“Speed kills deals.” Isn’t the Whole Truth

Every private equity firm has experienced the pressure of an executive search that suddenly becomes urgent. A CFO resigns unexpectedly, a CEO needs replacing before the next board meeting, or an Operating Partner wants a critical leadership hire completed before an acquisition closes. As the pressure builds, the same phrase is often repeated throughout the process:

"Speed kills deals."

There is truth in that statement. The best executives are rarely available for long, and prolonged interview processes significantly increase the likelihood of losing exceptional candidates to competing opportunities. However, one of the biggest mistakes we see firms make is confusing moving faster with doing less. Those are two very different things.

The objective should never be to remove interview stages simply because a candidate has another offer. Instead, the goal should be to preserve every stage that improves hiring accuracy while finding ways to complete the entire process in a shorter period of time.

 

Losing Great Candidates Doesn't Mean Your Process Is Wrong

Recently, we were leading a Chief Financial Officer search for a private equity backed business that appeared to be reaching a successful conclusion. After an extensive search process, we had identified two outstanding finalists who both exceeded the original brief. They had progressed through multiple interview stages, met the leadership team, and there was genuine confidence that one of them would become the company's next CFO.

Then the search changed almost overnight.

Two weeks before the final interview, one candidate withdrew after accepting another opportunity. A week later, the remaining finalist also exited the process after receiving a competing offer elsewhere. Within the space of seven days, what had looked like a completed executive search was back at the beginning.

Situations like this are frustrating for everyone involved. Significant time has been invested by both the client and the candidates, and naturally the immediate reaction is to ask whether the process could have moved faster.

Often, the answer is yes.

However, that does not automatically mean the interview process itself should have been shortened.

 

The Most Common Mistake Is Solving the Wrong Problem

This is where many executive search processes begin to go wrong. As soon as candidates receive competing offers, pressure builds to remove parts of the assessment process in order to secure a decision more quickly.

Presentation exercises are cancelled because there is no longer enough preparation time. Final interviews become informal conversations rather than structured assessments. Board members who cannot attend are removed from the process instead of rescheduling. Technical assessments are skipped because the executive already has an impressive CV. References are postponed until after an offer has been accepted.

On the surface, each of these decisions appears relatively minor. Collectively, however, they remove many of the safeguards that were originally designed to reduce hiring risk.

Every interview stage exists because it answers a question that cannot be answered elsewhere. A presentation demonstrates strategic thinking under pressure. A technical assessment validates expertise beyond what appears on a résumé. Board interviews test alignment with investors and other stakeholders, while reference checks often reveal behavioural patterns that never emerge during formal interviews.

Removing these stages may reduce the length of the hiring process, but it also reduces the quality of the evidence upon which such an important decision is being made.

 

The Better Question Is Not "What Can We Skip?"

Rather than asking which interview stages can be removed, private equity firms should be asking a different question altogether:

How can we complete every critical assessment stage in a shorter period of time?

There is an important distinction between compressing a hiring process and compromising a hiring process.

Many delays are not caused by the assessment itself but by poor coordination. Interviews are spread across several weeks because diaries have not been aligned in advance. Board meetings are scheduled after the final interview rather than alongside it. Technical assessments begin only after multiple interview rounds have finished, while reference checks wait until contracts are already being prepared.

Much of this can be avoided through better planning.

First and second interviews can often take place within the same week. Final decision makers can reserve time in their diaries before the search reaches its closing stages. Technical assessments can be prepared in advance rather than created at the last minute, and references can begin immediately once finalists have been identified instead of waiting for the preferred candidate to verbally accept an offer.

None of these changes reduce the quality of the hiring process. They simply reduce the time taken to complete it.

 

Sometimes Waiting Is the Right Decision

During our recent CFO search, we explored multiple ways of accelerating the final stage. We discussed whether the interview could take place virtually, whether some stakeholders could attend remotely, and whether certain conversations could happen separately.

Ultimately, we decided not to change the process.

This particular portfolio company was operating within a complex environment, and the appointment would have a significant impact on the future direction of the business. Every key decision maker needed to leave the final interview with complete confidence that this was the right individual.

If one stakeholder had joined remotely, missed part of the discussion or been unable to fully assess the candidate, there was a genuine possibility that uncertainty would remain. In our experience, uncertainty rarely disappears after an offer has been made. Instead, it often resurfaces during onboarding or shortly after the executive joins the business.

One of the principles we consistently apply during executive hiring is that a "maybe" should almost always be treated as a "no". That does not necessarily mean the candidate lacks capability. It simply means there is not yet enough evidence to make a confident appointment.

We accepted the risk that waiting could result in losing both candidates.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened.

Despite the outcome, we would still make the same decision again because compromising the assessment process would simply have exchanged one hiring risk for another.

 

Urgency Should Increase Hiring Discipline, Not Reduce It

One of the most dangerous assumptions in executive hiring is believing that urgency justifies lowering the assessment standard. In reality, the opposite is usually true.

When a portfolio company is under pressure, the consequences of appointing the wrong executive become even greater. A poor CFO appointment can delay acquisitions, reduce confidence with lenders, weaken board reporting, slow operational improvements and ultimately impact enterprise value. Replacing that executive twelve months later is almost always more expensive than investing a few additional weeks to make the correct decision in the first place.

This is particularly true in private equity backed businesses, where leadership appointments are expected to create measurable value within relatively short investment horizons. Every executive hire should contribute to the value creation plan, and that requires confidence that they possess not only the right experience but also the capability to perform within the specific environment they are entering.

The cost of a failed executive appointment is rarely limited to recruitment fees. It is reflected in lost momentum, delayed strategic initiatives, reduced organisational confidence and, in many cases, another executive search that could have been avoided.

 

The Best Executive Search Partners Protect Your Process

It may seem counterintuitive for an executive search firm to argue against shortening an interview process. After all, recruiters are commercially incentivised to complete searches as efficiently as possible.

However, the best executive search partners understand that their responsibility extends beyond simply filling a vacancy. Their role is to help clients make better executive hiring decisions that continue creating value long after the recruitment process has ended.

That means challenging unnecessary delays while also protecting the assessment stages that genuinely improve hiring accuracy. It means encouraging clients to organise interviews more efficiently rather than remove them altogether. Most importantly, it means recognising that speed and quality are not opposing objectives when the process has been designed correctly.

 

Final Thoughts

There is no doubt that lengthy executive hiring processes create risk. Exceptional candidates will continue interviewing elsewhere, competing offers will emerge, and businesses that move too slowly will inevitably lose outstanding talent.

However, private equity firms should resist the temptation to solve this problem by lowering their hiring standards.

The most successful hiring processes are not the shortest. They are the most efficient. Every critical assessment step is completed, every key stakeholder has confidence in the decision, and unnecessary delays are removed without sacrificing the quality of the evaluation.

The distinction is an important one.

Move faster by improving coordination, not by reducing diligence.

Because while speed may kill deals, compromising your hiring process can destroy far more value than losing a single candidate ever will.