Executive hiring has always worked differently from the rest of talent acquisition. It relies on long-term relationships, confidential conversations and a high-touch process, which has kept it at a distance from many of the changes in recruiting. Over the last five years, AI, shifting market conditions and new expectations of the function have started to change executive hiring too. So how has it adapted, and are there lessons here for TA as a whole?
My guest this week is Simon Mullins from ESIX. In our conversation, Simon shares how in-house executive hiring teams are working with search firms, using AI and taking on a wider role, and where he sees the function going next.
In the interview, we discuss:
- What has changed in executive hiring over the last five years, and what has stayed the same
- Why in-house teams use search firms far less but still see them as strategic partners
- The growing role of executive hiring teams in managing internal talent
- Why involvement in succession planning has more than doubled since 2019
- Where AI is and isn’t being used in executive search
- Is AI producing better candidates, or just faster searches?
- The sharp drop in diversity as a stated priority in executive hiring
- Using data to shape role and organization design before a search begins
- What does the future look like?
Follow this podcast on Apple Podcasts.
Follow this podcast on Spotify.
Key takeaways
- Among the in-house executive recruiting teams surveyed, involvement in succession planning has risen from 36% in 2019 to 76%, part of a broader shift from external hiring toward advising on both internal and external leadership talent.
- In-house executive recruiting teams have almost halved their use of search firms over the past decade, yet 80% still use them, typically as a select list of firms treated as long-term strategic partners.
- AI use among those teams has gone from a minority in 2024 to almost all of them in 2026; 46% report shorter cycle times, but only 14% report better candidates, and most say it is too early to judge.
- Diversity has largely dropped off the executive hiring agenda as a stated priority; the share of teams requiring diverse candidate slates has fallen from 71% to around 35%, even as recruiters’ day-to-day practices have changed less.
- Executive hiring remains high touch and relationship-led, while the scope of the role, the technology in use and the priorities set by leadership have all shifted in the last five years.
Transcript
Matt Alder 0:00
There’s been a huge amount of change in talent acquisition over the last few years. Executive hiring has traditionally been the part of TA most insulated from change. So how has it responded? What stayed the same? What’s evolved? And what can the rest of the TA function learn from it? Keep listening to find out.
Matt Alder 0:20
Support for this podcast comes from Ashby. Ashby All-in-One is a fully integrated solution combining ATS, CRM and sourcing, scheduling and analytics into a single source of truth, giving recruiting teams precise control over every stage of the hiring journey. With embedded AI assistance and automation at its core, Ashby empowers talent acquisition teams at companies like Snowflake, Ramp, Deal, Zapier and Deliveroo to reach the highest talent density so they can better serve customers, close more deals and ship products faster. Visit ashbyhq.com/recruitingfuture today to see how it all works. That’s ashbyhq.com/recruitingfuture.
Matt Alder 1:30
Hi there, welcome to episode 837 of Recruiting Future with me, Matt Alder. Executive hiring has always worked differently from the rest of talent acquisition. It relies on long-term relationships, confidential conversations, and a high-touch process, which has kept it at a distance from many of the changes that have been happening elsewhere in recruiting. However, over the last few years, AI, shifting market conditions, and new expectations have started to change executive hiring as well. So how has it adapted? And are there lessons here for TA as a whole? My guest this week is Simon Mullins from IX. In our conversation, Simon shares just how much things are changing, how in-house executive hiring teams are becoming true talent advisors, how they’re using AI, and where he sees the function going next.
Matt Alder 2:25
Hi, Simon, and welcome back to the podcast.
Simon Mullins 2:28
Wonderful. Thank you. Great to be back.
Matt Alder 2:30
A pleasure to be talking to you as ever. Just give us a quick introduction to you and what you do.
Simon Mullins 2:36
Absolutely. My name is Simon Mullins. I sit in the northwest of the US near Seattle, but been here for a long time, but actually originally British. I run a couple of communities. One is called TALIX, which is focused on mostly large company TA leaders and their teams. And the other, which we’ll talk more about today, is IX, which is focused on corporate executive recruiting folks and has been for 30 years. We’ve actually been benchmarking that space for 30 years now.
Matt Alder 3:03
That’s a serious amount of data that you must have. So tell us a little bit more about IX and also the benchmarking survey work that you do.
