Warning: The Hidden Cost of "Doing the Executive Search Ourselves"
- J. Michael Durnil, Ph.D.
- Jan 27
- 4 min read
Boards and executive leaders often begin an executive search with the best of intentions—and a common assumption:
“We can save money by doing this ourselves.”
On the surface, it sounds practical. You already know the organization. You have access to LinkedIn. You can post the role, review resumes, and interview finalists internally.
But in practice, self-managed executive searches rarely save money—and often create significant risks. The real cost is not the search fee avoided; it is what happens when the process overwhelms internal capacity, shortcuts decision-making, or results in the wrong hire.
The Real Cost of a Bad Hire
Replacing a senior leader is one of the most expensive talent failures an organization can experience.
Research consistently shows that when a new hire leaves within the first year, the total cost to the organization ranges from 50% to 200% of annual salary and can reach 300% to 400% for senior or highly specialized roles, once organizations account for recruitment, onboarding, lost productivity, disruption, and reputational impact.
For executive roles, those costs compound:
Strategic initiatives stall or reverse
Staff morale erodes under leadership instability
Donor, funder, or stakeholder confidence weakens
Board credibility takes a hit—internally and externally
Pitfall #1: Limited Internal Capacity, Unlimited Search Demands
Leadership searches are not just “post and pray.” They require:
Active outreach to passive, high-performing candidates
Consistent screening across hundreds of applications
Structured assessment against leadership competencies
Reference and risk diligence at a depth internal teams rarely have time to conduct
Most boards and leadership teams are already stretched thin. Search work gets layered on top of full-time responsibilities—leading to delays, rushed reviews, and uneven evaluation standards.
What starts as a manageable project quickly becomes a months-long drain on organizational focus.
Pitfall #2: Getting Buried in Applications, Not Better Candidates
Posting a leadership role publicly often produces volume, not quality.
Internal teams can be overwhelmed by:
Hundreds of resumes with inconsistent relevance
Candidates optimized for keywords, not leadership fit
Strong internal bias toward “familiar” profiles over transformative ones
Ironically, the most qualified executive candidates—especially those currently succeeding in similar roles—are least likely to apply through an open posting. They require discreet, targeted outreach and trusted intermediaries.
Without that, organizations risk choosing from whoever applied, not who was best.
Pitfall #3: Process Gaps Become Governance Risks
When leadership searches are run internally, boards often underestimate how easily process gaps emerge:
Inconsistent screening criteria across reviewers
Informal interviews that favor charisma over capability
Inadequate reference checking due to time or discomfort
Limited attention to culture, change readiness, or risk signals
These gaps do not just affect hiring outcomes—they create governance exposure. When a hire fails, boards and executive teams are left explaining not only what went wrong but also how decisions were made.
The False Economy of "Saving the Fee"
Avoiding professional search support may reduce upfront cash outlay—but it often increases downstream costs:
Extended vacancies
Leadership misalignment
Organizational disruption
Repeat searches within 12–24 months
In contrast, a well-run executive search is a risk-mitigation strategy, not a luxury. It brings structure, objectivity, market intelligence, and disciplined assessment, especially critical at moments of leadership transition.ongside the precision of retained executive search, will be the catalyst for lasting impact.
The Strategic Question Boards Should Ask
The question is not: “Can we run this search ourselves?”
It should be: “What is the cost—to our mission, people, and credibility—if we get this wrong?”
Executive leadership shapes every outcome that follows. Treating the search with the rigor it deserves is not an added expense—it is a fiduciary responsibility. Avoiding a search fee is inexpensive only until the cost of a failed executive leadership hire shows up in culture, credibility, and the balance sheet.
Lessons Boards Learn After a Failed Executive Hire
Most boards do not believe they need professional search support until after the first failed executive hire.
By then, the lessons are painfully clear.
Lesson #1: The Cost Was Never Just Financial
Replacing a senior leader who exits early can cost 50% to more than 200% of annual salary, once lost productivity, disruption, and restart costs are factored in—and even more for highly specialized or executive roles. But the deeper cost shows up in stalled strategy, shaken staff confidence, and diminished external trust.
Lesson #2: Volume Is Not a Talent Strategy
Boards often discover too late that hundreds of applications do not equal better candidates. The strongest leaders rarely apply—they are identified, vetted, and recruited with intention.
Lesson #3: Informal Processes Create Invisible Risk
Unstructured interviews, inconsistent screening, and rushed reference checks feel efficient in the moment. After a failed hire, boards realize those shortcuts quietly undermined decision quality.
Lesson #4: Time Was the Most Expensive Resource Lost
Months spent re-running a search could have been spent advancing mission, stabilizing teams, or strengthening stakeholder relationships. Executive vacancies are opportunity costs in disguise.
Lesson #5: Executive Search Is a Governance Tool, Not a Transaction
The most successful boards eventually recognize that executive search is not about filling a role—it is about protecting the organization’s future leadership, culture, and credibility.
The Big Takeaway:
Boards rarely regret investing in rigor. They often regret assuming leadership hiring would be “simple.”
