Two different engagements, not two prices for the same one
Advius is a retained executive search firm working with private and PE-backed operators on C-suite and senior leadership seats, anchored to a Clarity, Precision, and Momentum methodology. This page explains why the retained-vs-contingency distinction is a methodology question, not a pricing question, and how to decide which model is appropriate for a given seat.
The short version: the fee model determines what the firm can invest in beyond sourcing, and that investment is what separates a shortlist from an integration. Retained search funds Clarity, Precision, and Momentum work. Contingency search structurally cannot fund the first and last phases and shifts that workload back to the client.
What is retained search
Retained search is an executive recruiting engagement where the firm is paid in installments across the engagement rather than on placement. The retainer funds the firm's investment across all three phases of the search: Clarity (mandate definition, success criteria, stakeholder alignment), Precision (market mapping, structured evaluation, shortlist), and Momentum (offer management, transition planning, integration support).
Retained engagements are typically exclusive on each seat. The firm invests as if it is the only firm working the seat because it is. The client engages knowing the firm has skin in the outcome, structured through guarantee terms, off-limits agreements, and a defined replacement scope.
What is contingency search
Contingency search is an executive recruiting engagement where the firm is paid only when a candidate they presented is hired. Multiple firms often work the same seat simultaneously, each racing to be the first to present a hireable candidate. The model optimizes for speed of candidate delivery, not for depth of fit assessment or integration support.
Contingency is appropriate for director-level and below where the primary constraint is candidate volume. It is structurally not designed to carry the diagnostic and integration workload that senior executive seats require, and firms operating under this model cannot economically justify that investment because the revenue does not arrive until placement.
Fee structure and engagement terms compared
The comparison below sets the two models against each other on the six attributes that matter most when choosing between them for a specific seat.
| Attribute | Retained search | Contingency search |
|---|---|---|
| Fee timing | Installments paid across the engagement; typically thirds at engagement, milestone, and placement | Paid only on placement; no fee if the search does not close |
| Exclusivity | Exclusive on the seat; one firm works the search | Non-exclusive; multiple firms typically work the same seat simultaneously |
| Diagnostic scope | Clarity work funded: written mandate, success criteria, stakeholder alignment | Diagnostic work sits with the client; firm engagement begins at sourcing |
| Integration scope | Momentum work funded: offer management, transition planning, integration support | Engagement ends at placement; integration workload shifts back to the client |
| Risk allocation | Firm assumes engagement risk; guarantee terms and replacement scope structured into the retainer | Client absorbs engagement risk; firm only earns if the placement closes |
| Typical use cases | C-suite, senior VP, transformational seats, confidential replacement searches | Director-level and below where volume, not depth, is the primary constraint |
Incentive alignment: where the models diverge
In the retained model the firm is paid regardless of placement outcome. This removes the speed pressure that shapes contingency behavior and creates space for the firm to invest in Clarity work, be selective about shortlist recommendations, and stay engaged through the integration window. The firm's long-term success depends on client satisfaction across engagements, not on placement rate inside any one.
In the contingency model the firm is paid only on placement. This creates a rational incentive to move quickly to shortlist, present candidates who are more likely to accept, and disengage after placement. It is not a critique of contingency firms; it is the structure of the engagement they are operating inside. Optimizing for anything other than placement speed reduces their own profitability.
The consequence is legible on the finished shortlist. Retained shortlists tend to be shorter, more differentiated, and more directly mapped to the written success criteria. Contingency shortlists tend to be broader and skewed toward candidates who are actively in market or quick to respond to outreach.
How risk is allocated in each model
Retained search shares outcome risk between the firm and the client. The firm underwrites part of the failure risk through guarantee terms and replacement scope structured into the engagement. The client bears the risk that the retainer produces no viable candidate and the search must be re-scoped or re-launched, which is why the Clarity phase matters and why disciplined firms will not accept an engagement they do not believe they can execute.
Contingency search shifts most of the risk to the client. The firm invests only what they can recover from the placements they close, and if the search does not produce a hireable candidate the firm bears no financial cost. The client absorbs the time cost, the opportunity cost, and, if the placement fails after the fact, the roughly three-times-compensation recovery cost.
- ConfidentialityContingency firms work multiple searches concurrently and are compensated on placement volume, which pressures broad, less-controlled outreach. Retained engagements protect the mandate under signed confidentiality with a small, briefed team.
- Slate depthContingency compensation rewards fast submissions over exhaustive market mapping. Retained work funds the map-the-market phase where passive candidates who are not job-seeking are surfaced and qualified.
- Time to placementContingency looks faster on the first submission but slower to a confirmed hire, because slates skew to active candidates and drop-off is higher. Retained runs a defined 90-120 day cadence with milestone accountability.
- GuaranteeContingency guarantees are typically 30-90 day replace-only, and the firm has no economic incentive to invest in a second search. Retained guarantees are longer, structured, and backed by a firm that has already been paid to solve the problem.
- Success alignmentContingency pays on placement, which aligns the firm with closing any candidate the client will accept. Retained pays on the search itself, which aligns the firm with the candidate who will succeed in the seat two years out.
Which model is right for the seat
- C-suite or senior VPRetained. The failure cost is high and the integration workload is real. Contingency structurally cannot fund the phases where those risks are addressed.
- Transformational mandateRetained. A seat that is reshaping strategy or organizational design requires deep Clarity work the client cannot get from a contingency engagement.
- Confidential replacementRetained. Confidential searches where the incumbent is still in seat require sourcing discipline and stakeholder management contingency firms are not built to provide.
- Director-level, well-defined seatContingency can work. The volume constraint dominates, and the diagnostic and integration workload is manageable in-house.
- Speed premium over fitContingency can work, with the acknowledgment that the trade is being made explicitly. Fit risk is being transferred back to the client.
- Multi-firm engagement toleranceContingency requires the client to manage several firm relationships and duplicated outreach. If that overhead is not welcome, retained is the operational fit.
