profile.
What the Previous Firms Got Wrong
Undefined success criteria
Neither firm had built a structured success profile before sourcing. The brief was essentially the job description — responsibilities, qualifications, reporting line. There was no definition of what the hire needed to accomplish in year one, no identification of the specific failure mode the company was trying to avoid, and no clarity on which trade-offs in the candidate profile were acceptable.
Without that clarity, both firms sourced against a vague target. Candidates who looked strong on paper didn't pass the CEO's gut-level assessment. The process ran in circles.
Speed incentive misalignment
Both firms operated on contingency — paid only on successful placement. This model creates structural pressure to move fast, not to vet deeply. Both firms pushed candidates through screening quickly, forwarded whoever looked closest to the brief, and relied on the client's interview process to do the quality filtering. At the VP level, that's backwards.
No quality gate before shortlist
Every candidate the prior firms submitted went directly from their screen to the CEO's calendar. There was no intermediate quality gate — no structured assessment of evidence against success criteria, no reference intelligence collected early, no fit-scoring before the CEO's time was consumed. The CEO spent over 15 hours in first-round interviews across both engagements without seeing a single candidate she wanted to advance.
The Majhi Group Approach
Success profile built before sourcing begins
We ran a structured intake with the CEO and two board members. Output: a written success profile defining what the hire must accomplish in 90 days, year one, and year two — plus explicit definition of the failure modes from prior incumbents and the hiring patterns that hadn't worked.
Targeted outreach, not database spray
We mapped a specific candidate universe based on the success profile — not keyword search. 68 candidates identified. 41 outreached. 22 responded. 14 screened by phone. 6 advanced to evidence dossier stage.
Quality gate before a single CEO hour is spent
Each of the 6 advancing candidates received a structured evidence dossier — verified accomplishments, work product review, early reference intelligence, risk flags, and a fit score against the success profile. 4 cleared the quality gate. These 4 went to the CEO.
CEO's time used with intent
CEO met 4 candidates. All 4 were substantively considered. 2 advanced to final round. 1 emerged as the clear choice. Deep reference checks conducted on the finalist before offer.
Offer accepted. Search complete.
Offer extended on Day 38. Negotiation completed Day 40. Acceptance confirmed Day 41. Candidate start date confirmed within the quarter.
The Results
- 41 days from mandate briefing to signed offer (vs. 60+ days per firm across two failed attempts)
- 4 candidates presented to the CEO — all substantively viable (vs. 15+ hours wasted on unqualified candidates by prior firms)
- 90-day guarantee never triggered — the hire is still in role
- CEO time recovered: Approximately 12 hours of first-round interview time saved relative to prior engagement pattern
- Business continuity restored for the affected unit, which had been running at reduced capacity for 4+ months
"41 days. $275K search. Two firms failed in 60+. That's not luck. That's a different system." — Manas Majhi, Founder
What Made the Difference
The difference was not sourcing. Both prior firms had access to the same candidate pools. The difference was the process that governs what happens with what you source.
A retained model — with an upfront commitment and a structured quality gate — removes the speed pressure that causes contingency search to fail at the VP level. When the incentive is quality, not volume, the entire process changes: more time is spent defining the target before sourcing begins, more rigour is applied before the client's time is consumed, and more accountability sits with the search firm for the outcome — not just the placement.
The 90-day replacement guarantee is not a marketing commitment. It's the structural expression of that accountability. It keeps our interest aligned with the client's long after the offer is signed.