Which Executive Search Firm Should I Choose?

Navigating between global SHREKs, Specialist Boutiques, Contingent Agencies, and Inhouse Capability

Executive Summary

The article discusses the factors to consider when looking for top executive search firms to assist with a senior hiring requirement. The author outlines and assesses four categories:

1) GLOBAL ‘SHREK’ FIRMS:

Advantages: These firms may offer unique access to executive talent, carry prestige, and assure quality. They are a safe but expensive option.

Disadvantages: High volume can dilute quality, especially for mid-to-senior level positions. High costs may not always be proportional to the value received.

2) BOUTIQUE EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRMS:

Advantages: Specialization, and flexible client-centric approach; boutiques may provide high-quality, faster searches at competitive prices, often with less ‘off limit’ restrictions.

Disadvantages: Varying quality; some boutiques may lack the sophistication expected from premium firms. Over-promising on capabilities is a potential risk.

3) CONTINGENT RECRUITMENT AGENCIES:

Advantages: Ultra-specialized for fast and opportunistic hiring. Cost-effective for challenging mid- and junior-level positions.

Disadvantages: Low mutual commitment, mixed messages to the market, and potential reputational damage, especially if multiple agencies are engaged simultaneously.

4) INTERNAL EXECUTIVE SEARCH TEAMS:

Advantages: Greater Insider knowledge, and sometimes even external competitor knowledge; highly cost-effective when appropriately utilized.

Disadvantages: Lack of independence, expertise in specific areas, and potential challenges in stakeholder management.

CONCLUSION:

For high-profile CEO and Board roles, especially in large public companies, a SHREK firm is often a great option. Boutiques can outperform their larger competitors, and be better suited in many circumstances, so opportunities should be sought to trial credible alternatives. There are many signs to indicate you are dealing with a reputable boutique. Professional contingent recruiters can be great assets, especially in candidate-driven markets. They may lack the thoroughness, accountability, and influencing skills needed for senior positions. Internal executive search teams offer exceptional value when properly utilized, especially for companies with a predictable volume of senior hires.

Introduction

Firstly, let us acknowledge the blindingly obvious potential for bias and self-promotion when a Partner at an executive search firm authors an article designed to help Talent, HR professionals, and Senior Executives, decide which firm they should mandate with their executive search need. With business outcomes, budgets, reputations, company politics, and egos to navigate, if you are tasked with deciding ‘which executive search firm’ to select, you will likely encounter bias from multiple angles. Whether that is the Chair of your Board who has a 10 year relationship with one of the firms you are considering, your CFO who is managing weighty cost reduction targets, your Head of Talent who feels their internal recruitment team is up to the task, or the direct hiring manager who has already put the word out to their network and is now interviewing candidates seemingly out of the blue.

It can be difficult to know which course to chart. Likely the options available for you will fall into one of four categories:

Global ‘SHREK’ Firm
Boutique Executive Search Firm
Contingent Recruitment Agency
Internal Executive Search Team

In this article we will endeavor to rationally lay out the pros and cons of selecting each of these options, depending on your circumstances.

Global ‘SHREK’ Firm

For the uninitiated, ‘SHREK’ is an acronym referring to the five largest and arguably most prestigious executive search firms, Spencer Stuart, Heidrick & Struggles, Russell Reynolds, Egon Zhender and Korn Ferry. Heidrick & Struggles and Korn Ferry are public companies, whereas the other three operate as private partnerships. The differentiators between these firms vary from one industry, function, and region to the next. For the purpose of this article, we will consider them as a category and judge them on their general merits.

ADVANTAGES

Access – For many years SHREK firms have traded on their unique access to executive talent. To appoint a CEO or Board Member of a Fortune 500 company requires a rarefied network and brand to ensure that phone calls to prospective candidates are returned promptly and that suitable references can be taken to triangulate an understanding of a candidate suitability. Often ‘back-channel’ referencing takes place well ahead of approaching the candidate directly. Many well-known and in demand C-level executives will only respond to executive search firms that they know and sometimes only to specific individuals within these firms whom they trust.

