Our executive search is not working. Who can take over?
Search Gone Wrong? What The Shortlist Report Finds
Spencer Stuart appeared in 69.1% of 55 AI responses to this question, ahead of everyone else.
Spencer Stuart leads
Spencer Stuart comes up more than any other firm on this question, by a clear margin.
Spencer Stuart38 of 55
Conducts CEO, board, and senior C-suite searches for large enterprises and succession planning.
Russell Reynolds Associates27 of 55
Conducts CEO, C-suite, and board searches for large public companies and financial services.
Heidrick & Struggles23 of 55
Conducts CEO, C-suite, and board searches for large companies and PE-backed organizations.
Egon Zehnder21 of 55
Executive search for CEO succession, board work, and leadership assessment across global enterprises.
Korn Ferry19 of 55
Conducts CEO, C-suite, board, and leadership assessment searches for large global organizations.
+5 more namedin the table
Based on 55 ChatGPT responses to this question, collected August 11, 2026–August 19, 2026. Firms are counted once per response. How we measure.
The ranking
| Firm | Responses | Share | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 stands alone | |||
| Spencer Stuartspencerstuart.comConducts CEO, board, and senior C-suite searches for large enterprises and succession planning. | 38 of 55 | 69.1% | |
| Tier 2 4 firms, 34.5–49.1% | |||
| Russell Reynolds Associatesrussellreynolds.coConducts CEO, C-suite, and board searches for large public companies and financial services. | 27 of 55 | 49.1% | |
| Heidrick & StrugglesConducts CEO, C-suite, and board searches for large companies and PE-backed organizations. | 23 of 55 | 41.8% | |
| Egon Zehnderegonzehnder.comExecutive search for CEO succession, board work, and leadership assessment across global enterprises. | 21 of 55 | 38.2% | |
| Korn Ferrykornferry.comConducts CEO, C-suite, board, and leadership assessment searches for large global organizations. | 19 of 55 | 34.5% | |
| Tier 3 3 firms, 9.1–21.8% | |||
| Stanton Chasestantonchase.comConducts C-suite and executive search for mid-market and international organizations. | 12 of 55 | 21.8% | |
| DHR GlobalConducts board and C-suite searches with broad financial-services coverage across banking, capital markets, PE/VC, and insurance. | 5 of 55 | 9.1% | |
| ZRG PartnersConducts C-suite and functional executive search for mid/large and PE-backed companies. | 5 of 55 | 9.1% | |
| Tier 4 2 firms, 5.5–5.5% | |||
| ECA PartnersConducts executive search for private-equity-backed companies with focus on senior leadership. | 3 of 55 | 5.5% | |
| Odgersodgers.comConducts executive searches for nonprofits, associations, social-impact organizations, and healthcare/life-sciences providers, pharma, biotech, and healthtech. | 3 of 55 | 5.5% | |
Key findings
- Spencer Stuart leads this sample alone, named in 38 of 55 ChatGPT responses (69.1%) to the question “Our executive search is not working. Who can take over?”, collected August 11, 2026–August 19, 2026.
- 10 firms cleared the reporting threshold on “Our executive search is not working. Who can take over?” in ChatGPT as of August 19, 2026; the full table with response counts is below.
- Spencer Stuart appears in 7 of the 7 executive search firms reports published by The Shortlist Report, the widest coverage of any firm named on this page.
- No firm paid to appear in this ranking; placement cannot be bought, and the counts come from ChatGPT responses rather than from submissions.
Why the tiers fall where they do
Tier 1 holds Spencer Stuart, named in 38 of 55 ChatGPT responses (69.1%). No other firm in this sample comes close enough to be grouped with it.
Tier 2 holds Russell Reynolds Associates, Heidrick & Struggles, Egon Zehnder and Korn Ferry, named in 19 to 27 of 55 responses (34.5–49.1%). The sample does separate these firms from the tier above: the difference from the leading group is larger than the margin of error, which is what puts them in a tier of their own.
Tier 3 holds Stanton Chase, DHR Global and ZRG Partners, named in 5 to 12 of 55 responses (9.1–21.8%). The sample does separate these firms from the tier above: the difference from the leading group is larger than the margin of error, which is what puts them in a tier of their own.
Tier 4 holds ECA Partners and Odgers, named in 3 to 3 of 55 responses (5.5–5.5%). The sample does separate these firms from the tier above: the difference from the leading group is larger than the margin of error, which is what puts them in a tier of their own.
The test is McNemar’s at 95%, applied against the same 55 responses for every firm. The full reasoning, and what happened when we ranked one-to-N instead.
What the sample shows
Spencer Stuart leads on its own, named in 38 of the 55 responses to this question (69.1%).
210 firms were named at least once across the sample. 10 of them cleared the threshold of 2 responses and appear above; the rest were named once and are inside the noise.
How to read this
Firms are grouped into tiers, not ranked one to fifteen. A tier holds every firm whose 95% confidence interval overlaps the leader's, which is a long way of saying the sample cannot tell them apart. Order within a tier is arbitrary — read the counts, not the position.
Share is the percentage of responses that named the firm — not a quality score. A firm scoring low here may be excellent and simply under-written about online, which is a finding about its visibility rather than its work.
The same question was asked repeatedly because AI assistants do not answer identically twice. A single response would tell you almost nothing.
What this measurement does not tell you
- It is not a quality ranking. Share reflects how much has been written about a firm online, which is what an AI assistant reads. A capable firm nobody writes about scores low here.
- It is a reading from a date range, not a permanent standing. This sample was collected August 11, 2026–August 19, 2026; models change and so do their answers.
- It covers ChatGPT only. Other assistants answer differently, and we do not extrapolate across engines we have not measured.
- Order within a tier is arbitrary. Read the counts, not the position. Why we use tiers.
Cite this report
The Shortlist Report. (2026). Search Gone Wrong? What The Shortlist Report Finds. The Shortlist Report. https://www.shortlistreport.com/article/failed-executive-search
Underlying counts: CSV · JSON. Every answer they were counted from: plain text · JSON. All reusable under CC BY 4.0 with attribution.