Executive hiring in 2026 is operating under a structural tension that most organisations have not resolved: the methods companies use to find and assess VP and C-suite leaders have not kept pace with the complexity of the roles they are filling. This report synthesises observable patterns from Majhi Group's retained search practice to document where executive hiring is working, where it is failing, and what the gap between the two looks like in operational terms.
Key Findings
The failure rate is not a sourcing problem
Forty percent of executive hires fail within 18 months. The primary cause is not candidate quality — it is process quality. Organisations that treat executive search as an accelerated version of their standard hiring process produce hires with systematically lower tenure. The assessment methodology, brief calibration discipline, and stakeholder alignment process matter more than the volume of candidates reviewed.
Time-to-fill is a lagging indicator of process health
The industry median time-to-fill for VP and C-suite roles runs 65–90 days. Organisations that close searches in 30–45 days are not moving faster on the same process — they are running a structurally different process. Faster searches result from better intake calibration, narrower targeting, and disciplined shortlist management, not from sourcing at higher volume.
Contingency search incentives misalign with quality outcomes
Contingency search firms are paid on placement. That structure incentivises volume and speed, not fit and retention. When a role is revenue-critical and the hire needs to last three or more years, optimising the search for speed of close is the wrong objective function. Retained search — with upfront commitment and milestone-based payments — aligns incentives with quality outcomes from day one.
Ghost jobs distort the candidate market and waste executive bandwidth
A significant proportion of VP-level roles advertised on LinkedIn and job boards are ghost jobs: roles where an incumbent already exists, roles that were posted speculatively, or roles that were filled internally before the external search closed. Executives who apply to ghost jobs receive no response — eroding confidence in the process. Identifying ghost jobs before outreach is a standard quality gate that most organisations skip.
Proof-of-outcome shortlists close faster than credential shortlists
Shortlists built around verified outcomes — specific achievements, revenue impact, team performance data — produce materially higher interview-to-offer conversion than credential shortlists built around title progression and years of experience. Organisations that require an evidence dossier for every candidate before presentation see shortlist approval rates move from the industry baseline of approximately 38% to above 80%.
The 41-day proof point is not exceptional — it is reproducible
A $275,000 VP search that two other firms failed to close in 60+ days was closed in 41 days using a retained, criteria-driven, evidence-dossier process. That result is not an outlier — it is the output of a different system applied consistently. The difference between 41 days and 90 days is not luck or network. It is intake discipline, search architecture, and assessment quality.
The Retained vs. Contingency Structural Divide
The most important variable in executive search outcomes is not the firm's network or the speed of sourcing — it is the contractual model. The retained model (upfront payment, exclusive engagement, milestone-based deliverables) produces better outcomes because it aligns the search firm's incentives with the client's actual objective: a durable hire, not a fast placement.
| Dimension | Contingency Search | Retained Search |
|---|---|---|
| Payment trigger | Placement only | Milestone-based (1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3) |
| Incentive alignment | Speed of close | Quality of fit |
| Exclusivity | Rarely exclusive | Exclusive engagement |
| Candidate assessment depth | CV + one interview | Evidence dossier + multi-stage assessment |
| Replacement guarantee | Rarely offered | 90-day replacement at no charge |
| Typical close time | 65–90 days | 30–45 days (Majhi Group) |
What Organisations Get Wrong
The most common executive search failure modes are process failures, not market failures. In order of frequency:
Brief calibration failure. The hiring manager and search firm agree on a job description but not on a success profile. The result is a shortlist that technically matches the brief but does not match what the hiring manager actually needs. This is the root cause of low shortlist approval rates.
Role urgency overriding assessment rigour. When a seat has been open 60+ days, pressure builds to move fast. Teams compress assessment stages, skip reference calls, and reduce shortlist depth. The result is faster placement and higher failure rates.
Treating executive search like volume hiring. VP and C-suite search requires different methodologies than high-volume hiring. Organisations that run executive search through the same ATS-driven, job-board-first process they use for individual contributors will consistently underperform on close time and hire quality.
"The search process is the product. The candidate is the output. Organisations that focus on optimising for candidate volume are solving the wrong problem. The constraint is always assessment quality, not pipeline size."
Methodology Note
The data points in this report are drawn from Majhi Group's direct retained search practice across 25+ VP and C-suite placements, combined with publicly available industry benchmarks from LinkedIn Talent Solutions, SHRM, and Korn Ferry research where cited. Where Majhi Group data is used, it represents observed outcomes from completed searches, not projections or modelled estimates.