Adjudication · Practice Note
Two Models. One of Them Is Built for Speed, Not Fit.
Running a critical seat on contingency does not save fees. It quietly signals to the market that the mandate is optional — and the operators you actually want will not engage on those terms.
Sercxi runs six mandates at a time, engaged only, no shared desk. This is not a virtue claim — it is a structural constraint that produces different outcomes than contingency search. This page states the difference plainly. Where numbers appear, they are sourced. Where the honest answer is a range, it is written as a range, not as false precision.
The Fee Argument
A contingency fee buys you a submission. An engaged fee buys you the search itself — the mapping, the refusals, the calibration, and the willingness to tell you the brief is wrong before we open it.
| Dimension | Contingency Search | Sercxi (Engaged) |
|---|---|---|
| Mandate load per partner | Materially higher — contingency partners typically carry many concurrent open searches.1 | Six active mandates, firm-wide cap. |
| Fee structure | Paid only on placement — incentive to close fast. | Engaged — incentive to close right. |
| Candidate exclusivity | Same candidate frequently submitted by multiple firms. | Single-sourced. No cross-firm submission. |
| Time to shortlist | Contingency shortlist timelines are highly variable and often extend well beyond a quarter.2 | 35 days median. |
| 12-month retention | Industry aggregate data on executive-hire failure is well-documented; a material share of external hires does not remain in role at 18 months.3 | 8 in 10 at 12 months, across 250+ mandates. |
| Search termination | Rare — sunk cost keeps searches open indefinitely. | Mandate can be declined or ended if the fit is not there. |
Mandate load per partner
Contingency
Materially higher — contingency partners typically carry many concurrent open searches.1
Sercxi (Engaged)
Six active mandates, firm-wide cap.
Fee structure
Contingency
Paid only on placement — incentive to close fast.
Sercxi (Engaged)
Engaged — incentive to close right.
Candidate exclusivity
Contingency
Same candidate frequently submitted by multiple firms.
Sercxi (Engaged)
Single-sourced. No cross-firm submission.
Time to shortlist
Contingency
Contingency shortlist timelines are highly variable and often extend well beyond a quarter.2
Sercxi (Engaged)
35 days median.
12-month retention
Contingency
Industry aggregate data on executive-hire failure is well-documented; a material share of external hires does not remain in role at 18 months.3
Sercxi (Engaged)
8 in 10 at 12 months, across 250+ mandates.
Search termination
Contingency
Rare — sunk cost keeps searches open indefinitely.
Sercxi (Engaged)
Mandate can be declined or ended if the fit is not there.
Sources
- 1.AESC (Association of Executive Search and Leadership Consultants) — Global Executive Search Industry reports document the structural workload difference between retained (engaged) and contingency models. Reference ↗
- 2.Sercxi internal data — see firm statistics referenced under the Track Record page. Reference
- 3.Harvard Business Review — the widely cited estimate that mis-hires cost approximately 5× annual salary is drawn from HBR's executive-hiring research; industry benchmarks for external-executive retention are compiled by AESC and Hunt Scanlon Media. Reference ↗
Where Engaged Is And Isn't The Right Model
Engaged search costs more upfront. That is not a caveat, it is the point. It is the right model when the role is complexity-stage, when the cost of a mis-hire is measured in quarters of lost momentum, and when the candidate you actually need is not currently on the market.
It is the wrong model for high-volume hiring, for roles where a shortlist of active applicants is sufficient, or for organisations that need embedded scale rather than a single senior appointment. For that pattern, an internal team supported by a repeatable method usually outperforms any external firm — which is the case for our Executive Hiring Lab.
If the mandate is critical and singular, engaged is worth it. If it is neither, it is not. Both answers are fine — the wrong answer is choosing the model that fits the fee structure of the firm you already know, rather than the shape of the hire in front of you.
If a specific mandate is in view, initiate a confidential briefing. If the answer for your situation is the Lab instead of engaged search, we will say so on the call.
Partner Note
Peter Post · Partner, Digital Talent Sourcing
Contingency search and engaged search look like two fee structures from the boardroom. From the sourcing desk they are two completely different technical problems. Contingency optimises for coverage — the same candidate is surfaced by three firms because the incentive is to submit fast, not to submit right. That is not market mapping. That is inbox velocity.
Engaged search lets us build the pipeline before the brief is signed — to run Boolean architecture across the passive market, to calibrate the approach sequence to the specific capability gap, and to arrive at the shortlist with candidates who were never on a job board. I read a CV the way an engineer reads a system diagram. Contingency does not give me the time to do that.
The wrong model treats the candidate as a transaction. The right model treats the search as an architecture problem. If you want the operator who liquidates technical debt and scales the team, you cannot rent that outcome by the placement. You have to build the pipeline that produces it.