A growing number of senior leaders are experiencing a quiet but profound shift in their professional lives. Once energized by ambition, responsibility, and impact, many executives now report persistent exhaustion, declining motivation, and a subtle detachment from their work. This phenomenon-often referred to as corporate fatigue is emerging as a defining leadership challenge of the modern business environment.
Unlike traditional burnout, corporate fatigue is not always visible. It develops gradually, often masked by continued performance and outward success. Yet beneath the surface, it erodes clarity, purpose, and ultimately effectiveness.
Today’s executives operate in an environment of constant pressure. Digital acceleration has created an “always-on” culture, while global uncertainty, economic volatility, and rapid organizational change demand continuous adaptation. Leaders are expected to deliver results quickly, inspire teams, manage crises, and remain emotionally intelligent-all at once.
Over time, this sustained intensity leads to cumulative strain. Many executives begin to experience:
What makes corporate fatigue particularly challenging is that high-performing individuals often push through these symptoms, delaying recognition and intervention.
At the core of corporate fatigue lies a deeper issue: the erosion of meaning.
Many executives enter leadership roles driven by vision, creativity, and the desire to make an impact. However, as responsibilities grow, their work often becomes dominated by operational demands, administrative tasks, and short-term performance pressures. The connection between effort and purpose weakens.
This disconnect is reinforced by several factors:
When leaders can no longer see the significance of their work, motivation declines-even if external success remains.
Corporate fatigue manifests across cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and physical dimensions. Its subtlety often makes it difficult to identify early.
If left unaddressed, these symptoms can escalate into full burnout, affecting both individual well-being and organizational performance.
Corporate fatigue is not just a personal issue-it is a strategic risk.
Leaders experiencing fatigue are more likely to default to short-term thinking, avoid necessary risks, and struggle to inspire others. This can lead to:
In essence, when leadership energy declines, organizational performance follows.
Managing corporate fatigue requires more than temporary relief. It calls for a shift in how leadership is structured, supported, and sustained.
1. Reconnect with Purpose
Executives need to revisit what drives them. Clarifying personal values and aligning them with organizational goals can restore a sense of meaning. Organizations should reinforce how leadership roles contribute to broader impact-not just financial outcomes.
2. Redesign Work and Expectations
Sustainable leadership depends on realistic workloads. This includes prioritizing strategic responsibilities, delegating effectively, and reducing unnecessary complexity. Continuous high-intensity performance is not sustainable.
3. Create Space for Reflection
Constant activity leaves little room for clear thinking. Leaders benefit from protected time for reflection, reduced digital interruptions, and the ability to step back without stigma. Insight often emerges in moments of pause.
4. Strengthen Support Systems
Executives frequently operate in isolation. Coaching, peer networks, and mentorship can provide perspective, reduce pressure, and normalize the challenges of leadership.
5. Build a Culture of Sustainability
Organizations must move beyond glorifying overwork. Recognizing balance, rewarding long-term thinking, and embedding well-being into leadership development are critical for sustained success.
Corporate fatigue reflects a broader shift in the nature of leadership. The traditional model-based on endurance, constant availability, and relentless output-is increasingly incompatible with today’s complexity.
Future-ready leaders will not be defined by how much they can endure, but by how effectively they manage their energy, maintain clarity of purpose, and create sustainable performance-for themselves and their teams.
Addressing corporate fatigue is not about reducing ambition. It is about ensuring that leaders have the capacity to lead with focus, resilience, and meaning over the long term.
The job market is competitive, and good talent is often in short supply, that is why organisations are increasingly turning to ‘hidden search’ (discreet recruitment) to fill senior vacancies. Instead of publicly posting their management vacancies on job boards, a headhunter actively seeks out suitable candidates through private channels, such as personal networks. This discreet approach helps avoid internal turbulence and strengthens your strategic position, without attracting the attention of competitors.
