A CEO search should start with where the association needs to go and the kind of leader who can help it get there. The goal is the best candidate available, which means looking beyond familiar names and comfortable networks to people who have built the skills the role demands, wherever their careers have taken them. 

Established executive search firms bring valuable relationships. But if their networks overlap heavily, a board could miss strong leaders simply because they took a different career path or haven’t moved in the usual circles. Boards should ask a straightforward question: Are we reaching a wider, more varied pool of candidates, or looking at many of the same people through different search firms? 

As boards pay more attention to how AI tools screen candidates, they should bring that same curiosity to the human relationships shaping executive searches. Both influence who gets considered for leadership. 

How Familiarity Shapes the Search

In her 1977 book, Men and Women of the Corporation, sociologist Rosabeth Moss Kanter described a pattern known as homosocial reproduction: People in power tend to select others who resemble them. Familiarity can feel reassuring, especially when a board is making a consequential decision. 

Research suggests that this pattern remains relevant. A 2023 study published in Economica found that a social tie to a current board member raises a candidate’s odds of appointment by 36 to 41 percentage points—and because the pool of candidates with such ties tends to be demographically homogeneous, network-based recruitment does not expand board diversity. A 2025 theoretical paper in the Journal of Management Studies raises a related concern: Appointing a diverse member can sometimes give a group a sense that it has already addressed bias, reducing its willingness to question later decisions.ppointing a diverse member can sometimes give a group a sense that it has already addressed bias, reducing its willingness to question later decisions. 

These findings give boards a reason to examine how candidates enter the selection process. Search firms bring valuable expertise and relationships. Boards bring expectations about experience, leadership style, and organizational fit. Together, those preferences can narrow a search before anyone has met a candidate. 

Consider what happens when a committee asks for someone who has already held the same title at a similar association. That requirement may seem practical. It may also exclude a deputy executive who has done much of the work and is ready to lead. 

The question is whether the board has thought carefully about which requirements matter and which simply feel familiar. 

When Searches Draw From Overlapping Networks

Associations often turn to a handful of leading executive search firms with established sector experience. There are sound reasons for doing so. Sector knowledge matters, and a trusted search partner can help a board navigate a difficult transition. 

Still, repeated reliance on overlapping networks raises a governance question. Are separate searches reaching different people, or returning to much the same pool? 

Research on “algorithmic monocultures” in hiring offers a useful comparison. When employers rely on the same screening tools, candidates can encounter the same barriers across multiple opportunities. Human search processes are different, but overlapping relationships and similar selection criteria may create a comparable problem. 

A capable candidate who falls outside familiar networks may struggle to gain consideration across several searches. The board may never know that person was available. 

That does not establish wrongdoing by a firm or a search committee. It does suggest that boards need to understand how broadly their search reaches. A shortlist alone cannot answer that question. 

What Boards Should Ask 

Start with your association’s own history. Which firms have supported your leadership searches over in the past? Why did you select them, and what did you learn from those searches? Where information is available, consider whether peer associations are drawing on similar networks. 

Then look at the criteria your board gives the firm. Has the committee clearly defined what the next leader needs to accomplish? Or has it described the career path of someone who already looks familiar? Ask your search partner where those requirements might unnecessarily limit the pool. 

Finally, ask how the firm reaches candidates beyond its established relationships. What does that outreach involve? How are potential leaders with less conventional backgrounds assessed? Agree on how the board will evaluate the breadth of the search before recruitment begins. 

These questions can strengthen the relationship between a board and its search partner. They make expectations clearer and give both parties a better basis for judging whether the process is working. 

The Board Still Owns the Decision

AI hiring tools have brought renewed attention to screening, bias, and accountability. That attention should also prompt boards to examine the judgments embedded in their existing hiring practices. A process can depend entirely on people and still deserve scrutiny. Relationships, referrals, and assumptions about fit all influence access to opportunity. Their familiarity can make them harder to notice. 

A search firm can advise the board, challenge its assumptions, and introduce candidates it would not otherwise meet. The board remains responsible for the mandate it sets and the decision it makes. 

Before your next CEO search begins, ask your committee one question: What will we do to make sure a qualified person outside our usual circles has a fair chance to be considered? 

The answer belongs in the search plan from the start.