Ralf Knegtmans (De Vroedt & Thierry) on fifty years in executive search

What was the world of executive search like in those early years?
‘In the 1970s, executive search was usually the domain of ‘distinguished older gentlemen.’ They were armed with mysterious notebooks with the names of alumni from international business schools and prestigious universities. They frequented inner-circle gatherings and were members of private societies and business clubs. Our founder, Johan de Vroedt, for example, often chose the Amstel Hotel as his base for operations. There was no such thing as job profiles or management reports as we know them today. At most, a brief list of the most crucial selection criteria was drawn up in consultation with a client.’

You yourself joined De Vroedt & Thierry in 2000. Did the profession still rely heavily on personal networks back then?
‘I am the only one of the current crew who still worked with Johan de Vroedt and Joan Thierry, for a year and a half, so I have a good picture of that time. In 2000, the Rolodex and the database were indeed still vital to the firm. We were not yet searching digitally– after all, LinkedIn did not exist– but we had expansive reference books listing top executives and cabinets filled with hanging folders containing resumes.
We usually found candidates through what we called a ‘referral network.’ You knew someone at Philips, and through word of mouth, you end up reaching the person you wanted to approach. The recruitment and selection process was nowhere near as structured as it is today. A job profile back then often consisted of no more than six or seven keywords or half a page with a brief description. That does not mean we did not often come up with unexpected candidates even then. That out-of-the-box thinking has always characterized our firm.’

What do you see as the most important developments over the past twenty-five years?
‘The profession has become highly professionalized. In our case, this has resulted in a method consisting of nine steps in three consecutive phases. These begin well before the first interview with a candidate. In the first phase, you thoroughly map out the context: the strategy, the culture, the company's key challenges, and the composition of the existing team. That context analysis serves as the basis for your detailed job profile and scorecard, which in turn serves as the basis for the criteria-based interview. Next, in the second phase, you actively engage with the market with that profile—and not just looking at who is available, but who is suitable. You therefore also approach people who are not actively looking for a new position.
The third phase involves the actual selection process, during which you conduct interviews with various candidates. These take place in a structured manner, so that the results are truly meaningful and easily comparable. You look then not only at the ‘can,’ a person’s experience and competencies, but increasingly also at the ‘want,’ a person’s motivations, and the ‘is,’ that is, a person’s personality, learning ability, and adaptability.
At the end, we sometimes advise clients to organize a ‘test drive’ to give the candidate the opportunity to demonstrate their skills in real-time in a situation that is fundamental to the job, such as presenting a strategy to the future team. This allows you to observe how he or she interacts with the people he or she will soon be working with.’

Can you explain why you focus less on ‘competencies’ than in the past?
‘We look much less at a person’s hard competencies and experience ‘per se’ than we used to, because scientific research shows that these have low predictive value regarding a person’s suitability for a position. There is no such thing as universal talent. People often still think that, but it is a misconception. When it comes to football, you do not have to explain to people that someone who is suitable for Ajax is not necessarily suitable for PSV or Feyenoord. But the business world has long clung to the image of the 'ideal leader' who would be successful anywhere. That really is not the case. Someone who functions excellently in one organization can totally stagnate somewhere else. That is also why a modern, professionalized search begins with an extensive investigation into the context, that is, the specific situation at the company for which we are searching.
It is also why a person’s underlying motivations and personality traits, such as learning ability and adaptability, have become more important. And in a world that is changing so rapidly that most companies cannot look more than three years ahead, the willingness and ability to learn from new experiences, and to apply what has been learned quickly and effectively to perform optimally in new and challenging situations, are becoming increasingly important.
And if we dare to look at potential differently – instead of just at impressive degrees from INSEAD or IMD – there is also a whole reservoir of people who are too often overlooked.’

