The fragmentation of the CFO recruitment market

Picture this. You’re a CFO or senior finance professional, and for most of your career, new opportunities have come your way. But now, things have shifted. You find yourself wanting to make a proactive move. So, where do you begin?

You know a few headhunters from past calls, so you reach out. But after a few weeks, you realise that those three contacts won’t cut it. The likelihood of them surfacing the right role at the right time is low. You start to wonder: Is this it? 

As someone who spent years in executive search, I recently flipped the script and mapped out the search professionals themselves. I set out to track down as many FOP (Financial Officers Practice) headhunters as I could. Over 80 firms. More than 200 people. And then – I gave up. Not because I found what I needed, but because I didn’t. The deeper I went, the clearer it became: this market isn’t just fragmented. It’s splintered to the point of exhaustion.

But why? What’s causing this explosion of firms and specialists? And what does it mean for you as a candidate?

Over the last few months, I’ve been on a roadshow. Reconnecting with former colleagues, being introduced to new connections. These are impressive people – the best in the business. Some lead executive search at global tech giants, or global tech practices in SHREK (five prestigious firms, collectively dubbed the "SHREK" group, lead the industry). Others run boutique agencies or head up divisions in chunky challenger brands. All of them have placed the great and the good in roles across every industry.

I asked them the same question: Why do you think the market is so fragmented? Their answers were illuminating. Some straightforward, others more nuanced. I identified nine core reasons, but there are undoubtedly more.

Here’s what I found.

The first factor is access – to you, the product. Globalisation and digitisation have rewritten the rulebook. Gone are the days when the sprawling, multi-national networks of only the largest executive search firms held the keys to talent. Back when I started in search in the early 2000s, LinkedIn didn’t exist. I used to laugh at stories of people flicking through the yellow pages or trawling library archives to track down candidates – but honestly, it wasn’t much better in my day. Proprietary databases were clunky, but indispensable. The real breakthroughs came from tapping into warm networks – one call leading to another, and another. A good search began with at least a dozen conversations. If those warm leads ran dry, we’d fall back on switchboard checks and mining conference lists. Market maps – pages and pages of organisational charts we’d painstakingly piece together – were invaluable but fragile. They aged fast. If you didn’t keep them updated, they’d crumble into obsolescence within months. But in a world without LinkedIn, they were our lifeline.

LinkedIn changed everything. I remember the early days vividly. It crept into research teams first. As the user base grew, so did its influence. Slowly, it grew until firms realised they couldn’t ignore it. Now, recruiter licenses are essential. The proliferation of online bios, blogs, and awards further enrich information access. Tools like BoardEx – once the darling of every executive researcher – have adapted, acquiring web-scraping siblings in an attempt to add new layers of information. AI-driven platforms are poised to take this even further, aggregating data from internal systems as well as every corner of the web. The access to information about senior executives has been so evened out that a one-man band can compete. 

As a candidate, this is great – but also tricky. If you’re not visible or your profile undersells you, you’re missing opportunities. 

Beyond information access, technology – particularly SaaS – has slashed overheads across the board. When I first started in search, candidate packs, CVs, and shortlists were often couriered in hard copy. Yes, really. Consultants would record post-interview notes, and executive assistants would type them up word-for-word. Researchers manually populated databases, field by field, line by line. It was meticulous, tedious work.

And that was just search-specific. Across every industry, everyday operations – from expense management to HR, internal comms to talent tracking – relied on bodies in seats. Scaling a business meant hiring armies of people to push paper. But then, as Marc Andreessen famously said, "Software is eating the world." And executive search wasn’t immune.

Suddenly, those bloated back-office teams weren’t a prerequisite. Systems automated the admin. Platforms streamlined workflows. What used to take a battalion now takes a laptop and a login. This shift didn’t just make life easier – it opened the floodgates for challenger brands. When you don’t need HR, IT, or operations teams to stay afloat, running a lean, five-person firm doesn’t just seem possible – it feels inevitable.

