As Global Head of Research & Leadership Advisory at JRG Partners, I want to lay out what actually works here, because the gap between common practice and best practice on this topic is wide. In a culture that prizes speed, taking longer to hire feels like failure, and employers apologize for searches that stretch out. Often they have it exactly backwards. A longer executive search frequently produces a better hire, because the things that make a search take time are often the things that make it succeed, and rushing the wrong parts is how good searches become bad hires.
Key Takeaways
- A longer executive search often produces a better hire than a rushed one.
- The things that take time, market coverage, assessment, referencing, are what ensure quality.
- Rushing to fill a vacancy fast is a leading cause of costly mis-hires.
- Patience allows reaching passive candidates and assessing fit thoroughly.
- Speed should serve the hire’s quality, not override it, except when genuinely urgent.
The Cost of Rushing
The pressure to fill a leadership vacancy fast is powerful, an empty seat feels urgent, and it drives many of the worst hiring decisions. Rushing compresses the market coverage, assessment, and referencing that determine hire quality, and the resulting mis-hire costs far more than the extra weeks would have. The vivid, immediate cost of a vacancy obscures the larger, delayed cost of a bad hire made to end it quickly. Rushing to fill is a leading, under-recognized cause of executive hiring failure.
Why Good Searches Take Time
The elements that make an executive search succeed inherently take time: reaching passive candidates who must be identified and approached, building enough relationship for them to engage, assessing fit thoroughly, and referencing rigorously. These cannot be compressed without cost. A search that has done these things well has usually taken real time, and the time was not delay but the substance of doing it right. What looks like a slow search is often a thorough one.
Patience Reaches the Best Candidates
The strongest candidates are frequently passive, and reaching, engaging, and winning them takes time, they must be identified, approached, courted, and given space to consider a major move. A rushed search cannot do this and defaults to whoever is quickly available, systematically missing the best talent. Patience is what allows a search to reach beyond the immediately-available to the genuinely-best candidates, which is often exactly the difference between an adequate hire and an excellent one.
Thorough Assessment Prevents Mistakes
The assessment and referencing that prevent mis-hires take time to do well, multiple deep conversations, work samples, thorough 360 and back-channel references. Rushing these is how avoidable mistakes get made, how the impressive candidate with the hidden flaw gets hired because no one had time to find it. The time spent on thorough assessment is insurance against the far greater cost of a leadership mistake, and it is precisely what a rushed search sacrifices.
When Speed Genuinely Matters
None of this argues against speed when it is genuinely required, a crisis, a critical vacancy with real cost. The point is that speed should be a deliberate response to genuine urgency, not a default or a reflex driven by the discomfort of an open seat. When speed is truly needed, a well-run sprint can work; when it is not, patience usually produces a better hire. The discipline is distinguishing genuine urgency from mere impatience, and not sacrificing quality to the latter.
What This Looks Like in Practice
In practice, the employers who hire best resist the reflex to fill vacancies fast, giving the search the time to reach passive candidates, assess thoroughly, and reference rigorously, while covering the vacancy with interim arrangements if needed. They treat the extra weeks as the substance of a good search rather than as delay, and they reserve speed for genuine urgency. The result is hires made with full market coverage and thorough assessment, which consistently outperform the rushed hires made to end a vacancy quickly.
The Mistake Employers Keep Making
The mistake is treating search duration as a problem to minimize, rushing to fill a vacancy and compressing the market coverage, assessment, and referencing that determine hire quality. Driven by the discomfort of an open seat, employers make fast hires that prove costly, a far worse outcome than the extra weeks would have been. The fix is patience where quality matters, reserving speed for genuine urgency and refusing to sacrifice a good hire to mere impatience.
The Bottom Line
A longer executive search often produces a better hire because market coverage, assessment, and referencing take time, and rushing to end a vacancy is a leading cause of costly mis-hires, so patience should be the default and speed a deliberate response to genuine urgency. None of this is complicated, but it is uncommon, and that gap is precisely where the advantage lies for employers willing to do the work.
Related Reading
For employers going deeper, see How to Run a Two-Week Executive Search Sprint When Speed Is Everything, The Pre-Mortem, What Is Quality of Hire and How Do You Actually Measure It.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Q: Does a longer executive search produce a better hire?
- A: Often yes, because the things that take time, market coverage, thorough assessment, and referencing, are what ensure hire quality.
- Q: Why is rushing a search risky?
- A: Because it compresses the market coverage and assessment that prevent mis-hires, and the resulting mistake costs far more than the extra weeks would have.
- Q: Why does reaching the best candidates take time?
- A: Because the strongest candidates are often passive and must be identified, approached, courted, and given space to consider a major move.
- Q: When is speed actually warranted?
- A: When there is genuine urgency, a crisis or a critical vacancy with real cost, as a deliberate response, not as a default driven by impatience.
- Q: How do you avoid rushing a search?
- A: By covering the vacancy with interim arrangements if needed and treating the search’s duration as the substance of doing it right, not as delay.
![](https://www.jrgpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/tanya-gallardo.jpeg")
Tanya Gallardo
Managing Director, Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy
Tanya Gallardo is the Managing Director of Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy at JRG Partners, leading C-suite and Board engagements across key growth sectors including Technology, Financial Services, and Manufacturing.
With over 18 years of experience specializing in disruptive technology leadership, Tanya is recognized as a leading authority on talent architecture for future-focused executive roles, such as the Chief AI Officer (CAIO) and Chief Digital Officer (CDO). Her expertise lies in accurately assessing the cultural fit and technical depth required to ensure a high return on investment (ROI) for critical leadership appointments.
Prior to her role at JRG Partners, Tanya held senior roles directing global talent acquisition strategies at a major publicly-traded technology firm, advising on organizational design and succession planning for emerging executive functions. She is a recognized speaker and contributor to industry events, sharing data-driven insights on executive compensation, leadership development, and the measurable business impact of C-suite talent.
