• AI visibility

Guide · AI search

Will AI search change how boards choose an executive search firm?

It is changing how they check one. Most retained mandates still come from existing clients and referrals, but most public company directors now use generative AI in their board work, and an assistant asked about a firm or a partner can only repeat what is public. For a business built on discretion, the task is to make the record that can be shared, such as announced placements, research and partner expertise, clear enough to be found and repeated accurately.

By Underneath Team Guide Updated

The short version

  1. Mandates are valuable: Korn Ferry says its search fees are generally one-third of the placed executive’s estimated first-year cash compensation, and Heidrick & Struggles reported average revenue per executive search of $162 thousand.
  2. Referrals dominate: Korn Ferry obtains a majority of its new engagements from existing clients or their referrals, according to its fiscal 2026 annual report.
  3. Leadership change is steady: US companies announced 2,032 CEO exits in 2025, and outside hires (960) outnumbered internal promotions (881), according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
  4. Directors use AI: in a Diligent survey of 104 US public company directors, 82% had used generative AI in board work in the past six months, up from 66%.
  5. Board seats are scarce: S&P 500 boards appointed 374 new independent directors in 2025, the lowest number since 2016.

This article is about retained search for chief executives, senior leaders and board directors. Agencies that fill temporary, contract and mid-level roles face a different buyer and a different fee, so they are not covered here.

Who hires an executive search firm, and what is one mandate worth?

A board chair, a nominating committee, a CEO or a private equity partner. A single mandate can be worth six figures, and satisfied clients return.

The fee is set by the role. Korn Ferry’s fiscal 2026 annual report (opens in a new tab) says fee revenue from executive and professional search is “generally one-third of the estimated first-year cash compensation of the placed candidate,” plus a share for expenses, and an uptick fee when final pay is higher. Heidrick & Struggles, in its second-quarter 2025 results (opens in a new tab), reported average revenue per executive search of $162 thousand, with 420 search consultants producing $2.3 million each on an annualized basis.

The largest firm shows the scale. In Korn Ferry’s fiscal 2026 results (opens in a new tab), Executive Search earned $924.1 million in fee revenue and opened 6,514 new engagements, with 566 consultants at year end.

The same annual report explains how the work is won. “We obtain a majority of our new engagements from existing clients or from referrals by those clients,” it says, and it names reputation, both the firm’s and each consultant’s, as essential to securing them. That is the starting point for any discussion of AI search: it does not replace the referral, it is where the referral gets checked. Agencies filling temporary, contract and permanent roles sell to a different buyer, covered in our guide for recruiting agencies.

How much leadership change is there for search firms to serve?

A steady flow: about 2,000 CEO exits a year in the US, more of them filled from outside than within.

Challenger, Gray & Christmas, which tracks CEO changes at US companies, counted 2,032 CEO exits in 2025, down 9% from 2024. Public companies had their most active year on record, with 446 CEO exits. Of the replacements, 960 were external and 881 internal, and every external appointment is a potential search mandate.

2026 is quieter. Through June, Challenger counted 920 CEO exits, down 26% from the same period of 2025, as “boards continue to hold onto the leaders they have.” Tenure keeps shortening: HRD America (opens in a new tab) cites Russell Reynolds Associates putting average CEO tenure at 7.1 years, down from 8.3 years in 2021.

Board searches are scarcer still. Spencer Stuart’s board index, summarized by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (opens in a new tab), found S&P 500 boards appointed 374 new independent directors in 2025, and only 50% of boards appointed one at all, down from 58% in 2024. With fewer seats and fewer CEO changes, each invitation to pitch matters more.

Where does AI enter a board’s choice of search firm?

At the checking stage: directors and CEOs use AI to benchmark firms, partners and track records.

There is no published study of how boards use AI to choose search firms. There is good evidence that directors use AI for board work:

  • Use is now the norm. In Diligent Institute’s survey (opens in a new tab) of 104 US public company directors, 82% had used generative AI in board work in the past six months, up from 66% in September 2025.
  • Benchmarking is a common use. 45% had used it to prepare for board or committee discussions or to benchmark peers, competitors or market trends.
  • Consumer tools are in the mix. 49% had heard of board members using publicly available or consumer-facing AI tools for board work rather than company-approved systems. Diligent sells board software, so treat this as a vendor’s survey.

