Senior Hiring Is Different. The Way You Recruit for It Should Be Too.

Executive search and standard recruitment both have an important role to play, but they work quite differently. This article explains how retained executive search works, when it makes sense, and what organisations should expect from the process.

Many organisations approach senior hiring the same way they approach every other role. A brief goes out to a few recruiters, the job description gets circulated, and then everyone waits to see which candidates come back first.


Sometimes that works. But when the role is genuinely important to the future of the organisation, the way you approach it usually needs to change too.


One of the questions I'm asked most often when speaking with clients is: what actually is the difference between executive search and standard recruitment? Both approaches have their place, and both can work really well depending on the role. But they operate quite differently.


Many organisations approach senior hiring the same way they approach every other role. A brief goes out to a few recruiters, the job description gets circulated, and then everyone waits to see which candidates come back first.


Sometimes that works. But when the role is genuinely important to the future of the organisation, the way you approach it usually needs to change too.

One of the questions I'm asked most often when speaking with clients is: what actually is the difference between executive search and standard recruitment? Both approaches have their place, and both can work really well depending on the role. But they operate quite differently.



What Is Standard Recruitment - and How Does It Work?


Standard recruitment typically operates on a contingent basis. That means agencies work on a no-win, no-fee model, and the same role is often shared with several recruiters simultaneously.


Because agencies are competing to present candidates first, the process naturally becomes about speed. The first strong candidate across the line often wins.


For many roles, that's perfectly effective. If a role is relatively straightforward, if there's good talent actively looking in the market, or if it's a higher-volume hire, contingent recruitment can be exactly the right approach.



What Is Executive Search - and How Is It Different?


Executive search, also referred to as retained search or headhunting, is a different model, designed for roles where finding the right leader matters more than finding one quickly.


Search assignments are retained and worked on exclusively by one specialist partner. Rather than a success-only model, the fee is typically structured in stages: a portion at the commencement of the search, a portion when the shortlist is delivered, and the final portion on placement.


That structure allows the search partner to dedicate real time and attention to the assignment, running a thorough, consultative process rather than racing against competing agencies.



What Does the Executive Search Process Actually Involve?


A lot of the most important work in executive search happens before we ever speak to a single candidate.


A proper search begins with a detailed briefing process. Of course we look at the role itself, but we go much deeper than a job description. We spend time understanding the organisation's culture, leadership dynamics, strategic direction for the next few years, and what success in the role will genuinely look like, not just at the six-month mark, but long term.


Once that foundation is in place, we map the market.


This is one of the most significant differences between executive search and contingent recruitment. Traditional recruitment focuses on the active job market, people who are already looking. Executive search goes much wider.


We identify and approach the relevant leaders across the market, including people who are not actively looking at all. These passive candidates, already performing the role well somewhere else, will often only consider a move if the opportunity is genuinely compelling and the approach is handled with care.



What Should Organisations Expect Throughout the Process?


Retained executive search is typically slower than contingent recruitment, but far more thorough.


Clients have complete transparency throughout. There are regular updates, full visibility of how the market is responding, and real insight into things like salary benchmarks, competitor structures, and how the organisation is perceived externally by senior talent.


At the senior level, that kind of market insight can be just as valuable as the hire itself.


Discretion is another important element. Executive search allows organisations to explore the market in a controlled, confidential way, which is particularly important for leadership transitions, board-level appointments, or sensitive restructures.



When Does Executive Search Make Sense?


Executive search is typically the right approach when:


  • The role is senior or highly specialised
  • The talent pool is niche and not actively on the market
  • Getting the hire right will have a material impact on the organisation's direction
  • Confidentiality is required during the process
  • Cultural alignment is as important as credentials


At a senior level, it's rarely just about whether someone can do the job. It's about leadership style, cultural fit, and how that person will shape the organisation going forward.



How Lotus People Executive Search Approaches the Work


At Lotus People Executive Search, one of the things we focus on most heavily before we begin approaching any candidate is cultural alignment.


We spend time really understanding a client's culture, not just what it looks like today, but what they need it to become. Leadership hires have a significant impact on an organisation, both positively and negatively. Getting that alignment right matters enormously.


Our process typically involves mapping 60 to 120 organisations per search, with an average timeline of around eight weeks from briefing to shortlist. We back our placements with a six-month replacement guarantee, because we stand by the rigour of our process.


We also use AI and technology to remove as much administrative burden from the search as possible, so our time is spent where it matters most: building genuine relationships with candidates, understanding their motivations, and staying closely connected with our clients throughout.


With 20 years of executive recruitment experience and a 98% placement retention rate, our approach is built on the belief that the right cultural match produces better outcomes for everyone, the organisation, the leader, and the people they'll lead.


Both contingent recruitment and executive search have an important role to play. The key is choosing the right approach for the role and the outcome you want to achieve. When the hire will shape the direction of the organisation, it's rarely a race to find a candidate. It's about finding the right leader.



Hayley Martin


Founder, Lotus People Executive Search




lotuspeople.com.au/executive-search



You may also like...

March 5, 2026
A conversation with Hayley Martin, Executive Search Practice Lead at Lotus People As Lotus People formally launches its Executive Search practice, we sat down with Hayley Martin to talk about what separates a great senior hire from a costly one, what mid-market businesses consistently get wrong, and why she chose to build this here . 
March 5, 2026
A natural next step for Lotus People - Lotus Executive Search , an organic evolution of work we've been doing for years, now delivered with the rigour, discretion, and partnership it deserves.  Leading this practice is Hayley Martin who brings over 20 years of executive search experience, including deep expertise in the not-for-profit sector, membership organisations, and corporate leadership appointments
By Michelle Barrett February 25, 2026
In the ever-evolving world of talent acquisition, reference checks remain a standard practice. However, I've recently asked my network a question: Is bringing two candidates to the reference check stage a fair and ethical practice? The overwhelming consensus from HR professionals, recruiters, and hiring managers is a resounding no . While companies might justify this approach to ensure they make the best hiring decision, the practice has significant drawbacks. The Candidate’s Perspective: False Hope and Strained Relationships For candidates, reference checks often represent the final hurdle before an offer. Being asked to provide references is a hopeful moment—only to discover later that they were simply a “backup” candidate. This leads to: False hope : The process feels misleading if references are strong, but the candidate still doesn’t secure the role due to a small deciding factor. Professional risk : Candidates hesitate to repeatedly ask the same referees for endorsements, fearing it may strain professional relationships or cast doubt on their credibility. Frustration and wasted time : Candidates invest considerable effort in securing references, only to walk away empty-handed. The Referee’s Burden: A Drain on Time and Goodwill Reference checks aren’t just a candidate inconvenience; they also affect referees—often senior professionals taking time out of their busy schedules. Many commenters noted: Referees have limited patience: If a former manager is repeatedly asked for references for the same person without a job offer, they may be reluctant to vouch for them in the future. - A one-sided burden : The hiring company benefits from this additional insight, but referees get little in return other than expecting a favour. The Hiring Manager’s Responsibility: Why This Practice Undermines Decision-Making Some employers argue that reference checks help finalise a tough decision between two equally qualified candidates. However, many experts push back against this rationale: Hiring decisions should be based on direct assessment, not external opinion : As one commenter put it, “You should never put the decision of who best to hire in the hands of someone you don’t know and doesn’t work for your business.” Reference checks are not selection tools : Traditionally, references are a due diligence step , not a deciding factor between multiple candidates. It’s an outdated practice : With many companies now limiting references to basic employment verification, the value of this process is already diminished. So, What’s the Alternative? If reference checks shouldn’t be used to choose between candidates, how should they be utilised?
More Posts