Hidden search is a strategic recruitment method whereby companies attract talent without publicly advertising vacancies. This approach is increasingly being used for specialist roles, interim management or senior positions. It is all about precision and discretion, enabling companies to identify and approach the best professionals in a targeted manner. By utilising market knowledge, networks and specialist headhunters, companies can work in a targeted way. Candidates are approached confidentially, without the market being aware of it.
This approach provides access to so-called ‘passive’ candidates; professionals who are not actively looking for a job, but who are (latently) open to new opportunities. The focus here is on quality rather than quantity. And because the recruitment process takes place behind the scenes, competitors and/or employees are unaware of the recruitment activities. This prevents speculation in the market or unnecessary internal unrest.
There are several reasons why organisations are increasingly opting for this discreet approach:
This development is making the work of recruiters less visible. The focus of recruitment is shifting from advertising to proactive searching, from visibility to discretion, and from volume to quality. As a result, networking, search skills and confidentiality are becoming increasingly important.
Hidden search offers interesting advantages, including for SME entrepreneurs. You reach candidates who are not actively looking but are open to the next step. And these are often the strongest profiles. It also reduces the workload; instead of dozens of unsuitable applications, you receive a small, relevant selection. By operating under the radar, you also prevent competitors from identifying your plans or growth direction prematurely, or from causing internal unrest.
Although hidden search offers many advantages, there are also a few points to consider:
Hidden search is not a replacement for traditional recruitment, but a complement to it. In practice, both methods are used side by side: open recruitment (increasingly via social media channels, relying heavily on strong employer branding) for scale and visibility, and hidden search for key positions and senior management. This approach is a logical consequence of a changing labour market in which talent is scarce and strategic choices are becoming more sensitive. For Hiring Managers and for entrepreneurs, hidden search offers good opportunities to attract talent in a more targeted and effective manner, provided it is used correctly. A strong network, a clear strategy and the right balance between visibility and discretion are essential for success.
Would you like to know if and how hidden search can help your organisation? Then please contact the specialists at Friisberg.
It started as a medical story.
Drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy were developed to treat diabetes and obesity, but now they are reshaping something much broader: how people eat, drink, socialise and spend.
This is where it becomes a business story - and more importantly, a leadership one.
The UK has one of the highest obesity rates in Europe. According to the NHS, over a quarter of adults are classified as obese, with a further large proportion overweight. That alone explains why demand for GLP-1 medications has accelerated so quickly, but the impact is no longer confined to healthcare.
Emerging data points are starting to connect:
Individually, these signals look incremental and taken together, they point to something more structural:
A cohort of consumers is changing its behaviour faster than the businesses serving it.
We have seen waves before: low fat, low carb, plant-based and most were gradual - in fact many were reversible. I don't think this is.
GLP-1 medications work by altering appetite regulation, so people eat less, and then they feel full sooner. In many cases, they lose interest in categories they previously consumed regularly.
That has second-order effects:
This is not preference, it is physiology and that makes it more durable.
The real issue for businesses is not whether this trend continues, it is whether leadership teams are equipped to respond to behavioural change at this pace.
Most organisations are structured to:
That model works when change is linear, but it fails when change is non-linear and human-led because by the time the data is conclusive, the behaviour is already embedded.
If even a modest percentage of the UK population adopts GLP-1 medications over the next five years, the implications are significant:
This is not about decline, it is about redistribution of demand.
Some businesses will adapt early and capture it whereas others will continue optimising for a consumer that is already changing.
Many leadership teams are still:
But this environment demands something different:
Because the uncomfortable truth is this:
Markets do not wait for leadership teams to feel ready. They move, and advantage shifts to those who act first.
This is not really about weight-loss drugs, it is about what happens when human behaviour shifts quickly and at scale, and whether leadership is capable of keeping pace.
Most organisations will not miss this because they failed to see it, they will miss it because they saw it too late to respond.
At Friisberg UK, we are increasingly asked the same question in different forms:
What kind of leadership do we need for a market that is changing faster than our organisation is built to handle?
