Do you actually need to replace the person who's leaving?

Someone leaves and the natural response is to replace them. I understand why. There is work to be done, an empty box on the organisation chart and usually pressure to get moving.

But I think this is where a lot of executive searches start too late.

The first question shouldn't be, “Who can we find?” It should be, “Do we still need the same role?”

Senior roles have a habit of accumulating history. Responsibilities move around. A strong individual makes a role bigger. A weaker one causes work to migrate elsewhere. The CEO changes. Strategy changes. Technology changes. Yet when the incumbent leaves, the old job description comes back out and becomes the brief.

That can be an expensive way to preserve yesterday's organisation.

Start with the work, not the person

Before replacing an executive, I would look at what the organisation needs from the leadership team over the next three to five years. What outcomes sit with this role? Which decisions genuinely need to be made at executive level? Where are the overlaps with other leaders? What capability is missing from the team as a whole?

Only then would I write the role.

This doesn't need to become a six-month organisation design exercise. Often a handful of good conversations with the CEO, Board and people around the role exposes the important questions quite quickly.

Look inside before you look outside

The second question is whether the capability already exists.

Internal succession is often discussed in very general terms: somebody is “high potential”, “not quite ready” or “worth a look”. I would make it more concrete. Define the role properly, assess the internal options against it and then compare them with the external market.

That external comparison matters. An internal candidate shouldn't win because the organisation doesn't know what else is available. Equally, an external search shouldn't happen simply because hiring somebody new feels more rigorous.

Sometimes the strongest decision is to appoint internally and spend the search budget on development around them.

Then decide whether to search

If the role is clear and the internal options don't stack up, go to market properly. At that point the search brief is stronger because you know what you're solving for.

You may also reach a different answer: split the role, combine it with another, change the reporting line or remove it altogether.

None of those outcomes are particularly attractive to a search firm paid only when a search happens. They are perfectly sensible outcomes for the client.

That's the distinction we're trying to make at re:find. Our job is to help clients make the right leadership decision. Executive search is one possible answer, not the starting assumption.

Before you search, re:find.