Prestige – Related to the access that SHREK firms enjoy, there is a degree of credibility that comes with an approach by one of these firms. Mandating a SHREK firm signals to candidates that your role is a critical senior position, and that your company is prepared to pay a premium to ensure that the right candidate is selected. The elevated position of these firms can also lend weight to negotiations, and candidates may be more susceptible to influence from a Partner at a search firm they respect. Similarly, the status of Partners at SHREK firms may help influence the internal stakeholders within your organization. This could be to help effectively scope the role before the search takes place, or in mediating disagreement over the preferred candidate.

Quality Assurance – as the adage goes “no one ever got fired for buying [insert: IBM/ McKinsey/ SHREK.].” When the cost of getting an executive search wrong is so high, the comfort of using a known brand is compelling. Generally, these firms operate with the highest professional standards in the industry and, in selecting one of these firms, you should feel confident that your search is in some of the most capable hands possible. In the unlikely event that something goes wrong, you may at least hope to be shielded from criticism over your choice of firm.

DISADVANTAGES & CONSIDERATIONS

Volume – due to their significant brand pull, SHREK firms deliver hundreds of executive search mandates per year. Underlying compensation plans for Partners are highly capitalistic, with bonuses, status, promotions, and compensation heavily linked to annual billings. To execute so many searches per year, Partners at SHREK firms rely on heavily leveraged teams and may spread themselves across a great many searches at a time with a less experienced team handling much of the candidate delivery. When assessing a search firm, pay close attention to the team involved in the pitch. Are these the same individuals who will be doing core candidate work? Be wary of shiny sales presentations fronted by Partners who may hand off delivery to junior teams once their retainer is invoiced. It can be common practice for Partners to attend status calls having been briefed by their Associates on progress only moments before. High integrity Partners will candidly share the level of involvement they will have in your search, and they will not oversell you on their personal input. A high volume of work may also bring ‘off limit restrictions.’ This is where search firms contractually agree not to solicit employees from their clients’ organizations for hire elsewhere. Ensure that you enquire during the contracting process which companies are ‘off limits’ for the search firm and consider how materially this will affect the outcome.

Level – related to the issue of volume diluting quality is the issue of seniority level. There are a finite number of high-profile CEO mandates open in the market at a given time. These prestigious searches are calling cards for SHREK firms and may take a disproportionate amount of Partner attention. If you are a Board member at a Fortune 100 company looking to replace your CEO, then you can safely ignore this point. However, if, like most retained search mandates, yours is a C-minus one/SVP/VP level requirement, or for a much a smaller company, you may find that the there is a temptation for SHREK Partner to ‘book, bill and forget’ your search. This is especially challenging when the market is buoyant, and workloads are high. Access to senior talent has traditionally been a key value proposition for SHREK firms. However, as these firms have scaled

since their emergence in the 1960’s, they have sought sustained revenue growth by working further down the organizational chart on less senior positions. At the same time, the rise of the internet and online tools like LinkedIn has democratized access to information on ‘who does what’ at each company. With the exception of extremely rarefied C-level searches, it may be a fallacy to state that only SHREK firms can reach the target community for a given search.

Cost – SHREK firms are unlikely to budge much on price and will typically charge 1/3 of the candidate’s 1st year compensation as a fee exclusive of stock. This is often invoiced in time-based milestones, unrelated to deliverable outcomes. Fees for individual searches often run higher than $250k and can be even higher than $1m. Further to the consideration of ‘seniority,’ if your search is for a mid-ranking VP or SVP and you are paying $150k to your chosen SHREK firm, be mindful that you are likely not the highest priority client on their roster. Total compensation for a Partner at an executive search firm typically equates to ~35% of personal annual billings. Partners at SHREK firms are expected to bill in the region of $4m per year with some billing more than $10m! Do the math and consider whether the value and attention you are likely to receive is proportional to the cost for your search.

SUMMARY 📝

An expensive safe bet. The best Partners at SHREK firms are undoubtedly at the top of their field. If your search is high profile and you have high conviction in the integrity of the individual Partner serving you, they could be a great choice. If you have doubts, consider some of the alternatives below.

Boutique Executive Search Firms

Boutique executive search firms are a broad category. The capital and regulatory barriers to entry for recruitment businesses are almost non-existent. Assuming you have a rolodex of potential clients, all you need is a phone and laptop to get started. Unsurprisingly, many Partners from SHREK firms leave to set up their own boutique search firms with varying degrees of success and professionalism. Some may be lifestyle businesses, and some may bring genuine differentiation and meaningful scale. Similarly, many contingent (non-retained) agency recruiters start their own recruitment business and brand themselves as ‘executive search’ firms for the higher prestige and fees this helps them command. For these reasons, boutique executive search firms require extremely high scrutiny.