The answer is rarely found in a job description. It comes from experience, from pattern recognition across markets, from having seen cycles of change before and knowing when this time is different.
Friisberg is a long-established firm with deep, cross-sector expertise and a genuinely international perspective. That matters at a point like this, because when behaviour shifts quickly, decisions cannot be made in isolation or based purely on precedent.
They require:
This is the shift that matters:
When behaviour changes faster than businesses, leadership becomes the only real lever of advantage.
And the organisations that recognise that early do not just keep up, they move first.
In a recent discussion with a senior executive responsible for global client relationships in a multinational company, we explored how accelerating change and diminishing predictability are reshaping leadership in organisations. His central message was clear: organisations should invest far more in understanding their operating environment, markets and customer needs - and relatively less in technology-led development. From a traditionally product-centric Finnish perspective, this represents a significant shift in thinking.
Conventional wisdom often defines core business as the production of products or services. Capabilities such as market insight, customer understanding, marketing and sales are typically categorised as support or enabling functions. He suggested a fundamental reversal of this logic: the customer interface constitutes the core business — while production should serve as enabling function.
The structural transformation of our era is driven by four major drivers: the ecological crisis, the digital revolution, global systemic fragmentation and a shift in societal values. The impact of these megatrends is increasingly difficult to assess — yet more important than ever. On the other hand, artificial intelligence significantly enhances analytical capability and foresight. However, as these tools become universally available, their ability to generate lasting competitive advantage diminishes.
The lifespan of technological advantage is becoming ever shorter — and is likely to continue shortening. This raises a critical strategic question: could deep customer understanding and durable customer relationships represent a more sustainable source of competitive advantage than technology alone?
I have participated in numerous transformations of leadership and governance models across companies and other organisations. These have frequently focused on the role, composition and ways of working of executive leadership teams. The objective has typically been to make leadership more strategic, more focused on core business priorities, and more diverse in perspective.
Leadership teams have been streamlined to reduce committee-style decision-making and narrow portfolio advocacy, in favour of more collective, accountable and enterprise-wide leadership. Too often, the CEO remains the only member of the leadership team consistently focused on the organisation’s overall long-term interest.
At the heart of these reforms is a recurring question: what truly constitutes core business leadership? Leadership teams in which a small minority own P&L responsibility while the majority “support” it are still surprisingly common. Yet it may be that those closest to sensing changes in the operating environment and market — and those who listen to customers, shape value propositions, market and sell - are in fact at the very core of the business.
Leadership in turbulent times of change is, above all, the ability to create clarity, trust and confidence in conditions of uncertainty. Increasingly, leadership is no longer an individual performance but a collective endeavour. Future leadership excellence is rooted in how leaders and teams think together, make decisions collaboratively and share responsibility.
As leadership structures become leaner, individual leaders carry broader and more complex portfolios. This amplifies the importance of people leadership over technical or functional expertise. In environments characterised by uncertainty and constant change, the quality of leadership becomes even more critical.
At the same time, societal expectations towards companies and other organisations continue to rise. Beyond product and service quality, organisations are expected to operate in a manner that is ethically sound, socially acceptable and sustainable. Leaders are increasingly expected to demonstrate moral judgement, ethical integrity, wisdom and resilience under pressure.
Enabling consistently high performance in organisations, teams and individuals requires continuous renewal of culture, values, mindsets and ways of working. Leadership today is broader in scope, spanning multiple portfolios, and deeper in reach, connecting strategy with execution.
Leadership has undeniably become more demanding. At the same time, it remains one of the most decisive success factors for organisations navigating turbulence and transformation.
For years I have argued that HR leaders should have a seat at the top table and in many organisations, they now have it. The question is now whether the role has fully caught up with the expectations that come with it.
Across the UK, that expectation has shifted decisively and being an HR expert is no longer enough. The Chief People Officer is now expected to operate as a business leader first, with HR expertise as a given rather than a differentiator.
