Why “We’ll Handle It” Isn’t Enough

“Why hire a recruiter? We already have someone internally who could handle it.”

It’s a reasonable question.
And it’s usually asked with good intent.

Most leaders asking it aren’t dismissing the value of recruiting. They’re trying to be responsible with time, budget, and internal resources.

But there’s an underlying assumption in that question: If someone in the company can run the process, the outcome should be just as good.

In reality, that assumption is often where hiring efforts quietly lose momentum.

Because hiring isn’t just a task to complete. It’s a leadership decision with long-term consequences. For important roles, how you handle the process often determines who accepts, who declines, and how long your organization feels the results.

We often see this happen when teams mean well but aren’t on the same page. We’ve talked about this before when discussing internal negotiations and hiring silos.

Capability vs. Capacity

Most internal HR and talent leaders are fully capable of running a search.

The issue is capacity.

Without a dedicated internal recruiter, hiring competes with employee relations, compliance, onboarding, retention issues, and the day-to-day realities of running a business. When a critical role opens, the search often becomes one more responsibility layered onto an already full plate.

The process moves forward, but slowly.
Interview rounds expand.
Feedback tends to be cautious instead of clear and decisive.

Time Isn’t Neutral

When a role stays open longer than planned, the effects go beyond just having an empty seat.

Work gets redistributed.
Decisions slow.
Leaders end up spending time covering gaps instead of focusing on leading.

National averages suggest many organizations accept long hiring cycles as inevitable. Our experience says otherwise.

Across searches we lead, time to fill runs roughly 25% faster than national averages, not because we rush decisions, but because alignment happens early and decisively.

In practice, that means:

• Individual contributor and mid-level roles: ~45–61 days

• Mid-level leadership roles: ~65–85 days

• Executive searches: ~75–95 days

The difference isn’t speed for speed’s sake. It’s clarity on outcomes, expectations, and decision ownership before the process gains inertia.

In many cases, searches take longer not because the market is tough, but because alignment happens too late. Search partners help keep things moving by making sure there’s early clarity on what success looks like, what’s required, and what’s not negotiable. This way, you don’t waste time rethinking decisions later.

“We’ve Already Been to the Well”

Many organizations engage a search partner only after trying to fill the role internally.

They’ve posted it.
They’ve interviewed a few candidates.
Nothing quite clicked.

That moment is revealing.

The challenge usually isn’t effort. It’s reach.

Strong candidates, especially experienced leaders, rarely apply out of the blue. They’re busy delivering results. They respond to thoughtful outreach and well-presented opportunities, not just job postings.

Search firms exist to access that quieter part of the market. Not simply to present resumes, but to:

• tell the story accurately

• calibrate expectations early

• and assess alignment before months are invested

That’s often where the difference in quality shows up.

The Cost of Getting It Wrong (or Almost Right)

Most leaders don’t need convincing that a bad hire is expensive.

What’s less obvious is how often near-misses do damage too:

• leaders who can do the job but not this job

• executives who look strong on paper but struggle in context

• hires who stall progress without ever fully failing

McKinsey summarizes multiple studies showing that 27%–46% of executive transitions are ultimately viewed as failures or disappointments within two years.

Those outcomes rarely trace back to a lack of skill. More often, they stem from misalignment of expectations, environment, or timing.

Reducing that risk requires rigor, objectivity, and the willingness to challenge assumptions, something that’s hard to do internally when urgency and familiarity creep in.

Does moving faster increase risk?

Only if speed replaces rigor.

In our experience, the opposite is true. Searches that are clear and well-structured usually lead to hires who stay. Thanks to our thorough approach and honed screening, across all of the roles we support, 91% of our placements remain in their roles for 2+ years.

The Value of a Go-Between

One of the most overlooked roles of a search partner is acting as a translator.

Between:

• what leaders say they want

• what candidates hear

• and what the role actually requires

Recruiters spot misalignment early, often before it appears in interview feedback, compensation discussions, or late-stage hesitation. Just as importantly, it creates space for more honest conversations on both sides, helping prevent the slow erosion of trust that can derail an otherwise promising hire.

And that work doesn’t stop when an offer is accepted.

The hire itself is rarely the finish line. Real success shows up months later in retention, performance, and early momentum, not in how quickly a signature is collected. Strong search partners stay engaged because they understand that what happens after “yes” often matters more than how the process ends.

Hiring decisions shape culture, whether leaders intend them to or not—a theme we’ve explored in scaling company culture and the evolving role of HR.

A Note for PE-Backed Leaders

Everything above applies to founder-led companies, both private and public.

In PE-backed environments, the stakes are simply compressed.

Timelines are shorter.
Leadership changes carry more weight.
And delays add up fast.

With many firms increasingly focused on organic growth as a primary value-creation lever, Alvarez & Marsal reports roughly 70% of PE leaders prioritizing organic growth strategies, and the quality and timing of leadership hires matter more than ever.

In this setting, search isn’t just about filling a job. It’s about protecting the investment strategy, something we’ve discussed in our writing on aligning HR strategy with PE growth goals.

After the Hiring Process Ends

Hiring is one of the few leadership decisions that has a lasting impact, long after the process is forgotten.

The meetings fade.

The interviews blur together.

But the hire remains, shaping how work gets done, how decisions are made, and how the organization moves forward.

That’s why how you approach the decision matters more than most leaders realize.

The real question isn’t whether someone internally can run the search.

It’s whether the way the search is run gives the role and the business the best chance to succeed.