Retained vs contingency search for biotech leadership roles

Most explanations of retained versus contingency search are written by firms that offer one of them. Here is the version we would give a hiring manager who asked over coffee, including the part that is inconvenient for us.

Contingency: free until it works

You pay nothing unless the firm places someone. Usually several firms work the role at once. On the surface this removes your risk entirely.

What it actually buys: speed and breadth on roles where the market is deep. A contingency recruiter with a good network can get you candidates for a Senior CRA or a Clinical Trial Manager role quickly, and that is a genuinely efficient way to hire.

What it cannot buy: depth. The economics forbid it. A contingency recruiter carrying fifteen roles at a one-in-four chance of payment on each cannot afford three weeks of market mapping on any single one. So they send the candidates who surface fastest, which on an easy role is fine and on a hard role produces the near-miss shortlist you have already seen twice.

There is a second cost that is less discussed. A contingency recruiter has no incentive to tell you that your band is fifteen percent low or your spec describes two people, because that conversation risks the relationship and generates no fee. The honest feedback that would fix the search never arrives.

Retained: paying for the work, not the outcome

You engage one firm exclusively and pay in stages, typically a third at kickoff, a third at shortlist, a third on placement. The firm is paid for running the process whether or not it ends in a hire.

What it actually buys: the work. A defined market map rather than a database pull. Direct approach to people who are not looking. Structured assessment. A recruiter who stays with the search through the close and does not quietly deprioritize it in week six. And because the firm is not competing for the fee, it can afford to tell you that your comp band is the problem.

What it costs: money before anyone has been introduced, and on a role another firm has already failed, that is a hard invoice to justify internally. Retained search also concentrates risk: if the firm is mediocre, you have paid for mediocrity.

Where the difference actually shows up

On a straightforward role in a deep market, the two models converge. Both find good people, contingency is often faster, and paying a retainer buys you very little.

The gap opens on three kinds of role:

• Scarce profiles. A Medical Director in a niche indication, or a VP who has taken a specific modality through a specific phase. If there are forty plausible people nationally, you need someone who will systematically find and approach all forty, not someone hoping three of them are on a job board.
• Roles that have already failed once. The second search needs a diagnosis before it needs sourcing, and diagnosis is unbillable work that contingency economics cannot support.
• Confidential searches. Replacing someone who is still in the seat cannot be run by four firms at once.

The option most comparisons leave out

The two models get discussed as though depth and prepayment are inseparable. They are not. Retained search bundles two things: the exclusivity that makes deep work possible, and the retainer that transfers risk from the firm to you.

You can separate them. A search can be exclusive without being retained: one firm, full retained-standard work, no money until someone starts. The firm carries the delivery risk instead of you.

That is how we run every search, and we should be honest that it is not free of tradeoffs. It requires the client to commit to one firm before seeing a single candidate, which is a real ask. It works because exclusivity, not prepayment, is what actually makes the depth possible, and because a firm confident in its network can afford to take the risk.

How to decide

• Is the pool deep and the role attractive? Contingency is efficient. Use it.
• Has this role already failed once? You need depth and a diagnosis, not more resumes.
• Is the profile genuinely scarce? Systematic coverage matters more than speed.
• Is it confidential? One firm, necessarily.
• Are you willing to commit to one firm? If yes, you can get retained-standard work without paying up front. If no, understand that you are buying speed and not depth, and set expectations accordingly.