The democratisation of marketing and branding has been another game-changer for smaller executive search firms. In the past, building a reputable brand required hefty investments in print advertising, event sponsorships, and face-to-face networking at scale – luxuries only large, established firms could afford. Branding was a slow, relationship-driven process, nurtured over decades. Today, social media, content marketing, and targeted online ads have flattened that playing field. A single well-crafted LinkedIn post or podcast appearance can elevate the profile of a boutique search firm to the same audience that once relied on newsletters from the giants. It’s not just about reach – it’s also about authority. Blogs, webinars, and thought leadership allow smaller firms to punch well above their weight, positioning themselves as experts in niche areas. This shift has empowered agile operators to carve out profitable corners of the market by projecting credibility and insight far beyond their physical size. As digital platforms increasingly enable hyper-personalized outreach and engagement, smaller firms no longer need a global network to attract clients – just a sharp message and the right distribution channels. 

A friend recently introduced me to a search professional who’s quietly building what you might describe as the next Zygos, JCA, or MWM. For those unfamiliar, these were firms that splintered from SHREK and carved out dominant positions in high-end board search – a space where winning at the top trickles down into everything else. (Two of the three have since been reabsorbed by SHREK, as board-level work remains the crown jewel in search.)

Launching any business is tough, but challenging at the board level? That’s another level of bold. She’d left a major firm to strike out alone – a place where she could have comfortably earned a significant sum as an individual contributor. Naturally, I asked her: why?

Her answer stuck with me. She’d witnessed widespread resistance to change within these large environments and it frustrated her. During her time at SHREK, she’d spent years contributing to their in-house innovation committee. But after a full year of discussions, little had changed. The focus stayed firmly on mainstream tech – even rolling out a new well-known CRM met resistance. Convincing established partners to embrace new tools or adjust their working habits was considered “too difficult or implausible.”

And to be fair, why would they? These partners sit comfortably in the final stretch of their careers, earning well above the average wage, with little incentive to rock the boat. Most firms are still privately owned partnerships, with no looming external pressure to adapt for the long haul. 

So, she left. Smart, driven and determined to build something better. A firm that leverages every technological advantage, with innovation not as an afterthought, but as the foundation. I wish her well. Not that she’ll need it. The writing’s already on the wall – success feels inevitable.

Another conversation drove home the challenges facing larger firms, particularly those that are public. I caught up with an old friend – now leading a major global practice at one of the big listed players. His team sits comfortably atop some of the most established specialisms in the industry, meaning they face limited competition in certain areas. Relationships are their currency – as they are across all of search – but even more so when the work is hyper-specialised, and talent doesn’t seamlessly shift across industries and functions. 

During our conversation he discussed the growing influence of legal and procurement within their firm. Risk-averse by nature, these teams actively steer colleagues away from untested providers or new formats. The result? A hard block on innovation.

It’s not that these firms are against change – AI tools are creeping in – but the adoption is slow, deliberate, and tightly controlled. They rarely lead the charge, and decisions flow from the top down, not through organic grassroots uptake.

For the challengers, that’s an opportunity. For the incumbents, it’s a bottleneck.  

A mentor of mine has spent years in a senior leadership role at one of the biggest, most well-known private firms. He’s deeply involved in top-level strategy – the kind of “traditional partner” with no real pressure to adapt. But he’s not blind to the shifting landscape.

He’s quick to point out the danger of complacency. With a wave of smaller challengers steadily chipping away at market share – often with more competitive pricing – the larger firms need to better leverage their biggest asset: their global accounts.

One of the key selling points for international firms is their reach. They can tap into networks across continents to build out shortlists. But when it comes to expanding their own business? That same reach is often underutilised. A US partner might have a long-standing relationship with a large-cap client, generating millions in their region. Yet, that relationship doesn’t always extend into other markets through their international offices.

And that’s where the challengers come in. They slip in quietly, establishing themselves in regions where those ties are weaker. From there, they grow – carving out bigger pieces of the pie while the incumbents watch from the sidelines.

