Comparisons
This category covers the real alternatives to firm-side candidate research: doing it in-house, hiring a dedicated researcher, using a research service, or using AI tools directly. The comparisons here are specific rather than favorable to any one side — the tradeoffs in cost, consistency, and what each approach actually requires to do well. Most of what's here so far looks at the AI-tools alternative specifically, since that's the one practitioners are actually testing themselves right now; the in-house and dedicated-researcher comparisons get the same treatment as those pieces are written.
4 posts
AI in Talent Acquisition: What It Means for Executive Search
Most AI-in-talent-acquisition tooling exists to filter a large applicant pool efficiently. Executive search does not have one — the candidates were found, not received. Here is what part of the category actually transfers, and what does not.
Read →
Artificial Intelligence Recruiting: What It Does, What It Doesn't
The term covers extraction, sourcing, scoring, and verification. Each holds up differently under scrutiny, and the reasons why are mechanical, not a matter of trying harder.
Read →
ChatGPT for Recruiting: What It Can Do for Executive Search
You have a role to fill and a ChatGPT tab open. It will produce something. The useful question isn't whether that's impressive. It's what you'd still have to do yourself before sending it anywhere.
Read →
How AI Is Actually Used in Executive Candidate Research
The interesting question is not whether AI can help with candidate research. It can. The question is what has to be built around the model before its output is safe to send a client.
Read →Ready to see the sourcing discipline on a live search?
Get Your First Search for Free →First search on us. $1,000 per search after that.