The mechanics of executive search — how the process actually works, how candidate lists are constructed and refined, and how decisions are made about who to present — are genuinely opaque to most organisations commissioning searches. This opacity is, to some degree, deliberate: search firms have commercial reasons for maintaining mystique around their methodology. But it creates practical problems for organisations that are trying to evaluate whether their search firm is doing its job well, and that occasionally need to understand why a search is not producing the outcomes they expected.
I am going to be direct about how we construct candidate lists at JOlivier & Partners, because I think transparency about methodology is a better basis for a search relationship than mystique.
The Long List: How It Is Built
The long list — the universe of candidates who are initially considered for a mandate — is built through a combination of database research, market mapping and network activation. The database component identifies candidates who match the structural profile of the brief: sector experience, functional background, approximate seniority level, geographic availability. For most senior mandates, this produces a manageable universe of 50 to 200 names, depending on the specificity of the brief and the depth of the talent pool in the relevant sector.
Market mapping extends this universe by systematically identifying organisations where the relevant talent is likely to be employed — competitors, adjacent businesses, organisations known for developing leadership in the relevant function — and looking at who holds the relevant roles in those organisations. This is primary research, not database retrieval, and it frequently surfaces candidates who are not in any database because they have not been active in the executive job market for an extended period.
Network activation is the least systematic but often the most productive component: leveraging the relationships of the search firm’s principals with senior executives in the relevant sector to identify candidates by reputation who would not be found through database search or systematic mapping. A conversation with a respected sector leader about who they would most want to work with at the level of the role being filled frequently produces one or two names that the rest of the process would not have generated.
The Evaluation Process: From Long List to Short List
The transition from long list to short list is where the quality of a search firm’s judgment is most clearly revealed. The evaluation process that produces a credible shortlist must do two things simultaneously: filter out candidates who cannot perform the role, and identify the candidates who can perform it best. These are related but distinct objectives, and overweighting the first at the expense of the second produces a shortlist that is technically safe but not genuinely excellent.
Our evaluation process begins with a qualification screening — a structured conversation with every long-list candidate who meets the basic structural criteria — that assesses availability, interest, functional fit and basic cultural compatibility. This screens out candidates who are not available, not interested at this career stage, or who have structural mismatches with the brief that become apparent in conversation.
The candidates who pass this screening are then subject to a substantive assessment conversation — typically 60 to 90 minutes, structured around the specific competencies and contextual requirements of the brief. This conversation generates the evidence base from which we make our shortlist recommendations. Every candidate we present to a client has been personally assessed by a principal of our firm at this level of depth. We do not present candidates who have only been qualified by a junior team member and reviewed by a partner at the brief summary level.
What the Short List Should Tell You
A well-constructed shortlist tells the client not just who the best available candidates are but also what each candidate represents as an appointment choice — what they bring, what they don’t bring, how they compare to each other on the dimensions that matter most for the specific role, and what the risks and opportunities associated with each appointment are. It is a decision-making document, not a marketing document.
Shortlists that are primarily marketing documents — that present candidates in the most positive possible light to maximise the probability that at least one is appointed — serve the search firm’s commercial interest without necessarily serving the client’s appointment interest. The shortlist that presents candidates honestly, including the concerns and development areas that are relevant to the specific role, enables better appointment decisions and ultimately better outcomes. This is the standard we hold ourselves to at JOlivier & Partners, and the one that we believe our clients are entitled to hold us to as well.