Simon Mullins 3:10
Yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah, no, we’re actually, I think, somewhat unique in the TA space, at least, because it’s a corporate networking community. So we don’t have anything to do with any vendors or search firms or software companies. We’re completely independent, which is great because we hopefully help our members make better decisions and they can, you know, connect with each other and improve their business outcomes. And the premise is that we connect with the community, we benchmark. For years we’ve done training and I believe we’re the only ones who are dedicated to this with, I don’t know how many, something like 60 or 70 events a year, very much focused on IX. But as I say, it’s been now 30 years. Obviously I wasn’t born then, that, as you know, when it was started.
Matt Alder 3:53
You just, you know, inherited it over time, haven’t you?
Simon Mullins 3:53
Exactly right. Yeah, no, I was actually a member of this when I was at Microsoft for the prior 10 years or so, most of that time. And yeah, and took it over 11 years ago and it’s been fantastic.
Matt Alder 4:05
And you were, I checked back and you were last on the show in 2021 talking about the benchmarking survey. What’s changed over the last sort of five years in corporate executive recruiting? What’s changed? What hasn’t changed? What surprised you? What’s the progress look like?
Simon Mullins 4:23
Yeah, no, it’s been a funny situation. Well, I mean, I think it’s been in a funny situation, well, not funny, but kind of wild and crazy for many folks, right, the last five years. But in some ways, nothing’s changed. It’s got the same sort of old school feel to it, very high touch, white glove and all that. But at the same time, even the idea of doing executive recruiting via Zoom at that time, you know, 2021 and so on, was amazing to me. I thought that would never have happened but it did. But still, subsequent to that, a ton of focus on internal as the market went back and forth with kind of whiplash. So more focus on internal for a couple of years as opposed to, or and in addition to, external talent. And then of course, and has been for the last something like eight years until recently, a massive focus on diversity and inclusion, which is amazing, and then the instant drop-off, probably what, two years ago, I think, a radical drop-off from 40% of folks being most interested and focused on diversity hiring to suddenly something like crazy, like 2% or 3% as their primary interest, and so on. And then the last year or two, striking jump into AI, which honestly, not to be rude, but corporate exec recruiting is not known for its technology adoption. And so the fact that’s happened so much, you know, in select areas, but is quite striking.
Matt Alder 5:44
Really interesting stuff. So let’s kind of dig into some of these points in a little bit more detail. So in-house versus kind of external search firm question is sort of a constant theme, isn’t it? Where have things got to now? What’s this shift look like? People using search firms in a different way? What’s the sort of current situation?
Simon Mullins 6:02
Yeah, no, absolutely. And well, I’m drawing on member conversations. We have, as I say, dozens of those and have had hundreds of those over the years. And then I’m also drawing on the benchmark survey, which is about 100 organisations. And I have to make sure that we’re clear that these are somewhat skewed. These are somewhat sophisticated organisations, right? That’s part of the reason that they’re in this conversation. And I think this represents probably kind of the leading edge of a lot of organisations. But honestly, it does at the same time, I believe, give us a precursor to what’s going to happen in time. But anyway, yeah, so in terms of our benchmark survey, over the last 10 years or so, those respondents tell us they’ve almost halved their use of search firms for external hires. And now they still use search firms. 80% of folks still use search firms, according to the survey, and see them as strategic partners, but there’s less of that, I suppose, dependency. They might have a select list of a few firms they partner with, regularly structured contracts, and those relationships often last for many years, as much as anything else with boutiques, as much as the big firms. But they are using them less and less in aggregate, I suppose. And that’s okay, right? They’re still partners, though. It’s not like it’s an enemy or something like that. It’s just that it’s changed quite a bit over the last decade or so.
Matt Alder 7:17
And in terms of the in-house executive recruiter’s role, you mentioned there that, you know, there was a swing towards internal talent, those kind of things, but also a focus on shaping leadership, capabilities, succession planning. What does this look like in practice? How have things shifted and what does that, you know, how far have organisations got in terms of evolving the role in this direction?
