The Retained Search Framework is the operational model for VP and C-suite hiring in which the client pays a search firm in three milestone-based tranches before a candidate is placed. The framework defines the engagement structure (exclusivity, fee split, guarantee), the milestone deliverables at each tranche, and the quality standards that the fee structure enables. Retained search produces different outcomes than contingency search not because of effort, but because the incentive structure eliminates the speed-versus-quality conflict that makes contingency models structurally unsuited to executive mandates.
Why Fee Structure Determines Process Quality
Contingency search pays on placement only. This creates a financial incentive to submit candidates quickly, volume-maximise the shortlist, and close the search as fast as possible — regardless of fit quality. The recruiter who submits 12 candidates and gets one hired earns the same fee as the recruiter who submits 3 candidates, all of whom are hired. Speed is rewarded; depth is not.
Retained search pays in three tranches tied to milestones. The upfront tranche means the recruiter is already compensated before a single candidate is submitted — removing the speed incentive. The second tranche at shortlist delivery means deep brief work and thorough dossier assembly are financially justified. The final tranche at placement means the recruiter is invested in a quality close, not just any close. The framework enables a fundamentally different process.
"The fee structure you agree to at the start of a search determines the quality of the process that follows it. Contingency is optimised for speed. Retained is optimised for fit. For a VP or C-suite role, fit is the only metric that matters 18 months later."
Retained vs. Contingency Structure Comparison
| Dimension | Retained Search | Contingency Search |
|---|---|---|
| Payment structure | 1/3 upfront, 1/3 at shortlist, 1/3 at placement | 100% on placement only |
| Exclusivity | Exclusive engagement — one firm, full focus | Multiple agencies competing simultaneously |
| Candidate pool | Deep targeted sourcing of passive senior candidates | Often active candidates already in agency databases |
| Brief depth | 90-min structured intake; documented criteria | Phone brief; often handled by junior researcher |
| Shortlist quality | Evidence Dossier per candidate; 82% HM approval (Majhi avg) | CV + recruiter notes; 38% industry average HM approval |
| Guarantee | 90-day replacement at no charge | Rarely offered; typically 30 days or less |
| Suitable for | VP and C-suite mandates; specialised searches; confidential replacements | High-volume roles; urgent fills; roles under $120K |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the standard Majhi Group fee structure?
20–25% of total CTC (base + bonus + benefits value), paid in three equal tranches: one-third at mandate signature, one-third at candidate submission (shortlist delivery), and one-third at placement. The fee covers an exclusive, fully retained engagement with a 90-day replacement guarantee. Total fees for a $275K VP role typically range from $55,000–$69,000.
Why does retained search include a replacement guarantee but contingency rarely does?
The replacement guarantee is sustainable under a retained model because the fee structure enables the brief depth and candidate assessment quality that reduce mis-hire risk. A contingency firm that offers a replacement guarantee would need to absorb the full cost of a second search on a zero-upfront model — which is economically unsustainable. The guarantee is a consequence of the model, not a marketing feature.
When is contingency search appropriate instead of retained?
Contingency is appropriate for roles below $120K, roles with large active candidate pools (no passive sourcing required), and high-volume fills where brief depth is not the constraint. For VP and C-suite mandates, where the candidate pool is senior and largely passive, the brief complexity is high, and a mis-hire costs 18–24 months of time and budget to repair, retained search is structurally better suited to the problem.