There was a vacancy. Only, for once, there was little time pressure.
During a search with a client, that gave us the space to try something different.
Naturally, we looked for the right person for the open position. But alongside that, we also held exploratory conversations with people who might only become interesting in the future.
Not to immediately convince them of a next career step. Not because a contract had to be signed quickly.
Simply to get to know each other better.
That experience got me thinking.
Why, in executive search, do we usually start with the question of who we need today?
Perhaps we should ask a different question much more often.
Why a vacancy isn’t always the best starting point
Most executive search processes begin when a concrete need arises.
A director leaves. A company grows. Something changes in the management team and someone is needed to guide the next phase.
It makes sense that you then go looking for the right leader.
But as soon as there is a vacancy, time pressure often arises as well.
A shortlist must be created. Interviews are scheduled. Candidates and clients try to determine if there is a good match in a relatively short time.
And precisely then, we expect to truly get to know someone.
How does that person make decisions? What gives someone energy? Which challenges fit his or her ambitions? And in what environment does that person perform best?
After more than twenty years in executive search, I know how important those questions are.
But I also know that you don’t always discover everything during a first conversation.
Some people need time to open up. Sometimes you only discover what truly drives someone during a subsequent conversation. Or you see someone in a different context and better understand where that person can make a difference.
That’s why I increasingly wonder if the moment a vacancy arises is actually the best time to meet someone for the first time.
What changes when nothing has to be decided yet?
During that search with my client, we were given the opportunity to have conversations without every introduction having to lead immediately to a hire.
That makes a difference.
When someone doesn’t have to decide immediately whether a new role is interesting, space is created for a different kind of conversation.
Not just about experience and results, but also about ambitions.
What makes someone enthusiastic? What work environment suits that person? What would make a next step interesting?
And when would such a step even make sense?
Maybe within six months.
Maybe in three years.
Maybe never.
And that last one is fine too.
Because not every interesting introduction eventually has to lead to a collaboration.
It can be valuable in itself to understand someone better.
And when a suitable leadership need does arise later, you don’t have to start all over again.
You already know something about each other. Trust has potentially been built. And you have a better picture of what is important to both parties.
A network is more than a list of names
In recruitment, we regularly talk about talent pools and networks.
But knowing someone from LinkedIn is not the same as truly knowing that person.
You can know exactly where someone works, what roles they have held, and what is on their CV.
That doesn’t necessarily tell you why someone made certain choices.
Or what challenges someone is looking for in the next phase of their career.
Especially with CEOs and other C-level profiles, I find that distinction important.
In such hires, it’s not just about the right experience. It’s also about the company’s ambitions, the candidate’s expectations, and the context in which someone will lead.
Those insights don’t always emerge during a single selection interview.
That’s why I see value in relationships that can develop over a longer period.
Not by constantly approaching candidates as soon as a vacancy arises somewhere, but by remaining genuinely interested in the person behind the profile.
Without creating expectations that you cannot fulfill.
And without every conversation having to become a hidden job interview.
What does your company need in three or five years?
In my opinion, this way of thinking also changes the role of a headhunter.
Of course, you have to know the market. Know where interesting leaders work and what experience they bring.
But if you truly want to look ahead, you also have to understand the company behind the leadership need.
Where does the company want to be in three or five years?
What changes are coming? What qualities are already present in the management team? And what leadership might be needed in the future?
Those are different conversations than when a vacancy urgently needs to be filled.
They don’t start from a single job profile, but from the future of the organization.
Through this, you might discover that it makes sense to meet certain people today.
Not because you want to hire them immediately, but because their experience and ambitions could become interesting in the long run.
That obviously doesn’t mean you can fully predict future hires.
A company changes. People change. And someone who seems interesting today may no longer be so in a few years.
But by thinking about future leadership needs earlier, space may be created for conversations that would otherwise never be held.
For entrepreneurs and boards of directors who want to think about this, there doesn’t have to be a vacancy first. Through my Executive Search approach, you can also schedule an exploratory leadership conversation without a concrete search already being underway.
Perhaps we’ve been asking the wrong first question for years
I am still exploring how I can further organize this way of working.
Because it isn’t easy.
It requires time, attention, and trust. From a headhunter, from a company, and from the people you want to get to know.
And perhaps in practice, it turns out that not every introduction is equally valuable.
That’s possible.
But after more than twenty years in executive search, I continue to find it particularly interesting how much you can discover about someone when a decision doesn’t have to be made immediately.
For me, the potential added value lies not in collecting as many interesting names as possible.
But in building relationships with people who could be important for the future of a company at a certain point.
So that, if that need ever becomes concrete, the conversation doesn’t necessarily start between two strangers.
Perhaps it starts between people who already know each other.
And perhaps that’s why we should less often start with the question:
Who do we need today?
And a bit more often with:
Who should we already be getting to know today?