ADVANTAGES

Specialization – conventional MBA wisdom tells us that, to succeed, a business needs to be competitive on either price, quality, or speed of service. If a business competes effectively on two of these dimensions, it will dominate an industry. If it is competitive in all three (à la Amazon), it will redefine its industry. The best executive search boutiques are competitive in at least two of these dimensions, usually based on a deep understanding of a particular market niche. This niche might be a functional competency, such as HR, Marketing, or Cybersecurity, or it might be an industry competency such as Financial Services, Education, or Life Sciences. As the executive search and recruitment market grows, new boutiques are founded every year which service ever more niche subsectors of industries and job functions. At their best, the immediate network and insights that these firms have in their markets are unparalleled. They may well be able to deliver higher quality, faster search, at more compelling price, than anyone else in their field.

Flexibility & client centricity – boutique executive search firms are typically working hard to establish and grow their brand against stiff competition. Each search is critical to their emerging reputation and the cost of failing is arguably higher for them than at legacy brands which can afford to absorb the occasional reputation knock. Great boutiques are likely to deploy significant time and resources to over-deliver effectively, treating each project as a ‘make or break’ opportunity. This is helpful particularly when searches evolve in real time and require a pivot in a new direction. Good boutique search firms often accompany clients on a journey towards the right candidate, rather than adopting a prescriptive ‘here is your shortlist; like it or lump it’ mentality. They are also likely to be running less projects concurrently and the Partner attention you receive may be higher than at SHREK firms, especially if your search is below the C-Suite.

Cost – the best executive search boutiques will not lead with price as a differentiator.

However, compared with a SHREK firm, they are likely to offer on par or more favorable and flexible commercial terms. 1/3 of candidates’ 1st year compensation invoiced in three instalments remains the industry standard. Typically, 1/3 is payable as a retainer at project commencement and, depending on the firm, they will often link the remaining two instalments to delivery milestones, such as agreed shortlist and candidate acceptance. Boutique firms may offer reduced fee percentages or ‘fixed and capped’ fees at a pre-agreed amount. Be wary of firms that offer fee reductions significantly lower than 30%, or to work with little or no retainer payment. These may fall into the category of contingent recruitment agencies which are seeking to move up the value chain into executive search, as outlined later on.

ADDITIONAL INSIGHT 💡

A note on ‘global’ reach: as boutiques grow and open more domestic and international offices, they may increasingly appear like full-service SHREK firms in scale. Pay attention during a search firm’s pitch to how the Partners from different offices and practices interact with each other. A local office in each of your priority regions doesn’t mean a search firm is necessarily better suited to run a global search, where your successful candidate may be found in one of several locations. The larger firms get, the more likely their P&Ls are to be regionalized. This can lead to your search falling between the cracks where neither Partner and office is fully incentivized nor accountable. An office in every major city may look great on a website but it doesn’t count for much if the Partners from these offices don’t talk to each other or are not incentivized to collaborate.

DISADVANTAGES & CONSIDERATIONS

Varied quality – with barriers to entry so low, the quality of boutique executive search firms varies in the extreme. At their worst you may encounter ‘wild west’ recruiters masquerading as executive search professionals who will take your retainer payment and run for the hills! While this is highly unlikely, a serious point is that businesses claiming to provide ‘executive search’ on their website, do not necessarily have the methodology, sophistication, or thoroughness that you should expect for a premium firm. Some signs you can look for to increase comfort that you are engaging with a reputable firm are:

Size – bigger doesn’t always mean better but a business with 50-100 people or even more is likely to have repeat clients, governance, and a reputation to uphold.
Pedigree – do any of their staff have SHREK backgrounds or do their staff get poached by SHREK? Cross pollination with reputable known search brands is a good sign.
References – don’t be afraid to ask for client references. No one will deliberately volunteer a bad client reference, but the type of reference they offer and what the client shares with you is a great indicator of the kind of trusted relationships the firm has built. Be mindful to reserve this for situations when you are inclined to proceed and are seeking validation rather than early-stage fact finding. As when offering a job to a candidate, it may be considered poor etiquette to call on references and subsequently decline to move forwards for reasons that were available prior to calling the reference.
Staff longevity – what does the average tenure of their employees look like, current and past. A firm that has a track record of retaining staff is likely doing something right. By contrast, a firm that has a revolving door of partners with short tenure may be using an attractive commission scheme to lure in ‘rainmakers’ from other search firms. This may be funded by under-investment in delivery capability leading to poor execution, Partner and client attrition.
Over promising – Boutique firms seeking to grow and meet payroll demands can be guilty of saying ‘yes’ to searches outside of their expertise. There is a difference between naturally expanding a portfolio of search work into adjacent markets vs. a mentality of ‘win at all costs.’ An important caveat is not to expect a boutique to always have an extensive track

record of exact replica searches. However, a boutique should always have a relevant enough track record to demonstrate that they’d be able to apply their methodology to your requirement. So, be wary of firms that say ‘yes’ indiscriminately and pay close attention to firms that turn down the opportunity to work with you. Probe for relevant, but not necessarily directly analogous experience, and ask the firm to explain the logic behind why they would be a good fit for your assignment.A boutique that only takes on projects which are exact repeats of previous projects will never flourish, and if you are selecting your search firm based primarily on length of track record then you may well end up selecting a SHREK firm most of the time.

ADDITIONAL INSIGHT 💡

It may be a misconception to believe that a search firm’s track record is useful because it shows you ‘who they know.’ Having relevant candidates and sources on speed dial is helpful, but each search is different and requires fresh eyed research. As explained earlier, identification of and access to talent has become increasingly democratized through the internet and having candidates in your database in no longer foundational to a search firm’s value proposition. A closely relevant track record is useful to demonstrate credibility but not a critical success factor.

SUMMARY 📝

Mandating a boutique may lead to the best executive search experience you ever have, or the worst. Vet with extreme caution and do your best to recognize opportunities where you can afford to trial a new firm.

Contingent Recruitment Agencies

There can be a fine line between what constitutes a recruitment agency and a boutique search firm. The most obvious difference is reflected in pricing structure. Recruitment agencies will work in a dedicated fashion on a specific hiring need with payment due only after their referred candidate is hired. Industry terms have emerged such as ‘retingency’ or ‘container payment’ to describe the process of offering an agency a modest upfront payment as a retainer (e.g. ~$10k) with the remainder of the fee weighted towards the successful placement. This has created further ambiguity over what constitutes executive search vs. a highly professional recruitment agency.

ADVANTAGES

Specialization – a key advantage of a contingent recruitment agency is similar to the advantage of a boutique executive search firm. Some may disagree but I’d argue that a deep relationship with a truly exceptional contingent recruiter who knows your space inside out, can be as effective as any SHREK or boutique retained firm. The key is in the strength of the relationship and the role you are hiring. If you have trust in their commitment to bring their full resources to bear, their ability to influence the hiring manager(s) and drive process, and their access to the talent community you need, a great contingent recruiter can be a tremendous asset.

Fast & opportunistic hiring – a difference in process between a retained executive search firm and a contingent agency is that a contingent agency tends to be focused on quickly presenting candidates, booking interviews, and pressing to secure a placement. By contrast, a search firm might undertake several weeks of market mapping before presenting candidates, to ensure that the candidates presented are the best available in the market, not the quickest relevant profiles they uncover. There are times when speed is of the essence and getting the job filled quickly or opportunistically takes precedent over thoroughness. This is more often the case with junior and middle management positions, rather than senior management, although, there are use-cases for senior hires, especially in candidate driven markets.

Cost – generally speaking, the lower down the organization chart you recruit, the more ‘cost per hire’ becomes a consideration. CEOs have a disproportional impact on company performance and the cost of the search is typically a rounding error when compared with the return on investment the Board hopes the CEO will bring. For this reason, contingent recruitment agencies are best utilized for mid and junior level roles where cost and conviction on candidate quality way more equally. Professional agency recruiters typically charge between 18% – 25% of candidates’ first year base salary, invoiced on candidate acceptance or start date. Agencies will occasionally accept fees lower than this, although, to get to a cost per hire of under 15%, you will likely need to explore alternative recruitment service models such as ‘embedded’ or Recruitment Process Outsourcing (RPO). This is where companies will provide a managed services solution based on high pre-agreed annual volumes of hiring.