That shift is not theoretical. It is playing out in how organisations are structured, how decisions are made, and where accountability now sits.
The scale of the profession alone tells part of the story. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development represents more than 160,000 members, reflecting the breadth and maturity of HR in the UK.
At the same time, the remit of senior HR leaders has expanded significantly. From ownership of gender pay gap reporting to direct accountability for workforce strategy, culture, and increasingly elements of ESG and reputation, the CPO role now sits much closer to the centre of business performance than it did even five years ago.
Overlay that with the impact of AI and workforce transformation, and the role becomes more complex still. HR is no longer simply managing people. It is shaping how work is designed, how technology is integrated, and how organisations remain competitive.
This is not evolution at the margins, it is a fundamental redefinition of the role.
And yet, in many boardrooms, there remains a disconnect.
The expectation of the CPO role has moved faster than capability in some cases. Technical HR excellence is still essential, but it is no longer what differentiates a top-tier CPO. The differentiator is commercial judgement, the ability to understand value creation, and the confidence to influence decisions that extend far beyond the people agenda.
The strongest CPOs I work with do not lead with policy, they lead with impact. They understand the business as well as any CFO or COO, and they are prepared to challenge, not just support.
The language of HR as a “support function” no longer reflects reality. In practice, the CPO role now spans workforce strategy, leadership capability, organisational design, risk, governance, and culture, all of which sit directly on the critical path to performance.
The boundaries have dissolved and what remains is a role that is central to whether a business succeeds or fails.
This shift is being accelerated by three forces that are not going away:
In that context, HR expertise is the entry point because business leadership is the requirement.
At Friisberg, I am seeing this play out very clearly in how clients define their needs. They are not asking for functional excellence alone, they are asking for leaders who can shape outcomes, challenge thinking, and bring genuine commercial perspective into the room - that is a different profile and often a different career path.
I sit in boardrooms where the gap is obvious, not because HR lacks capability, but because the expectation of the role has outpaced how it is still sometimes defined.
Equally, I sit with exceptional CPOs who are already operating at that level, influencing strategy, shaping decisions, and quietly becoming some of the most critical voices in the business.
The difference between those two groups is not technical skill, it is how they see their role.
I no longer think the question is whether HR has earned its seat at the table because I think that argument has been won.
The real question is whether you are using that seat to shape the direction of the business, or simply to respond to it, because from where I sit, the organisations that will outperform over the next decade will not be the ones with the best HR functions, they will be the ones where the CPO is one of the most commercially influential people in the room.
UK defence spending is moving beyond baseline commitments, exceeding 2% of GDP and continuing to rise, while the focus of that investment is shifting towards advanced capability, digital infrastructure and next-generation technologies.
The industrial impact is already clear with the UK defence sector generating over £30bn annually and strong export performance reinforcing its position as a globally relevant partner, but this is not simply a story of scale.
Geopolitical pressure is accelerating change as the UK deepens collaboration with international partners and responds to immediate operational demands, from counter-drone capability to maritime security, yet at the same time tension is building within the system, with budget constraints, programme complexity and competing priorities forcing difficult trade-offs even as expectations of capability continue to rise.
The result is a sector that is simultaneously expanding and becoming more complex, and that has a direct implication for leadership.
The most effective leaders in UK defence today are not defined purely by technical expertise or tenure, but by their ability to operate at scale, manage ambiguity, align multiple stakeholders and deliver outcomes in environments where commercial, political and operational pressures intersect.
At Friisberg, we are seeing this play out consistently in our client work, and through our long-standing experience in senior appointments and advisory in the sector. Andrew Guy, who leads Friisberg’s Global Defence Practice Group, is currently working with organisations navigating this shift, supporting the identification and assessment of leaders who can operate at this level of complexity, including those with deep experience of the UK Ministry of Defence as a customer.
