Search duration, offer acceptance rates, executive failure rates, and the performance gap between retained and contingency search — drawn from 25+ VP and C-suite placements and validated against industry data.
The 2026 data confirms what we see in every mandate: most companies are still running VP and C-suite searches the same way they hire senior managers — the same job boards, the same contingency vendors, the same shallow qualification process. The result is predictable. Searches stall past week ten. Shortlists miss. Offers collapse.
This report documents where those gaps show up in the numbers — and what the data looks like when you build a system around the hire instead of around the posting.
The most measurable benchmark in executive search is how long it takes to close. The industry median — across contingency firms, job boards, and internal TA teams handling VP-level searches — sits at 65 to 90 days. That number hasn't improved meaningfully in a decade.
The variable isn't the market or the role complexity. It's the system. Searches that close in 30–45 days are built differently from the start: intake is structured, not conversational; outreach is targeted, not broadcast; shortlist criteria are defined before sourcing begins, not after three rounds of misaligned candidates.
| Search Method | Avg. Days to Close |
|---|---|
| Retained search (structured) | 30–45 days |
| Retained search (industry avg.) | 60–75 days |
| Contingency search | 75–100 days |
| Internal TA — VP level | 90–120 days |
Retained search (structured) figures reflect Majhi Group average across 25+ VP and C-suite placements. Industry figures reflect published research and market data.
A search that produces an offer the candidate declines is not a near-miss. It is a full restart — typically 30 to 60 additional days, a demoralized hiring committee, and a shortlist that is now stale. Offer acceptance rate is one of the least-reported but most consequential metrics in executive search.
High offer acceptance rates are not primarily a negotiation outcome. They are a qualification and alignment outcome. Candidates who are fully informed about the role, the company, and the compensation structure before the final round rarely decline. The work happens in weeks two through six of the search, not at the offer stage.
| Why Offers Collapse | Prevention |
|---|---|
| Compensation misalignment discovered late | Benchmark before outreach begins |
| Role scope unclear to candidate | Structured intake, written brief |
| Competing offer received | Compressed timeline, proactive communication |
| Hiring manager misalignment | Calibration session before shortlist |
Research consistently shows that approximately 40% of executive hires fail within 18 months. The number is widely cited because it is widely observed — not because it is inevitable. The causes are known. Most failures trace back to misaligned expectations at intake, cultural fit assessed too late, or onboarding treated as HR administration rather than strategic transition.
The cost of a failed VP or C-suite hire is not just the replacement fee. It is the salary paid, the productivity lost, the team disruption caused, and the strategy delayed. For a VP at $200K total compensation, a failed hire represents $600K to $1M in total organizational cost — conservatively.
Figures represent estimated ranges for a VP role at $200K total compensation. Actual costs vary by role seniority, team size, and strategy impact.
The structural difference between retained and contingency executive search is not about quality of talent or depth of network. It is about incentive alignment. Contingency firms are paid only at placement. That structure rewards speed and volume. It punishes depth, re-qualification, and the kind of candidate management that produces 90%+ offer acceptance.
Retained search firms are engaged exclusively, paid in three installments, and accountable to a different metric: quality of placement over time. The 90-day replacement guarantee — standard in retained search — does not exist in contingency because the incentives don't support it.
| Factor | Retained | Contingency |
|---|---|---|
| Exclusivity | Yes | No |
| Fee structure | 3 installments | Placement only |
| Avg. days to close | 30–45 days | 75–100 days |
| Replacement guarantee | 90 days (standard) | Rare / limited |
| Candidate management | Active throughout | Minimal post-submit |
| Offer acceptance rate | 90%+ | Variable |
| Status reporting | Weekly | On request |
The mandate came in after two retained search firms had spent a combined 60+ days without a viable shortlist. The role was a VP-level search at a total compensation of $275K — a search that should have been straightforward but had stalled repeatedly on candidate quality and hiring committee alignment.
The first step was not sourcing. It was resetting the intake. The role brief used by the previous firms was vague on what "VP-level" meant for this specific company at this stage. Cultural fit criteria were unwritten. Compensation had not been benchmarked against current market.
With a rebuilt brief, targeted outreach, and a compressed timeline built around the hiring committee's calendar — not ours — the search closed in 41 days from engagement. Offer acceptance was immediate. The placement is still in role.
All Majhi Group benchmarks reflect actual closed mandates. Industry figures are drawn from published research across major executive search industry bodies and peer-reviewed HR studies.