.png)
Our previous technology executive search failed. What should we change before going back to market?
A failed technology executive search creates an understandable pressure to restart the process quickly.
The role is still vacant. The business still needs the leadership. Senior colleagues have already invested time in the process, and the pressure to appoint someone is usually greater than it was the first time.
That is exactly when you should resist reopening the search as is.
Before you approach the market again, you need to establish why the previous process failed.
Sometimes the search simply did not reach enough of the right people. But other explanations exist: the role was unclear, expectations changed during the process, strong candidates were unconvinced by the opportunity, the package was wrong, or the interviews never gave decision-makers enough confidence to appoint.
If you do not understand what happened the first time, you risk running the same failed process twice.
Start by defining what actually failed
“Failed search” can describe very different situations.
You may have had too few credible candidates. You may have had a strong shortlist but no clear choice. Your preferred candidate may have withdrawn. The board may have disagreed. Compensation may have become a problem late in the process. Or you may have made the appointment and discovered that the person could not succeed in the role.
Your response depends on what actually went wrong.
If the shortlist was weak, examine the brief, the market you searched and the quality of the search itself. If several good candidates declined, look more closely at the role, reporting line, package and how the opportunity was presented. If credible finalists divided the board, revisit what you were actually trying to hire and how you were assessing it.
If someone was appointed but did not succeed, you need to go further. Look at the job they were actually asked to do once they arrived, the decisions they controlled, the team they inherited and the support they received.
Be precise about what went wrong before deciding what to change.
Revisit the business need, not just the old job description
Do not assume the previous brief is still the right one.
Technology roles can change significantly over the course of a search. A programme gets delayed. A CEO changes. An acquisition happens. AI moves further up the agenda. Cost pressure increases. A transformation that was supposed to be underway has stalled.
The role you are reopening may no longer be the role you originally took to market.
Go back to the business problem.
What does this person now need to have changed 12–18 months after joining? Which decisions will genuinely belong to them? What will remain with the CEO, COO, CFO, CDO or other technology leaders? What has become more urgent since the first search began?
If those answers have changed, change the brief.
Check whether the role was realistic
You can easily end up asking the market for a combination of experience that barely exists.
A brief might require someone who has led a major enterprise transformation, run a large technology estate, understands AI deeply, has strong product experience, knows a heavily regulated sector, has public-company board exposure and is willing to relocate.
Every requirement can be defensible on its own. Put them together, and you may have described almost nobody.
The job itself may also be unrealistic. You can ask a CIO to transform the technology estate while giving them little control over investment. You can hold a CTO accountable for engineering performance while important decisions sit elsewhere. You can expect a data or AI leader to produce enterprise-wide results without influence over the functions they depend on.
Compensation could be out of step with the role.
Use the market to test these assumptions. If several strong candidates question the same aspect of the job or give you similar reasons for declining, pay attention. The answer is unlikely to be simply searching harder.
Look at who was actually searched
A disappointing shortlist does not necessarily mean there were no good candidates.
You need to understand how the market was built.
Ask which organisations were mapped, how far the search moved beyond obvious competitors, whether adjacent sectors were considered and where transferable experience was ruled in or out.
You should also be able to see who was identified, who was approached, what response the opportunity received and what patterns emerged from those conversations.
After a failed search, that visibility helps you understand what the market has already seen and how it responded. You need to know which parts of the market have already heard the story and what they told you.
Approaching the same people with the same proposition rarely produces a different result. Before restarting, be clear about what's different now: the role, the reporting line, the package, the market you are targeting, or the organisation itself.
Review how candidates experienced the opportunity
Strong candidates will form a view of your organisation throughout the process.
A role can look compelling at the beginning and become much less attractive as the process unfolds.
Candidates notice when senior stakeholders describe the job differently. They notice when nobody can explain where decisions sit. They notice repeated cancellations, an interview process that keeps growing and long gaps in feedback for a supposedly critical appointment.
Strong executives have alternatives, including staying where they are.
