Practice
Retained and contingency search.
The two models are not better and worse versions of the same thing. They solve different problems, and the wrong one is expensive in a way that does not show up on the invoice.
The actual difference
Contingency search is paid on placement. The firm carries the risk, works several roles at once, and is rewarded for speed and volume. Retained search is paid in stages across the assignment. The firm commits to the search itself, including the part where the obvious candidates have been exhausted and the work becomes slow.
That payment structure determines behaviour more than any statement of method. A contingency recruiter who spends three weeks on one hard mandate has lost money. A retained firm that does the same has done the job.
When contingency is the right answer
Often. It is the better choice for roles with a deep, visible candidate market, where several good people are actively looking and speed matters more than reach. A financial controller in a major city, a commercial manager in a well-supplied sector, a role where the specification is standard. Paying a retainer for a search the market will answer by itself is a waste.
It also suits situations where the client genuinely wants volume and optionality rather than a considered shortlist.
When it is not
Retained makes sense when the appointment is consequential, the candidate pool is thin or invisible, discretion is required, or the people worth hiring are not looking.
In private equity that covers most senior appointments. The best candidate for a carve-out CFO role is usually doing a carve-out somewhere else and has no reason to answer an unsolicited message. Reaching that person takes direct mapping and a reason for them to take the call, and neither is compatible with a model paid only on success.
Confidentiality is the other common reason. A search that cannot be advertised, because the incumbent is still in post or the transaction is not public, cannot be run contingently in any serious way.
A practical test
Ask whether you would be comfortable with three firms working the same role simultaneously. If the answer is yes, the role is probably suited to contingency and you should use it. If the thought is uncomfortable, either because of confidentiality or because you doubt the market will produce the right person unprompted, the role needs retained work.