Boards tend to slow down search processes when markets turn volatile, on the theory that a pause reduces risk. In our experience it does the opposite. The cost of a mis-hire does not fall during a downturn — it rises, because there is less runway to recover from the wrong appointment before the next earnings cycle forces a decision.
Why the cost curve steepens
A leader who is a poor fit typically takes two to three quarters to be recognised as such, and another one or two to be replaced. In a stable market, that six-to-nine month window is absorbable. In a volatile one, it is often the entire window a business has to correct course before a covenant, a funding round, or a shareholder vote forces the issue regardless of who is in the chair.
We have watched boards discover this the expensive way: a search shortened by two months to "move faster" that ultimately added five months to the total timeline once the first appointment did not work out.
What tightening the process actually looks like
The boards handling this well are not slowing down. They are removing steps that add time without adding signal, and adding steps that add signal without adding much time.
In practice that means fewer, more structured interview rounds rather than more unstructured ones; reference calls placed before a final decision rather than after an offer is drafted; and success profiles written against the specific strategic decision the business faces in the next eighteen months, not a generic competency framework reused from the last search.
The reference call that matters most
We put particular weight on references from people who reported to the candidate during a period of pressure, not just from peers or superiors during calmer periods. How someone behaves when a plan is working tells you little about how they will behave when it stops working — and in a volatile market, that is precisely the scenario the appointment needs to be tested against.
A shorter list, checked harder
Counterintuitively, the boards we work with in volatile periods often end up with shorter shortlists than in calmer years — three candidates instead of five — because each one has been checked more thoroughly before it reaches the board. Fewer options, examined harder, beat more options examined lightly.
If your board is facing a leadership decision under pressure, we are glad to give you an honest read on timeline and process before you commit to either.