Home›Insights›Bringing In a Second Firm

Bringing in a second firm on a search that has failed

How to change recruiters mid-search without making the role harder to fill, and what a good second firm should do differently in week one.

Most of our searches start this way. A role has been open four or five months, a firm has been working it, the shortlists have been near-misses, and someone has decided that continuing is not a plan.

Handled well, a second search closes faster than a first one, because the first search generated information. Handled badly, it makes the role measurably harder to fill. The difference comes down to a few decisions.

Replace, do not add

The instinct is to add a firm and keep the first one working, on the theory that more coverage cannot hurt. It can, in two specific ways.

First, the market notices. When a strong Director-level candidate receives calls from two firms in one week about the same role, the story they construct is not that the company is thorough. It is that something is wrong, either with the role or with the company's ability to make a decision. That impression is very hard to reverse and it costs you exactly the candidates you most want.

Second, splitting the fee probability halves each firm's willingness to invest. Neither will spend three weeks mapping the market when there is a coin flip on payment. You have taken a search that needed more depth and structurally guaranteed it will get less.

End the first engagement cleanly

Confirm the end date in writing. Carve out the candidates they submitted, so if one of those people is eventually hired, that firm is paid. This is both the fair outcome and the one that avoids a dispute six weeks later when a name resurfaces from a different direction.

It is worth being straightforward about why the engagement is ending. Most recruiters would rather hear it than watch a role go quiet, and the feedback occasionally produces something useful about what they ran into.

Hand over what the first search learned

The failed search is not wasted. It is data, and a good second firm will want all of it:

Everyone who was submitted, and precisely why each was rejected. "Not senior enough" and "could not answer for the CRO relationship" point at completely different problems.
Everyone who declined, and the reason they gave. This is the most valuable material and the least often recorded.
Any offer that was made and what happened to it. A declined offer at this level is almost always about comp, reporting line, or something the candidate learned during the process.
What the internal debate has been. If two stakeholders want different profiles, the second search will fail the same way unless that is settled first.

What a good second firm does in week one

Not sourcing. If a firm starts sending candidates in the first week of a search that has already failed once, they have skipped the only step that distinguishes the second attempt from the first.

What should happen instead:

Re-read the spec against the rejections. The pattern in why people were rejected usually reveals what the role actually requires, which is often not what the job description says.
Size the real pool. How many people in the country plausibly fit, and how many of those are approachable. If that number is under twenty, the conversation is about which requirement moves, not about sourcing harder.
Test the band against the market. Two or three honest conversations with people at the right level will tell you whether the comp is competitive, and this takes days rather than months.
Re-approach the declines. With a better version of the story and a few months of distance, a meaningful share of them will take the call.
Come back with the uncomfortable finding. If the location requirement is costing you two thirds of the pool, that needs saying in week two, not month three.

The uncomfortable part

Sometimes the diagnosis is that nothing is wrong with the search and something is wrong with the role. The reporting line is not senior enough for the title. The band was set two years ago. The team has a reputation. The last three people in the seat left inside a year and the market knows.

A second firm that will not tell you that is going to run the same search again and hand it back in five months. The reason to change firms is not to get a bigger pipeline. It is to get someone who will say the thing the first firm had no incentive to say.

Common questions

Should we add a second recruiter or replace the first?

Replace. Adding a firm doubles the number of calls strong candidates receive about one role, which reads to the market as a company that cannot get organized. It also guarantees that neither firm invests in deep work, because neither can justify it against a fifty percent chance of payment.

How do we hand over a search without burning the first firm?

Carve out their submitted candidates in writing, confirm the end date of their engagement, and be straightforward about why. Most firms would rather have a clean ending than a role that quietly goes cold. The candidates they submitted remain theirs on any placement, which is the fair outcome and is worth stating explicitly.

Will candidates who already declined talk to a new firm?

Frequently, yes, and they are often the most productive place to start. A decline is rarely a permanent no. It is usually a no to how the role was presented, at a moment when something else was happening in that person's life. Re-approaching declines with a better version of the story is standard practice on a second search.

What should we expect from a second search firm in the first two weeks?

Not candidates. A diagnosis: what the spec is actually asking for, what the real pool size is, what the market says about the band, and which single requirement is costing the most. If a firm goes straight to sourcing on a role that has already failed once, they are about to repeat the first search.