As a result in the UK, we are currently engaged with a number of clients across Defence & Aerospace on senior executive searches, with a particular interest in UK-based leaders at Director, VP, SVP, EVP and CXO level who have led Business Units or held divisional P&L responsibility, or delivered programmes and projects typically in the range of £100m to £1bn+, and who understand how to operate effectively within the Ministry of Defence’s commercial and operational environment.
For years, technology was seen as a back-office function. It kept systems running but rarely influenced the bigger picture. That is changing fast.
According to McKinsey & Company’s Global Tech Agenda 2026, CIOs are moving from managing infrastructure to shaping strategy. Technology is no longer just a tool for efficiency, it is now the engine of growth and competitive advantage.
This means companies need to broaden their hiring criteria. Exceptional CIOs today combine technology mastery with strategic vision. They understand AI and digital platforms, but they also know how to influence business strategy, drive innovation and lead cross-functional teams. Organisations that continue to hire solely for technical depth risk missing leaders who can translate technology into tangible business impact.
Experience in embedding AI at scale, building product and platform operating models and creating intelligence layers is increasingly valuable. Equally important is the ability to lead people through change, foster collaboration and connect technology investment to business outcomes. Talent that can bridge the business-technology divide is rare and mission-critical.
Companies should also prioritise agility and speed in their search. The market for hybrid leaders, those who combine technical credibility with business insight, is competitive. Broader criteria, targeted scouting and structured evaluation of leadership behaviours alongside technical skills are essential.
In short, the CIO of 2026 is not just a technology manager. They are a growth enabler and a strategic partner. Executive search must reflect this reality. Broaden your lens, look beyond the resume and focus on leaders who can translate technology into enterprise advantage. The organisations that succeed will not just implement systems, they will design their future around technology.
To see how Friisberg can support your business, get in touch with our consultants here: https://friisberg.com/consultants/
Ahead of International Women’s Day on Sunday, we have been hearing from our female partners across Friisberg who have shared their reflections on leadership, careers and the decisions that shape them. Today new data published from LinkedIn’s Economic Graph explores how representation in leadership is evolving, or not... The findings point to a clear trend. Progress has not stopped, but it has slowed.
Globally, women represent 44% of the workforce but only 31% of leadership roles. The gap becomes even more visible at senior levels, where women hold just 31% of VP-level roles and above. Between 2015 and 2022, the share of women in leadership increased steadily at around 0.4% points per year. Over the past three years that pace has slowed to roughly 0.3% points. The difference may appear small, but over time it affects how quickly leadership teams become more balanced.
Across many sectors, women are well represented in the workforce but less visible in the most senior roles. Whilst women hold close to 50% of entry level roles in many organisations, representation falls to around 25% at C-suite level, illustrating how the leadership pipeline narrows over time. The issue is not only about hiring but also about how leadership talent is developed and promoted over time.
Geopolitical factors also influence hiring and promotion decisions. Recent data suggests the share of women hired directly into leadership roles has declined slightly in some markets. When progress slows during periods of uncertainty, leadership gaps can remain in place for longer than expected. For boards and executive teams thinking about succession, the question is therefore not only about current leadership composition. It is about the strength and breadth of the leadership pipeline over the next five to ten years.
We wrote a recent article about the EU Pay Transparency Directive, being implemented from June 2026. This will require organisations across the European Union to introduce greater transparency around pay structures. The directive will require salary ranges to be shared during recruitment processes, prohibit employers from asking candidates about salary history, and give employees stronger rights to request pay information for comparable roles.
As explored in our recent article, boards increasingly face a choice. They can shape the narrative around transparency and pay equity, or they can respond reactively as regulation and expectations evolve.
At Friisberg, we believe strong leadership is shaped by diversity of thought, experience and perspective. Leadership teams that bring together different viewpoints are often better equipped to challenge assumptions, assess risk and make well considered decisions. Diversity therefore goes beyond representation alone. It influences how organisations think, debate and ultimately lead. For boards and executive teams, building leadership teams with varied perspectives is an important part of long-term organisational strength.
The perspectives shared this week by women across Friisberg highlight an important reality. Leadership journeys are rarely linear. They depend on opportunity, support and judgement at key moments in a career.
