“André, thank you. You’ve helped me see the problem differently.”

That is usually a good moment in a client conversation.

Then came the sentence I wasn’t expecting:

“I think John, one of our business unit leaders, could probably do this. I don’t need to meet one of your candidates.”

I smiled.

In a sense, that was exactly what I had been trying to achieve.

The conversation had started with Reverse Headhunting: not with a vacancy, not with a CV, and not with a list of titles, but with the business.

What was slowing the company down? Where was value being lost? What strategic capability was missing? What would need to change over the next 12 to 18 months if the company wanted to accelerate?

We had moved away from recruitment and into the real question:

Who could solve this business problem?

John suddenly looked like an answer.

Maybe he was.

But there was one problem.

Nobody had benchmarked John.

Knowing the company is not the same as being the right person to change it.

That distinction matters far more than most organizations acknowledge.

Internal familiarity can feel like proof. It isn't.

Internal candidates have significant advantages. They understand the culture. They know the people. They know where the bodies are buried, which committees matter, which customer promises were made three years ago, and which parts of the strategy deck everyone quietly ignores.

That knowledge is valuable.

But familiarity can also create a dangerous shortcut in executive decision-making.

We begin to confuse knowing the system with being able to change it.

Those are very different capabilities.

If the business challenge is continuity, an internal candidate may be exactly right.

If the challenge is strategic acceleration, transformation, a new commercial model, a digital reset, a change in leadership culture, or a fundamental shift in how the company competes, internal familiarity should be treated as one data point, not as proof of suitability.

The real question is not: “Can John do the job?”

That is too small a question.

The better questions are:

Has John demonstrated the judgment this next phase requires?

Has he led through comparable complexity?

Can he challenge a system he has spent years learning to navigate?

Will he accelerate the organization, or unconsciously protect the very structures that now need to change?

How does his leadership compare with that of executives outside the company who have already solved similar problems elsewhere?

And perhaps most importantly:

Would John still be the strongest candidate if nobody at the table already knew him?

This is where Reverse Headhunting becomes something different.

Reverse Headhunting is often misunderstood as having pre-qualified executives ready to move.

That is part of it, but it is not the point.

The real value is that the process starts before the job description.

It starts with the business challenge.

That changes the conversation completely.

Sometimes the answer is one of the executives in my qualified network.

Sometimes the conversation reveals that the organization needs a role that does not yet exist.

And sometimes, as in this case, the discussion points straight back inside the company.

That is not a failed Reverse Headhunting conversation.

That is the process working.

Because my job is not to manufacture the need for an external hire.

My job is to help the client make the strongest executive decision.

But an internal candidate deserves the same scrutiny as an external one

This is where I challenged the client.

If John is genuinely the answer, excellent.

But don't appoint him just because the conversation suddenly made him seem obvious.

Benchmark him.

Assess him against the role's future requirements, not the comfort of the present organization.

Put him through the same level of external scrutiny you would apply to a candidate you had never met.

Test his trajectory.

Test his strategic range.

Test his appetite.

Test whether he has the courage to challenge the assumptions that helped build the organization he is now being asked to transform.

And compare him with people outside the system who bring different experiences, scars, and ways of solving the same problem.

Not because external is automatically better.

Because untested internal certainty is not a succession strategy.

The most expensive hiring mistake is sometimes the person everyone already agrees on

Boards and executive teams understandably value certainty.

An internal candidate feels like a lower risk.

They are known.

They are available.

They understand the culture.

They may even be popular.

But strategic acceleration rarely comes from familiarity alone.

It comes from capability, readiness, appetite, and fit with what the business needs next.

That is why I believe every critical executive decision - external or internal - needs an outside lens.

Not to override the board.

Not to force an external candidate into the process.

But to remove familiarity bias and create a genuine benchmark.

Three sides of the table change how I look at this

1. I have sat in executive roles myself.
2. I have selected and led executives.
3. And today I work as both an executive search adviser and executive coach.

That combination changes what I look for.

1. As a former executive, I understand what the role feels like from the inside.
2. As a headhunter, I know how to assess the market and identify capabilities beyond the obvious title.
3. As a coach, I see what happens after the appointment, when the candidate who looked perfect in the interview faces the politics, pressure, ambiguity, and resistance of the real organization.

So, when someone says, “John knows the company. He can do it,” I do not dismiss John.

I simply ask for more evidence.

The point is not external versus internal

That is the wrong debate.

The point is whether the executive can solve the business problem.

·       If the strongest answer is internal, appoint them.

·       If the strongest answer is external, bring them in.

·       If the right role does not yet exist, create it.

But don't let familiarity, titles, or organizational convenience decide a question that should be about future business performance.

Reverse Headhunting starts with an executive and asks where that leadership potential can create value.

But the best outcome is not necessarily placing one of my candidates.

The best outcome is helping the company see the leadership answer more clearly.

And if the answer is John?

Good.

Now prove it.