If good candidates withdrew, look at exactly when that happened. What had they just learned? Who had they met? Had they discovered that the authority was narrower than they expected? Had compensation become unclear? Had the process started to make the business look indecisive?
If several candidates withdraw for similar reasons, treat the pattern seriously. It may be telling you something about the role or how you're presenting the opportunity.
Check whether you actually agreed on what “good” looked like
You can have a strong shortlist and still fail to appoint because the people making the decision are hiring for different jobs.
The CEO may want a commercially minded transformation leader. The CFO may be focused on cost. The board may care most about governance and risk. The technology team may be looking for deep technical credibility.
All of those priorities can be reasonable. The difficulty is discovering the differences only once candidates are already being interviewed.
Before you restart, agree what evidence will determine the appointment.
Decide which outcomes matter most, which experience really is essential, where you are prepared to trade one strength for another and which risks you are willing to accept.
Then use those criteria consistently. Do not let the job definition change based on whichever candidate you just interviewed.
Do not hire the opposite of the person who failed
A failed appointment can distort the next brief.
If the last CIO struggled commercially, it is easy for stakeholders to influence the dominant requirement next time. If the previous CTO lacked enough technical depth, the next specification can swing heavily towards technical credentials.
Some correction may be necessary, but hiring the opposite type of person does not tell
you whether you have solved the original problem.
Look at the previous appointment in context. What did the executive struggle with? Could you have seen it during assessment? Did the job change after they joined? Did they have the authority and team they expected? Were there conditions inside the business that would have made the role difficult for most people?
The previous failure should help you refine the brief without pushing you towards the opposite type of candidate.
Change the assessment if the previous process missed something
If the first process failed to identify an important weakness, do not repeat the same assessment and expect a better answer.
A candidate may have interviewed extremely well and then struggled in the role. In that situation, look at what the interviews failed to uncover.
Perhaps you gave too much weight to career history and presentation. You may not have established what the person themselves had changed in previous roles.
References may have been too general. Nobody may have properly tested how they handled disagreement, ambiguity, or a decision that turned out to be wrong.
Your assessment needs to reflect the conditions the person will encounter once they join.
Ask what they inherited, what they personally changed, which decisions were theirs, where the budget sat, what happened when another executive disagreed with them and what changed as a result of their actions.
More interviews will not help if they are testing the same things in the same way.
Look at the decision process as critically as the search
Sometimes the search produces credible candidates and the organisation still fails to make the appointment well.
You can lose good people by taking too long to decide, adding interviews halfway through the process or leaving everybody unclear about who actually has the authority to make the final call.
Senior technology candidates are often in more than one conversation. A slow or uncertain process can also affect how candidates judge the organisation and its decision-making.
Look back at the previous timeline. How long did feedback take? Did you add stages after the process started? Were the real decision-makers involved early enough? Did finalists know where they stood?
A rigorous process can still move with purpose.
When should you go back to market?
You are ready to restart when you can explain why the previous search failed and what you are going to do differently.
Before you approach candidates again, you should be clear on:
what the executive now needs to deliver;
which parts of the old brief have changed;
what the previous market response told you;
where you need to search differently;
how you will assess candidates;
how you will make the final decision.
That will not make every senior technology search easy. These are difficult appointments because the jobs themselves are often difficult.
But you will be solving the problem you now understand, rather than repeating the process that exposed it.
Related analysis and executive search
How to Assess CIO and CTO Candidates When You’re Not Technical
How boards can test judgement, personal contribution and leadership without trying to replicate a candidate's technical expertise.
How do we know whether we need a CIO or a CTO?
A guide to defining the technology leadership requirement before deciding which role to recruit.
For organisations appointing leaders responsible for enterprise technology, transformation, investment and technology performance.
For organisations appointing leaders responsible for engineering, architecture, platforms and technical capability.
Going back to market after a difficult search?
Lucent Search works with boards and executive teams to understand why a previous appointment process failed, redefine the role where necessary and test the requirement against the external market before beginning another retained search.
If another search is the right answer, the process gives you visibility of the market being approached, what candidates are telling you and the evidence behind the final shortlist.
Comments