Data helps us understand the broader pattern. Individual experience helps us understand what sits behind it.
International Women’s Day is an opportunity to reflect on progress, but also to consider the decisions that shape the future of leadership. For organisations thinking about the strength of their leadership pipeline, those decisions start long before the C-suite.
Research from the McKinsey Global Institute highlights the rise of what it calls “arenas of competition”. These are sectors that are growing faster, changing more rapidly and attracting more capital than traditional industries, which include AI, cloud computing, electrification, biotech, software and digital platforms.
Between 2005 and 2023, 12 such arenas have more than doubled their share of total global revenue, growing at around 14% per year, roughly three times the pace of non-arena industries. Looking ahead, 18 potential future arenas could generate between €27 trillion and €45 trillion in revenue by 2040, and between €1.9 trillion and €5.6 trillion in profit. These figures are converted from US dollars at approximately 0.93 EUR to USD. These numbers are not vague projections; they represent a significant portion of expected global economic growth over the next 15 years.
For boards and chief executives, the message is clear. Strategy alone is not enough. In these fast-moving markets, the leadership team can be the difference between success and failure. A single appointment can either accelerate growth, strengthen execution and enhance investor confidence, or it can slow progress and erode competitive advantage. In arenas where annual growth can be several times higher than the broader economy, the stakes are real and immediate.
In more stable sectors, it often makes sense to hire leaders from competitors, assuming that experience will transfer. That approach is far less effective in fast-growing arenas, where conditions are unlike anything in the past. A finance director who has spent a career optimising cost structures in a mature business may not be prepared for rapid expansion and high capital intensity. A chief executive experienced in steady annual growth may struggle when scaling an organisation at double-digit rates. What matters most is the ability to make decisions under uncertainty, adapt operating models quickly and lead teams through rapid transformation. Leaders who have navigated these conditions before, even in different industries, often bring the most relevant experience.
This requires a rethink of how executive search is conducted. Traditional approaches, which focus on job titles and direct competitors, can overlook candidates who are better suited to the real challenges of a market. Instead, the starting point should be an assessment of the business context, whether the market is stable or evolving, whether the organisation needs to maintain performance or scale rapidly, and what leadership qualities will succeed under those conditions. By framing searches this way, boards are better equipped to make appointments that align with strategic objectives rather than simply replicating past hires.
Cross-sector experience is particularly valuable. McKinsey’s data shows that in 2023 around 40% of the total market capitalisation in arenas came from companies that were small or non-existent in 2005. This demonstrates that value creation is rarely static and that incumbency does not guarantee success. Leaders who have scaled platform businesses, managed international expansion, navigated regulatory complexity, or integrated technology into traditional models often demonstrate skills that translate well across different arenas. For boards and investors, the key question is not just whether a candidate has industry experience, but whether they have succeeded in environments of rapid growth and change.
Appointments in high-growth arenas are not just recruitment decisions; they are strategic choices with a direct impact on performance and investor confidence. Boards must consider whether candidates can operate effectively where competitive pressures shift quickly, capital is intensive and revenue growth may be several times higher than broader market averages. In this context, executive search becomes a tool for strategic insight, helping organisations identify gaps, evaluate capability and uncover talent that can truly deliver.
At Friisberg, our role is to connect organisations with the leaders most likely to succeed in these fast-moving markets. We work to understand the competitive context, the pace of change and the ambitions of the business. We advise on the type of leadership that aligns with those realities and identify candidates whose track records demonstrate success in similar conditions. Importantly, we look beyond the obvious talent pools to ensure leaders are chosen for the challenges ahead, not just for their past roles.
Leadership choice in arenas of competition is not a minor decision. It has a lasting impact on outcomes, organisational direction and long-term success. As markets continue to evolve rapidly, the leaders organisations appoint today will determine whether they thrive tomorrow.