The search firms themselves see the shift. Korn Ferry’s annual report lists increased competition from “in-house human resource professionals whose ability to provide job placement services has been enhanced by professional profiles made available on the internet and enhanced social media-based or AI-based search tools.” The industry body is adapting: AESC launched an AI training program for search consultants in June 2026, and HRD America cites a report that 67% of executive search firms were using AI-powered tools at the start of 2026.

Our inference: a nominating committee member who receives three firm names from colleagues is now likely to ask an assistant what each firm is known for, who leads its practice in the sector, and what has been said about it. The answer shapes who gets the first call.

What do boards and CEOs ask AI about search firms?

Questions about fit, record and risk. We wrote these examples to show the pattern; none is taken from real search logs.

BuyerExample question
Board chair“Which executive search firms have the strongest CEO succession practice for mid-cap medical device companies?”
Nominating committee“Who helps boards find first-time directors with cybersecurity experience?”
Private equity partner“Search firms that place CFOs in PE-backed software companies, and their typical fees”
CHRO“Global firm or boutique for a chief supply chain officer search: pros and cons”
CEO“Who leads the industrial practice at [firm], and what searches have they completed?”
Any buyer“Has [firm] had conflicts or confidentiality problems? What do clients say?”

Two kinds of question stand out. The first is about a partner, not a firm, because clients hire the person who will run their search. The second is about risk. Korn Ferry’s annual report notes that firms with smaller client bases are subject to fewer off-limits arrangements, which limit where a firm can recruit from. For a boutique, being clearly described as free of those conflicts in a sector can be an advantage.

How does an AI answer turn into a retained mandate?

Through the shortlist: an answer names the firm or partner, the committee invites it to pitch, and a retainer follows.

The path is a referral or AI answer → AI-assisted check on the firm and lead partner → invitation to pitch against two to four firms → retainer signed → search over several months → placement → follow-on work such as assessment, succession planning or board searches.

The economics make the early stage decisive. A firm that is not invited to pitch has no chance at a fee worth a third of an executive’s first-year cash pay. Because Korn Ferry says a small number of consultants hold primary responsibility for each client relationship, the partner’s public profile matters as much as the firm’s. A reasonable expectation is that firms whose partners are clearly tied to sectors and roles, in independent sources, are the ones an assistant can describe well. HR consulting firms face a close version of this test, where the firm must be tied to a named people problem in sources others cite, as our guide for HR consulting firms shows.

What decides which search firms an assistant names?

Mostly how widely and specifically independent sources describe the firm. Platforms say little; most of what we know is observed in other markets.

Documented by the platform. OpenAI’s help page on ChatGPT search (opens in a new tab) says ChatGPT may search the web automatically, that responses may include citations, and that cited results “can be incomplete, outdated, or incorrect.”

Observed in our studies (cross-industry, not executive search).

  • In our brand entity study, 60.0% of options named by all four assistants had an English Wikipedia article, but most of that advantage went once prominence was accounted for. What mattered more for a search firm’s odds was outside mention: every tenfold rise in the independent sites that named a brand in the cited pages came with 4.7 times the odds of a recommendation.
  • Our hidden searches study found ChatGPT went looking for a specific publication, ranking or award in 43.8% of its answers. Rankings and trade press lists of search firms are therefore part of the evidence an answer can draw on.
  • Repeat the same question and the shortlist moves: in our consistency study, just 25.2% of the brands ChatGPT named turned up in all five runs. One check of what an assistant says about a firm is a snapshot.

Our inference for executive search. Discretion limits the public record. Many searches are never announced, so assistants lean on what is: appointment announcements that credit the firm, research the firm publishes, partner biographies, and trade coverage. Spencer Stuart’s Board Index, now in its 41st year, is an example of research that others summarize year after year, and every summary ties the firm’s name to board composition.