ADDITIONAL INSIGHT 💡

Candidate driven markets are industries or job functions where the availability of quality interested candidates is lower than the number of open positions or companies recruiting for the role. An example might be Sales Executives with their own portable client lists. Not only is there opportunity cost associated not filling a sales role quickly (in missed revenue and market share), but a candidates’ ability to impact the company’s future top line mean that budget is often created opportunistically to hire, when highly prized candidates become available. Contingent recruiters often thrive in these candidate driven markets, operating as intermediaries, speculatively introducing candidates to clients with whom they have built trusted relationships, and sometimes to companies that they simply suspect will take interest in a particular resume. Another example of a candidate driven market is in the legal sector. Partners at top law firms move so seldom that when a senior Partner expresses an interest to move to a competitor, they may quickly find the doors thrown wide open to them. Partner moves at white shoe law firms equate almost to mini company acquisitions and a recruitment fee for a single legal partner in the US regularly exceeds $1m. Despite a few legal search firms operating on a retained basis, the market remains dominated by contingent recruiters speculatively introducing candidates who are open to moving.

DISADVANTAGES & CONSIDERATIONS

Low commitment – the biggest issue with a contingent recruitment solution for a senior role is the lack of accountability you hold with the recruiter. The worst you can do is vow never to work with them again and there is no contractual guarantee of what you will receive. Depending on how appetizing the success fee is that you are offering, you may find that you are only sent the resumes which surface quickest in a recruiter’s search, or the candidates that were unsuccessful from a campaign for another higher paying client. If a quick placement is not achieved, agency recruiters are often encouraged by their managers to focus their energy on easier to fill roles with other clients.

Stakeholder management – not always, but often, high quality contingent recruiters will find their careers gravitating towards executive search over time. This is because aligning internal stakeholders to pay a retainer fee (or even a ‘container’ fee) upfront, asserts the internal commitment towards making the hire and the external commitment towards using the selected recruiter. Without internal commitment and external trust in your recruitment partners, hiring campaigns can be doomed to failure before they have begun. Recruiters need to influence their clients based on a consultative presentation of their findings. This can be hard when there is no contractual commitment between the two parties. Hiring stakeholders must be committed to following the search through with their chosen recruiter, to a conclusion. This is difficult to enforce with no ‘skin in the game.’

Mixed messages to market – it may be tempting to put your hiring need out contingently to multiple agencies at once. While in theory this allows the ‘best’ recruiter to surface by bringing you the candidate you need, in reality, the best recruiters will usually walk away from this form of engagement. Knowing that you are competing against three other firms for the same pool of candidates is unattractive to recruiters who have built relationships with other paying clients who use them exclusively. It can also leave an undesirable impression with candidates who are

approached multiple times by different agencies and signal to the market that you are struggling to fill your role. If you revisit this search in the future in a more structured fashion, you may find that reputational damage endures, and top candidates perceive your business as always hiring, not serious about the role, or suffering attrition.

SUMMARY 📝

If you are lucky enough to have an incredible contingent recruiter, you should probably continue to invest in the relationship. In certain candidate driven markets it may make sense to leverage these firms opportunistically, but it is inadvisable to mandate them for truly senior executive roles.

Internal Recruitment Team

In the last two decades, it has become increasingly common to see companies build their own sophisticated and mature internal executive search capability. The teams are often housed by ex-SHREK employees; Partners, researchers or managers who do not wish to have their career development dependent on achieving arbitrary sales numbers. These teams can provide exceptional value to senior hiring campaigns when utilized and partnered with effectively.

ADVANTAGES

Insider knowledge – as effectively as an external search firm can build relationships within their clients, there’s nothing that can trump the experience of someone in the business day-in day-out. Having an internal executive search professional act as first point of contact to an executive candidate gives an authentic and nuanced perspective on your business which external firms will struggle to replicate. The internal executive recruiter also has insight into company context, politics, personalities, and processes which enable them to hand hold prospective candidates through a recruitment process with much greater precision and understanding than their counterparts on the external side of the fence.

External knowledge – Recruiting regularly from the same competitors also allows internal search professionals to quickly amass comprehensive data on how job titles map between organizations and build ‘muscle memory’ on how well executives from target organizations might assimilate to your company. Since internal executive recruiters are normally full-time employees, it allows your company to leverage them in more fluid ways. Rather than waiting until your hiring need is urgent, an internal search team can act as an extension of your broader talent management function and can assist with longer range talent planning initiatives like succession planning, competitor analysis and benchmarking.

