Time-to-fill for VP and C-suite roles is one of the most tracked metrics in talent acquisition — and one of the most frequently misunderstood. It is a lagging indicator of process health. Organisations that optimise for time-to-fill as a primary metric often compress the assessment stages that determine hire quality. This page examines the data on VP-level time-to-fill and what actually drives it.
Time-to-Fill Benchmarks by Role Level
| Role Level | Industry Median (days) | Retained Search (Majhi Group) |
|---|---|---|
| VP-level (general) | 65–90 | 30–45 |
| Chief Sales Officer | 75–100 | 35–50 |
| Chief Technology Officer | 80–110 | 40–55 |
| Chief Financial Officer | 70–95 | 35–50 |
| Chief People Officer | 60–85 | 30–45 |
| VP Engineering | 70–100 | 35–50 |
What Drives Time-to-Fill in VP Search
Time-to-fill in VP search is determined by four variables, in order of impact:
Intake calibration quality
The quality of the intake conversation — how precisely the success profile, cultural fit criteria, and decision-making process are defined — determines how quickly shortlist candidates are approved. Poor intake produces low approval rates, which extend the search by forcing the recruiter back to sourcing. High-quality intake produces the first shortlist efficiently and moves directly to assessment.
Assessment methodology
Organisations that assess VP candidates through a single interview round with unstructured questions take longer to reach a hire decision than organisations using structured behavioural interviews and evidence dossiers. Paradoxically, a more thorough assessment process can close faster because stakeholders have higher confidence at decision time.
Hiring manager decision-making discipline
Hiring manager bandwidth and decisiveness is a leading driver of search elongation. When feedback cycles from shortlist presentations take 5–10 business days instead of 1–2, the search loses momentum and top candidates accept competing offers. Explicit SLAs for hiring manager feedback are a process lever most organisations underuse.
Exclusivity and incentive alignment
Non-exclusive searches — where multiple contingency firms are engaged simultaneously — produce candidate duplication, recruiter disengagement, and lower commitment from the search firm. Exclusive retained engagements with milestone-based incentives consistently close faster because the search firm has full accountability and full commitment to the search.
The 41-Day Case
A $275,000 VP search at a technology company was passed to Majhi Group after two other firms failed to close it in 60+ days combined. Majhi Group closed the search in 41 days. The result was not achieved through a larger network or faster sourcing — it was achieved through a disciplined retained process: a behaviourally-defined intake, an evidence dossier format, daily pipeline updates, and hiring manager feedback SLAs. The inputs were process disciplines. The output was 41 days.
"Faster close time is not a sourcing speed problem. It is an intake quality and assessment discipline problem. Fix the process; the timeline follows."