What Boards Get Wrong About Executive Search in the Defence Sector

Executive search in the defence sector is frequently treated as a variation of any other senior leadership hire. For many boards, that assumption is where problems begin.

Defence organizations operate under a unique set of pressures. Government procurement rules, national security considerations, export controls, long program timelines, and shifting geopolitical realities all shape how leaders make decisions. Add rapid technological change and a complex web of stakeholders, and the tolerance for misalignment becomes very small.

Despite this, boards often default to hiring frameworks borrowed from commercial industries that do not face the same regulatory depth or public scrutiny. The candidates look strong on paper. Once in role, the cracks start to show.

Below are some of the most common misjudgments boards make when hiring senior leaders in the defence sector, and what tends to work better.

1. Mistaking Senior Titles for Relevant Experience

Recognizable titles and well-known organizations can feel reassuring. A long career at a major defence contractor or government agency is often seen as proof of readiness.

In practice, those roles can differ dramatically from what is required in a mid-market defence company, a dual-use technology business, or a Canadian firm managing both domestic procurement and international compliance obligations.

What matters is not the logo on a résumé, but how the executive actually operated. Were they accountable for decisions, or executing within a narrow remit? Did they personally manage regulatory risk, long sales cycles, and program uncertainty? Have they led through change, restructuring, or pressure from multiple directions at once?

The most useful question is not where someone worked, but how they led within that environment.

2. Treating Security Clearance as the Deciding Factor

Security clearance is important, but it is often over-weighted.

Some boards restrict searches to candidates who already hold a specific clearance level, dramatically shrinks the candidate pool.

Clearances can usually be obtained or upgraded. Judgment, discretion and credibility cannot. Leaders who demonstrate sound decision-making, respect for sensitive information, and the ability to operate responsibly under scrutiny will create far more value than someone who simply checks a clearance box on day one.

3. Assuming Defence Experience Automatically Translates to Enterprise Leadership

The defence sector produces exceptional technical and operational leaders. It does not automatically produce enterprise leaders.

Boards sometimes assume that running a major program or technical division is sufficient preparation for a CEO, COO, or President role. In reality, those positions require broader capabilities.

Gaps often appear around enterprise financial accountability, board and investor engagement, and leading through influence rather than hierarchy. Transitioning from command-driven environments to collaborative leadership models is not always straightforward.

Effective executive search looks at progression over time, how leaders have expanded their scope, adapted their style, and grown beyond a single functional context.

4. Running Confidential Searches Like Standard Hiring Exercises

Discretion is not optional in defence executive search, it is fundamental.

Relying on informal networks, internal referrals, or visible postings introduces risk, narrows perspective and can compromise confidentiality. It also limits the board’s ability to see beyond familiar profiles.

A disciplined search process allows for discreet market mapping, deeper evaluation beyond curated references, and structured assessment tied to future strategy rather than legacy requirements.

In a sector built on trust and reputation, how a search is conducted matters as much as who is hired.

5. Hiring For the Past Instead of the Future

The defence landscape is evolving quickly. Cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing and shifting alliances are redefining leadership demands.

Boards sometimes gravitate toward candidates who succeeded under earlier procurement models or within more stable operating environments. Familiar experience can feel safe, even when it no longer aligns with what lies ahead.

The better question is whether a leader can guide the organization through what comes next: technological convergence, workforce transformation, increased public scrutiny and growing political complexity.

Executive search in the defence sector must be forward-looking by design.

Getting It Right

Strong defence-sector executive search goes beyond industry familiarity. It requires a deep understanding of regulated leadership environments, rigorous evaluation of judgment and adaptability, and a confidential, structured process aligned with long-term strategy.

Boards that approach search this way are not simply filling a role. They are safeguarding the organization’s future.

In an industry where national interest, innovation and accountability intersect, the cost of getting executive search wrong is simply too high.