In summary: the profession has become much more professional over the past fifty years; talent can be found in all sorts of unexpected places. Does this also mean that companies are hiring the ‘right’ people more often?
‘No. And that is a major paradox. According to Harvard research, companies are spending more and more time and money on selection, but the results are not significantly improving. The failure rate for management hires averages around forty-six percent within eighteen months. That means that nearly one in two appointments does not have the desired effect. Only twenty percent are considered an excellent hire, of which people say, ‘This is truly amazing.’ The costs of a failed selection are enormous. For senior managers, we are talking about at least three to five times the annual salary. For specialized roles on the board of directors or the CEO, it can run as high as ten to fifteen times the annual compensation. Consider not only the hard costs such as severance pay and recruitment fees, but especially the soft costs: the blow to team morale, and deteriorated relationships with clients, investors, regulators, and strategic partners.
More time and more money, and yet things are not getting better. This is mainly because we still place enormous value on resumes, even though it is scientifically proven that they have low predictive value. The same applies to diplomas and the number of years of experience someone has, even though knowledge and experience are about as shelf-stable as fresh fish. Reference checks are also often substandard. References are now usually obtained very superficially – almost to the point of asking the candidate's best friend and with a script that lacks depth. Furthermore, interviews are often unstructured, and conversations take place based on intuition. For that reason alone, they have a particularly low predictive value.
A large part of the problem lies with the people who do the selecting. Executives and supervisory board members are usually very capable people. They have reached their positions because they were highly skilled in a specialized area: finance, strategy, leadership. But they are not necessarily trained in how to hire the best people in a highly structured and objective way. They often rely too much on their gut feeling or have developed their own method through trial and error. The biggest pitfall here is the law of similarity attraction: the unconscious tendency to hire someone who resembles ourselves. You end up hiring your own clone, which rarely leads to success. Whereas selection should take place at the team level. It makes little sense to attract people who can do exactly the same things as the current executives. It is better to look for that specific addition that makes the team stronger.
With all my advice, I must honestly admit that I have made all these mistakes myself numerous times, and partly for that reason, I never look down on someone who has hired the wrong candidate. My message is that a few adjustments to your selection process lead to significantly better results. Most bad hires are not a coincidence, but a consequence of a poorly defined role, incorrect selection criteria, and bias in interviews. According to a PwC study, one of the things that keeps CEOs up at night most is the unavailability of the right talent. In that light, it is surprising that companies do not invest more energy into a scientifically proven, reliable method to prevent ‘mis-hires.’ There is plenty of research that demonstrates this. Consider, for example, the meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter, two American researchers who analyzed eighty years of data on the predictive value of selection tools.’

How do you see the future of executive search? And more specifically: what impact do you expect AI and other new technologies to have?
‘We are on the eve of a massive transformation. Futuristic, scientifically validated tools are entering the market that, based on language—what people say and how they say it—can make better predictions about suitability than the average recruiter. A company like Pera, formerly known as Seedlink, conducted a test at L'Oréal in which they had three recruiters assess 10,000 candidates and then asked the AI ​​tool the same questions. The recruiters selected very broadly based on the obvious criteria: people with advanced degrees, people from that sector. The tool achieved significantly better results – and also suggested candidates that a traditional recruiter would never have considered.
AI can already nearly take over two of our nine steps entirely; soon perhaps four or five. Developments in the field of digitization mean you can deploy multiple selection tools faster and more cost-effectively, which can lead to much better results.
Still, I believe that we will remain, to use a fancy term, the trait d’union between client and candidates. The intermediary who has a deep understanding of the recruitment and selection process and can properly weigh and assess the outcomes. When choosing a CEO, a supervisory board wants to be advised not only by a chatbot but also by an expert. Compare it to developments in the medical world. IBM’s Watson has data from all kinds of general practitioners around the world and can provide much better medical advice than a general practitioner who can rely only on their own knowledge and experience. But will Watson ever replace that general practitioner? I do not think so.’

What does all this mean for your firm’s strategy?
‘We started as a generalist firm, and I am still a prime example of that. One day, for example, I am looking for board members for the NOC*NSF and the next day for the female director of professional football at the KNVB. But I also recruit board members and supervisory board members for private equity firms and family businesses, and I am also active for organizations in the cultural sector such as the National Opera & Ballet and the Royal Theatre Carré. But those generalist days are over. We now have specialized partners within the firm. Specialization is increasingly a requirement, partly because the turnaround times for searches have all become shorter. In the past, you could take your time. Now, searches are always urgent, and everything has to happen quickly. That means you need to have specialists within your firm who possess ready knowledge of a particular sector. In the upcoming articles in this series, we will delve deeper into leadership issues across various sectors.’

This interview was published in Management Scope 05 2026.