What does a search firm lose if AI misdescribes or ignores it?

Invitations to pitch, mainly in sectors and roles where the firm is strong but publicly quiet. No study has measured it.

The largest firms are already widely covered. A specialist boutique with a strong record in, say, hospital CEO searches may be invisible if its placements are unannounced and its partners’ pages are thin. If a committee member asks an assistant which firms specialize in that work, the boutique may not appear, even though a colleague recommended it. That is our inference.

Misdescription is the other risk. An assistant that describes a retained search firm as a contingency recruiter, attributes a placement to the wrong firm, or lists a partner who has left sends the wrong signal to a buyer who values precision. Our guide on fixing wrong brand information in AI answers covers how to correct the sources behind such errors.

How does GEO work for an executive search firm?

Generative engine optimization (GEO) makes the shareable part of a firm’s record accurate, specific and easy for assistants to repeat. It cannot promise a mention.

  1. Partner pages that say what each partner does. Sectors, functions, board work and the kinds of searches led, in plain words, matched on LinkedIn and conference bios.
  2. Announced placements, with consent. When a client announces an appointment, ask whether the firm may be credited. Trade press reports of completed searches tie the firm to the sector and the role.
  3. Research others cite. A recurring study of CEO succession, board composition or pay in one sector gives journalists and other sites a reason to name the firm. Our piece on building the kind of authority AI search picks up explains why that outside citation counts.
  4. Plain process and ethics pages. How the firm handles confidentiality, off-limits arrangements, candidate data and AI use. Buyers ask these questions, and boards want written answers.
  5. Association and directory profiles. AESC membership, which covers more than 16,000 professionals in more than 80 countries, and accurate listings in rankings and directories.
  6. A consistent entity. The same firm description, offices, practices and leadership across the website, press releases and profiles. Our article on why Wikipedia matters for AI search explains when an encyclopedia entry is realistic and when it is not.
  7. Regular checks. Ask the sector and partner questions above in several assistants, several times each quarter, and record who is named and which sources are cited.

Where does the evidence on AI and executive search run out?

At the mandate: no data yet connects a firm’s AI visibility to invitations to pitch or signed retainers.

  • No study of AI answers about search firms. We found none that measures which firms assistants name.
  • Director surveys are small. Diligent’s figures come from 104 directors and describe board work in general, not choosing advisers.
  • Client research is private. AESC’s 2026 report on how clients evaluate and select firms is available only to members.
  • Our findings come from other markets. The coverage and consistency results were measured on consumer and business brands.

Where should an executive search firm start?

With the sectors and roles you most want to lead, checked against what assistants say today.

List the questions a board chair, CEO or deal partner would ask about those searches. Ask them in ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude and Google’s AI features, more than once. Note which firms and partners are named, which sources are cited, and whether anything about your firm is wrong or missing.

If you want more invitations to pitch for the mandates you are best placed to win, contact us for a review of how AI assistants describe your firm and partners. We will test the sector, role and reputation questions your clients ask, show the sources behind the answers, and plan the pages, research and coverage that make your record easy to verify without compromising discretion. Our generative engine optimization service page describes how that work is run over time for a search firm, from partner pages and consented placement credits to regular checks.

Frequently asked questions

Do AI assistants only name the largest executive search firms?

The large firms are the most widely covered, so they are named often. In our cross-industry studies, independent coverage of a specific strength was what went with being recommended.

Can a search firm improve AI visibility without breaching client confidentiality?

Yes. Partner expertise, published research, consented placement announcements and process pages are all shareable without naming confidential searches.

Do directors really use AI to research advisers?

Directors use AI widely in board work, including benchmarking. No survey yet isolates adviser selection.

How long does it take to change what AI says about a firm?

Corrections to the firm’s own pages and profiles can show within weeks. Coverage and research build over months and years.

Sources

Free strategy call

Some questions are easier to answer about your own business.

Bring the one that matters most. On a free 30-minute call we’ll take a first look at it and send you a short written read afterward.

Ask about my businessHow we work