Simon Mullins 7:39
Oh yeah, no, absolutely. No, I think there’s a couple of things going on. So ironically, I used to think it was something we had to do when I was on the inside in corporate. I thought something we had to do, but it was less important than the external. And I was quite roundly, I don’t know, argued with, and then my mind was changed by a few members quite recently, because actually I think where not just exec recruiting, but where the entire TA function is going is becoming much more of a holistic talent advisor, internal and external data, complete maps of all the talent, wherever it is. I think that’s where everything’s going in general. But to answer your question, you know, the folks we’re talking to, and also the respondents, are pretty sophisticated models. And something like 90% of respondents are involved somehow with internal talent, as well as external. Of course, their primary role is external hiring. But 90% of the respondents are involved with internal talent in some way. And the involvement with succession planning, specifically, so, you know, an even more sophisticated level, has gone from 36% in 2019 to 76% in the most recent survey. Everything’s changing. And I don’t think it’s about, you know, maybe three or four years ago, it was about, well, we’ve got an external talent freeze, and therefore we’re just going to have to work on internal movement. It’s less that now, it’s much more about the whole picture. I think this is where all of recruiting is going, but certainly I think this is where we’re going in exec recruiting.
Matt Alder 9:07
Yeah, I think you’re right there. I think that really mirrors something that’s happening across talent acquisition as a whole, or certainly that’s where the aspirations are. That’s certainly where the aspiration is. Let’s dive into the AI aspect of this, because as you say, this is really interesting because, you know, I remember when the internet came along and that didn’t really sort of touch much about executive recruiting for a really, really long time. The conversations I was having with people a few years ago really kind of felt that AI wouldn’t have any sort of impact. As you say, there’s been a pretty kind of rapid adoption of AI at this level. What is it actually being used for? What’s it not being used for? What sort of results are people getting? What are people talking about?
Simon Mullins 9:54
Yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah, that was striking in that last two years. We’ve been asking about this and asking not just about usage and where they’re using it, but also about what the hindrances are. And of course, most of the challenges are around governance and legal, less are now actually about adoption, which is great, but it’s much more about the risk, I think, risk management. But yeah, a couple of years ago, it was all about job descriptions or maybe writing communications, writing emails. And even that was pretty rare. I think the biggest use case was job descriptions, and that was, say, 30% of respondents, and that was 2024. So last year, we saw 74% of folks using AI in some way. I was surprised even at that jump and then this year it’s almost 100. I think it’s like 93 or 95 percent or something crazy this year in this year’s survey. It’s still heavy on the documentation, the comms, and it’s very much at the early stages of the search. So in terms of the research, the data, communications, job descriptions and everything. And that’s fine. I know it’s not being used as much at the front end, the client engagement or hiring manager engagement or the candidate engagement. And for instance, everyone talks about scheduling, for instance, everyone would love to use it for scheduling. But when you try and schedule five very senior executives whose calendars keep changing throughout the day with another external very senior executive, that’s not going to come via an AI tool anytime soon. But very much the front end is not. But the kind of the back end and the process-y kind of stuff, which is probably, I’m guessing, mirroring, as you say, the broader recruiting space, is definitely where it’s being used. Oh, but actually, I’ll jump on that if I may, Matt. On the result side, 46% of the responses said it had reduced cycle time, which is great, about half, but only 14% said it had improved candidate quality. And the vast majority in that area, something like 60% or something, say the jury’s still out. So, you know, it’s having an impact, but is it having the impact that we were all hoping for?
Matt Alder 11:58
Yeah, I think that’s really interesting. And again, I think that’s something that is mirrored all the way across talent acquisition at the moment as everyone’s sort of experimenting, the tools are changing. It’s an interesting and confusing space and probably will be for a while. As you said earlier about, you know, Zoom sort of being used in the front end of executive recruiting now, which you didn’t think would happen. Do you think that the human part of this will change, or is it always going to be very much driven by humans and relationships and face-to-face conversations, even if some of those are on camera?
Simon Mullins 12:30
I’ve often said we should be called talent relationship managers, honestly, as opposed to talent acquisition, but that’s another thing. But yeah, no, there are some players who are recording conversations with hiring managers, some of our members, and or candidates, but it’s small, it’s a very small number at the moment, tiny number. And honestly, I think again there’s a kind of resistance, but that might well change in five to ten years when the broader population who then becomes either leaders or aspirational leaders, then they’re probably so much more used to it by then. But today I think it’s still very rare, about the whole recording thing and so on. So it’s going to be very much about relationships. It’s always going to be about relationships. That’s fine. And this is me. This is my old school perspective coming out. I would worry that a hiring manager we’re talking to, are they going to tell us some of those things, those kind of highly sensitive things that they might have told us in a regular search strategy meeting when they know it’s being recorded? You know, hey, I’m about to retire in three or four years and I’m looking for my successor. Are they going to put that on the record, as it were, which they would tell us in a normal circumstance in a one-to-one in a meeting? I think there’s a risk there that we might lose some of that sensitive information which is very valid and important, that people would worry that’s being on record, if that makes sense.