Most organisations still behave as though senior hiring works like every other kind of recruitment: A role is defined, an advert goes live, applications arrive then the strongest candidate is selected.
It is a tidy, logical model.
It is also almost entirely detached from how leadership talent actually moves.
Because the simple truth is this: your next CEO, Managing Director, or critical functional leader is very unlikely to be applying for your job. In most cases, they are not actually looking at all.
At early and mid-career levels, advertising works. There is a healthy population of active candidates exploring options, updating CVs, and responding to outreach, but at senior level, the dynamic is fundamentally different.
High-performing leaders are typically:
They are not scrolling job boards at 10pm, they are busy running businesses.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development consistently reports that the majority of UK employees are “passive” rather than active jobseekers, and that this effect is significantly stronger at senior and specialist levels. In other words, the higher the responsibility and impact of the role, the smaller the pool of people actively applying.
At the same time, the Confederation of British Industry continues to cite leadership and skills shortages as one of the primary constraints on UK business growth.
Put simply, the people organisations most need are the least likely to knock on the door.
There is also a human factor that often goes unspoken - senior leaders do not move roles lightly.
By the time someone reaches executive or board level, career decisions are no longer about title progression or incremental pay. They are about:
Changing roles becomes a high-stakes decision, not a speculative one which means they rarely respond to generic outreach or public adverts.
Instead, movement happens through trusted conversations, a discreet call, a credible introduction and a thoughtful discussion about purpose and mandate, not just job description.
In many cases, the opportunity did not exist in their mind until someone they respect made it visible.
That is not recruitment marketing, this is advisory engagement.
Yet many organisations still default to the same process for leadership hiring as they use for volume recruitment: Post. Wait. Screen. Interview.
It feels efficient and fair, but structurally, and crucially, it excludes most of the actual market.
When you rely primarily on inbound applications, you are only accessing:
You are not systematically reaching the top performers delivering results elsewhere.
Over time, this creates a hidden bias because you are not choosing the best leader in the market, you are choosing the best leader who happened to apply. Those are very different pools.
Several trends are amplifying this dynamic in the UK.
First, demographic pressure: A significant proportion of senior leaders are approaching retirement age, particularly across infrastructure, industrial, utilities, and regulated sectors. The replacement pipeline is thinner than many boards expected.
Second, complexity: Leadership roles now demand broader capability than ever. Digital, regulatory scrutiny, ESG accountability, and international exposure are baseline expectations rather than differentiators.
Third, risk awareness: Boards are understandably cautious. The cost of a poor leadership hire can easily exceed one to two times annual compensation when disruption, delay, and replacement are factored in.
The result is a paradox. The roles are more important, but the talent pool is smaller. Yet many organisations still rely on methods designed for abundance rather than scarcity.
The most effective leadership hiring processes I see look very different and they start with a market view, not a job advert.
Before a role is even public, they ask:
It becomes proactive rather than reactive. Instead of waiting for candidates to self-select, the organisation deliberately goes out to meet the market, but not through mass messaging, through informed, high-trust conversations.
In practice, that often means:
By the time interviews begin, the shortlist is already composed of people who were not planning to move, but now see a compelling reason to consider it.
That is a very different starting point.
At Friisberg, this reality shapes how we work every day.
We rarely rely on who applies. We focus on who should be in the conversation.
Our work begins with understanding the market, the competitive landscape, and the leadership DNA that will genuinely move the organisation forward. From there, we engage people discreetly and thoughtfully, often leaders who had not considered a change until a credible opportunity was presented.
It is less about filling roles and more about unlocking access because at senior level, access is the advantage.
The organisations that recognise this tend to make better hires, faster, and with greater confidence. Not because they run a louder process, but because they reach parts of the market others simply never see.
So perhaps the better question for boards is not:
How many applications did we receive?
Instead it should be:
Did we actually speak to the best leaders available, or only the ones who happened to apply?
The answer to that question usually tells you everything.
You need to load content from hCaptcha to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationYou need to load content from Turnstile to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information
