Hiring for a critical leadership role is too important to leave to chance. A skilled recruiter can bring market knowledge, candidate access, and process discipline to the search—but choosing to use a recruiter is only the first decision. Just as important is determining the right search model: contingency or retained. Each approach creates a different level of commitment, accountability, and strategic partnership, and understanding those differences is essential before beginning the search.
Many people assume the choice comes down to cost. After all, contingency search is typically less expensive and allows for the possibility that the organization will identify an acceptable candidate through another source, thus eliminating a recruiter fee altogether. But cost is only one part of the equation—and often not the most important one. The more meaningful question is which model is most likely to produce the best hire. The distinction between contingency and retained search is not simply how recruiters are paid. It is how they engage the market, prioritize the assignment, represent the opportunity, and manage the search from beginning to end.
Here’s what you need to know.
What is a contingency search?
In a contingency search, the bulk of the recruiter’s fee is only paid if they successfully place a candidate. On the surface, that sounds appealing. There’s little or no upfront investment and seemingly less risk for the employer. But the structure of the relationship often shapes the behavior that follows.
Because contingency recruiters are competing against time—and often against other recruiters working on the same assignment—the process naturally rewards speed. The immediate objective becomes identifying and presenting candidates quickly, before another recruiter submits the same individual or the candidate applies directly. This can create a race to introduce names rather than a disciplined effort to shape the market, tell the organization’s story, and cultivate the strongest possible candidate pool.
Contingency searches can also discourage broad promotion of the opportunity. If a recruiter is paid only when they present the successful candidate, openly marketing the position may work against their financial interest. A compelling public narrative about the role could generate awareness across the market, but it may also prompt candidates to apply directly or through another channel—eliminating the recruiter’s ability to earn a fee. As a result, contingency searches often remain more guarded, with recruiters focused on protecting candidate ownership rather than fully promoting the opportunity.
That doesn’t mean contingency recruiters do poor work, particularly when working with highly skilled professionals. However, the business model creates incentives that can work against mutual interests and make a thorough search difficult.
In a contingency model, if a recruiter spends weeks identifying passive candidates, conducting extensive outreach, and carefully vetting prospects, there’s still no guarantee they’ll be compensated for that effort. As a result, many contingency searches focus primarily on candidates who can be recruited quickly and are highly motivated to make a change.
What is retained search?
A retained search operates from a different premise. Rather than only paying after a successful result, the client is engaging a search partner from the start to lead a comprehensive process and represent the organization in the marketplace. In this model, the recruiter is expected—and incentivized—to fully promote the opportunity, tell a compelling story about the organization, and actively engage the strongest candidates in the market. The focus shifts from simply identifying possible candidates as quickly as possible to building interest, creating momentum, and managing the search in a disciplined and strategic way.
Because the recruiter is retained, they can devote the time and resources necessary to identify, recruit, and assess candidates who may not be actively seeking a new opportunity. In senior living, that’s often where the strongest candidates are found. In addition, because they are no longer trying to “beat out” competitors, they can spend more time properly evaluating and qualifying candidates before they are presented to the client.
The strongest C-suite executives, executive directors, regional operations and sales leaders, and site-level sales leaders are often already employed, successful, and not actively searching job boards. They are not simply waiting to be found; they must be identified, approached, engaged, and thoughtfully recruited. That kind of work takes time, credibility, and a disciplined process.
A retained search allows recruiters to focus on finding the right person, rather than simply the first available person. The goal is not speed alone, but fit—identifying, engaging, and evaluating candidates who are best aligned with the organization’s leadership needs.
Which approach is right for you?
Senior living is a relationship-driven business. The impact of a leadership hire extends far beyond the individual occupying the role, affecting residents, families, team members, occupancy, culture, and financial performance.
When the stakes are that high, organizations should ask whether speed or quality is the higher priority. A vacancy can be costly, but so can the wrong hire.
Replacing a senior leader often requires far more time, money, and disruption than conducting a thorough search in the first place. That’s why retained search is frequently used for executive and leadership positions. The goal isn’t simply to fill an opening but to find the person most capable of creating long-term success.
Many organizations frame the decision as contingency versus retained. A better question might be: What outcome are we trying to achieve?
If the goal is simply to generate resumes quickly, a contingency search may be sufficient. If the goal is to identify the strongest available talent in the market – including candidates who aren’t actively looking for a new role – a retained search often provides a significant advantage.
In senior living, where leadership decisions can shape an organization’s future for years to come, that distinction matters.