Cost – If kept busy, your internal executive search team is likely to pay for itself handsomely over time in the money they save you on executive search fees.Avoid over-hiring into the function or you may be forced to make redundancies if the need for executive hiring slows. Remember that you can also redeploy these teams towards longer-term projects, in L&D, OD and broader HR to supplement work on specific searches. Internal search professionals can also bring rigor and governance to your engagement with external search firms, often driving better accountability, prices, and outcomes.

DISADVANTAGES & CONSIDERATIONS

Lack of independence – reaching out to prospective candidates with the email signature of your company telegraphs who you are hiring for. That might be fine if you work for silicon valley’s latest high-tech darling, but if you are a business undergoing transformation, seeking to reinvent, or launch a new offering in an area you are not famous for, you might miss out on talented executives who decline the invitation to talk based on preconceptions of brand. By contrast, executive search firms maintain independent relationships with candidates allowing them to present opportunities in a compelling light which might otherwise have been dismissed out of hand. Candidate objections are more likely to be voiced openly (with less risk of directly offending) and can thus be addressed. Search firms can also more easily solicit back-channel references on executive performance. If the search is confidential it goes without saying that an internal search team will have a harder time keeping the initiative quiet when reaching out to the market.

Expertise – the best internal executive search professionals manage to develop incredible fungibility across different job functions. They quickly become specialists in your company and generalists across the roles you recruit, from Finance and HR, Risk, Legal and Compliance, to Sales Marketing, IT and Strategy. That said, no one can be an expert in everything and there will inevitably be markets where an external team of specialists will be more suited to the task than generalists who are spread thinly across multiple areas. Be mindful also of capable internal recruiters who have been asked to step up to deliver executive level searches without prior experience. They may be phenomenal recruiters who know your company inside out but not always aware of fundamental skills that are honed when working at a reputable external search firm.

Stakeholder management – this has the potential to be a strength and a weakness. A great internal executive search professional builds trusted relationships with their internal stakeholders which enables them to influence and guide decision making.

However, internal teams still ultimately sit on the company payroll and when your client is the owner of that payroll, e.g. a CFO, the COO or a senior GM that outranks you in the company hierarchy, they may choose to occasionally use their status to override your counsel. External firms, by contrast, have the luxury of being part time consultants who can challenge, provoke and circumvent, without fear of ongoing repercussions in the same way as salaried employees.

SUMMARY 📝

When this function works well, it is unbeatable in terms of cost to value ratio. Treat your internal executive search team members as partners and allow them to influence you. There is probably still a place for executive search or recruitment firms in your talent acquisition strategy, but if your company has the scale and predictable volume of senior hiring to justify an internal executive search resource it is likely a good investment.

Conclusion

There is much to consider when looking for a top executive search firm. For a highly visible CEO appointment, especially at a large public company, a SHREK firm may be your most obvious choice. Where possible, take the opportunity to trial well-referenced and credible boutiques. At all levels and especially for roles below the CEO and Board, you may find boutiques that can outperform their larger competitors. Contingent recruiters can play a useful role in your talent acquisition strategy, especially in candidate driven markets and where you have built a uniquely trusted relationship. However, for truly senior ‘must fill’ positions, they are unlikely to bring the thoroughness and accountability required. Internal executive search professionals can bring incredible value relative to their cost and be effective when partnered with appropriately. Ensure this function is staffed with high quality professionals, ideally with some external executive search experience and avoid over-hiring when the pipeline of searches is temporarily high.

Simon Kent Simon Kent is a shareholding Partner at the executive search firm Wilton & Bain where he has worked for 10 years, initially in London and latterly in New York via San Francisco. The opinions expressed are personal views and not voiced on behalf of the firm. While Simon’s career has been spent primarily within a boutique executive search firm, he draws additional perspective from his wife who is the Director of Executive Search at a publicly listed FinTech, his many close friends working in large SHREK firms, contingent recruitment agencies, and in senior internal talent roles. His hope is that this article proves useful as a transparent and de-mystified overview of the recruitment solutions available for senior hiring needs.

If you’d like to discuss any of the points in this article or would like more advice on which search firm might be right for you, please reach out to Simon.