Every so often, the global economy shifts, and with it comes a new wave of in-demand specialisms – opening the door for niche players to make their mark. These newcomers position themselves as deep domain experts, filling gaps that larger generalist firms struggle to address.

Digital was the buzzword of the 2010s. I remember it well – I was in executive search at Tesco at the time, and “digital” was everywhere. The obsession ran deep. Senior digital roles popped up across the C-suite, and candidates from tech companies were in fierce demand. If you came from Silicon Valley, you were practically waved through – even if you didn’t have the full toolkit for a different corporate environment (but that’s another story).

Amid the frenzy, one firm stood out – The Up Group. They carved out their niche early, branding themselves as the go-to provider for digital leadership. They didn’t stop at search – they created The Up Group awards, hosting lavish ceremonies that digital execs actually wanted to win. It worked. Others followed suit, and now the market is full of boutique firms specialising in all things digital.

AI feels like the next frontier.

But it’s not just technical trends driving this. Shifts in business culture – like the push for greater diversity – are shaping the landscape too. Increasing representation of women and ethnic minorities has moved up the agenda, and firms like Green Park and Women on Boards have capitalised. They’ve built their brand around being specialists in diverse talent, positioning themselves as the ones best equipped to find and place candidates from underrepresented backgrounds.

Niches aren’t just emerging – they’re multiplying.

Another layer of fragmentation comes from the shift towards in-house executive search. Large organisations – the kind that spend millions annually on search – have realised the benefits of cutting out the middleman and going straight to market. At first glance, it’s a cost-saving move. But the advantages run deeper.

By bringing search in-house, companies maintain direct control over their talent pipeline, retaining valuable data from every search. More importantly, their internal search teams sit within the business – embedded in the culture, plugged into leadership, and attuned to the nuances of what makes a candidate the right fit, both professionally and culturally. There’s no question of priorities. Internal searches don’t compete with briefs from other clients; they’re front and centre, every time.

Big tech has led the charge. Apple, Google, and Facebook have all built substantial in-house teams. But it wasn’t until I spoke with a friend overseeing senior hiring at Amazon across Europe that I fully grasped how far this model has gone.

At Amazon, everything is handled internally. Despite being a global tech powerhouse, they’ve quietly become one of the largest executive search businesses in London.

In-house isn’t just a trend – it’s becoming the norm.

We’ve explored the forces driving fragmentation in the executive search market – and the trend shows no signs of slowing. Every year, new firms carve out space in the lucrative world of talent identification. A quick dive into Companies House reveals just how well they’re doing – and that might be the final piece of the puzzle.

The numbers paint a clear picture. On average, executive search firms are generating just over £400,000 per employee. That’s at the higher end of professional services – and far outpaces other sectors. For comparison, volume recruitment firms typically land between £150,000 and £200,000 per employee. Management consultancies sit closer to £250,000. Even law firms – known for their profitability – average around £300,000.

In executive search, the rewards match the stakes. And for those eyeing the space, the opportunity is hard to ignore.

So, what does all this mean for you as a candidate? Is it good or bad?

As always – a bit of both.

On the bright side, more firms mean more competition, and competition raises the bar. Suddenly, it’s not enough for search firms to just go through the motions. They can’t afford to leave you hanging or skimp on feedback. Delivering a good candidate experience becomes essential – the difference between standing out or falling behind. More players also mean more ground gets covered, more voices challenge the status quo, and ultimately, more diverse shortlists start to emerge.

But – and it’s a big but – this also means you’re dealing with more firms and individuals than you can realistically build relationships with.

Here’s the rub: in executive search, roles aren’t plastered across job boards. Once a search firm lands a brief, they guard it closely. And for good reason – to keep competitors from throwing in their own candidates behind the scenes. So, to even get a shot at these roles, you need to be on the radar of the firm running the search. In a fragmented market, that’s easier said than done.

Sure, if your name’s out there, the right partner will probably find you. But what if your LinkedIn profile doesn’t do you justice? What if you’re the perfect fit, but the search partner barely knows you – or worse, someone else looks better on paper?

How do you cut through the noise? Where do you even start?