Matt Alder 13:49
No, that does make sense. I think that’s a really interesting point. And yeah, it’s just interesting to see how this will play out. And as you say, it may not always be in the way that we expect. I want to come back and talk a little bit about diversity in executive hiring, because as you say there, that sort of dropped off a cliff as a priority a couple of years ago. What’s kind of going on there? Are organisations still looking to recruit diverse leadership teams? What are the implications of all of this?
Simon Mullins 14:20
Yeah, the recruiters I believe and I know are actively doing what they would do, so there’s no change there. I think some of these things which are great are sort of, I don’t know what the word might be, sort of systematised. In other words, it’s built in now to the model because of all the brilliant push which happened in the last 10 years or so. But there’s no question it is off the leadership in many cases. It’s not everywhere, and obviously, we’re still seeing research that says companies that have held on to their D&I metrics and their D&I reporting are still doing better than those who’ve dropped it. So that’s good to see. In general, that’s kind of the general news, as it were. But unfortunately, when it comes to the optics of it, it is very much off the radar. I think it’s 40% or 41% have no diversity tactics specifically for executive level. And that was a significant change from 31% the year before. I’m sure it’s going to get unfortunately worse. There are still, which is good, there are still some highlights. Say 35%, I believe it is, require diverse candidate slates still of the responses to the survey. And that’s great to see. It’s sharply down from 71. So significant change there. But it’s still standing strong, if that makes sense. So it’s still there. I believe it’s still there in the minds of the recruiters and the recruiters are still actively doing what they would do. But unfortunately, the mandates are not there, as we, of course, have seen everywhere. And the optics are being very much more scrutinised. And so it’s a funky thing, honestly. And it doesn’t come up much in conversations because people feel that they’re at risk to have a conversation, which is a bit of a shame.
Matt Alder 16:03
That is a massive shame, 100%. Final question for you. Just wanted to ask about what the future might look like. Now, we sort of talked about AI, we talked about technology, we’ve talked about all those kind of things. But as you mentioned, there is a new generation of leaders sort of hitting the boardroom, hitting the C-suite. How do you think that’s going to affect the way that executive recruiting looks like? If we had this conversation again in three years’ time, what do you think might have changed or what will most likely still be the same?
Simon Mullins 16:36
I think there’s still going to be some risk concerns there. And, of course, we’re going to see that more and more as more legal cases come up. So that will hinder some of the change. But in terms of the core work, it’s always going to be about relationship management. That’s not going to change. It’s always going to be about that trusted advisorship, which I know we all talk about all the time. And that’s not going to change. But I think we’re going to see more folks, more large companies and medium size, are going to become more talent, holistic talent advisors, as it were, because they’ll get the great data and analysis that the tools will be able to give us. That’s already happening in a few places where our recruiting teams or our research and talent intelligence teams are bringing in data to help the hiring manager, the HR folks, look at the role, look at the org before they even think about writing a job description. And that’s happening in a few cases, and I think that’s going to happen more and more, where we become advisors bringing external information, internal information to this organisational slash role design and that, you know, shaping their function. And then we start to do the external market reach out and so on and so forth. So I think that’s where it’s going to go. We’re already seeing it in a few places. We’re also seeing folks building their own tools to monitor external talent and just keep an eye on whether those external players might start or might be ready to move, for instance. Those kind of things, I think, are becoming more normal as opposed to random here and there, which would be exciting. So I think it’s going to amplify everything we do, in terms of AI anyway. And also, at the same time, what we do is not going to change in terms of that white-glove, high-touch relationship thing. But it’s going to make everything so much more… It’s on steroids, effectively.
Matt Alder 18:25
Simon, thank you very much for talking to me.
Simon Mullins 18:28
Thank you. Pleasure.
Matt Alder 18:30
My thanks to Simon. You can follow this podcast on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. You can search all the past episodes at recruitingfuture.com. On that site, you can also subscribe to our weekly newsletter, Recruiting Future Feast, and get the inside track on everything that’s coming up on the show. Thanks very much for listening. I’ll be back next time, and I hope you’ll join me.
