A Search Can Fail Before It Starts

One of the most instructive placements of my career involved a senior manufacturing executive I will call Frank. That is not his real name, but the placement and what followed are real. He was experienced, technically capable and comfortable working internationally. The company hired him to improve a foreign manufacturing operation: strengthen quality, create accountability and put better operating systems in place.

He began doing what he had been asked to do. And that is where the trouble started.

Two assignments were hiding inside one job

Headquarters believed the facility needed meaningful change. The executive closest to the operation saw the situation differently and believed things were going reasonably well. Frank found uneven standards, weak accountability and operating disciplines that needed attention. As he addressed those problems, the assignment stopped being only technical. It became political.

Frank was responsible for results, but the vice president of manufacturing had a stronger line to the owner and more influence over how the work was understood. As the changes disrupted established relationships and practices, resistance grew. The owner came to believe Frank was the wrong person, and Frank was terminated after roughly six months.

Was it a failed placement? In the practical sense, yes: it did not last. But that answer misses the earlier failure. The organization began a turnaround search without first aligning the people above the role on what a turnaround would actually require. Headquarters wanted change. The leader closest to the operation believed less change was needed. That disagreement was left for the new executive to absorb.

If leadership has not agreed on what needs to change, the new executive can become the place where that disagreement gets resolved.

The candidate may not be the first thing to diagnose

When a senior hire goes wrong, companies often revisit the candidate evaluation: Which question did we fail to ask? Which reference should we have called? What assessment could have helped? Those questions matter. But before them is a more basic one: did we know what job we were actually filling?

A search can find the person who matches the written specification and still miss the person the organization is prepared to support. A turnaround mandate may sound clear in a conference room. It becomes more complicated when the new leader changes reporting relationships, exposes weak performance, challenges a longstanding practice or asks why exceptions seem to follow personal relationships.

The company may believe it is choosing an executive. It is also choosing how much change it is willing to accept, who will have authority to make that change, and what leaders will do when the first unpopular decision creates resistance.

Make the mandate concrete before sourcing

In a similar search today, I would spend more time defining the mandate before presenting candidates. I would want to understand who believes the operation needs to change and who does not; which decisions the new leader will control; what happens when accountability affects people with long-standing relationships inside the organization; whether the executive will have direct access to the owner or board; and what senior leadership will defend when the first difficult decision is made.

These are search questions. They shape the opportunity candidates are being asked to consider, the experience the search should target, and the support the executive will need to produce results. They also help the client see where the organization may be describing an ambition that it has not yet agreed to carry out.

Authority on paper is not always authority in practice

An organization chart shows reporting lines. It cannot always show who has the owner's trust, whose opinion carries weight after a meeting, who has historical access, or which informal relationship can slow a formal initiative. Those dynamics are part of the business environment the incoming executive will enter.

A CEO does not need to share every internal disagreement with a candidate. But the CEO does need to understand those disagreements before placing a new leader in the middle of them. Otherwise, the company may recruit someone to carry a mandate the organization has not decided to support.

A difficult outcome can still teach the right lesson

Frank's six-month assignment did not define the rest of his career. He later accepted a substantially larger role and went on to serve in the C-suite of a major apparel manufacturer. That does not prove he was right about every decision at the earlier company. It does show why a short tenure alone cannot tell the whole story of a hire.

The more useful review is: What did we know when we made the decision? What did we fail to investigate? Which assumptions turned out to be false? A disappointing outcome is not automatically proof that the candidate was wrong. It may reveal that the mandate, authority or sponsorship was never real enough to begin with.

That is why I no longer think of retained search primarily as sourcing. It begins as diagnosis. Before the search creates activity, the company has to clarify the business problem and decide whether its leaders are prepared to support the work required to solve it.

The mandate is part of the hire

A strong executive can still fail when the organization has not aligned around the mandate. The candidate matters. So do the problem, the authority of the role, the resistance likely to appear and the leaders who will support the executive when difficult decisions become real.

Clarity does not remove uncertainty from a consequential hire. It helps the company make a decision it understands—and gives the incoming executive a fair chance to do the work.

← Back to Insights