We are now at that late-summer stage where diaries are full of people on “holiday, but available on email,” and school holidays will soon be over. I don’t have children myself, but I hope everyone has enjoyed this far too fleeting special time with their families. Time out is so important and the autumn is often action-packed for many and so coming back recharged is essential.

We’ve definitely seen an upturn in roles registered, but there have been false dawns in the past. We all know that financial services can perform slightly differently to the wider economy, and so let’s hope that all of the innovation, refocusing, and effort, of the last couple of years is coming to fruition.

The landscape definitely seems to be shifting and one conversation that crops up with clients is whether a role should be run on a retained basis or on a contingent one. There is no single right answer. Retained search works well when you are looking for a senior leader, a scarce skill set, or a role where discretion is essential. It provides structure, rigour, and a clear process. For many critical hires, it is worth the investment. Of these situations, it’s particularly ideal when a hire needs to be handled sensitively or skill sets are scarce. On the latter, scarce doesn’t always equate to senior. As an example, there always seems to be demand for Investment Risk professionals with 3-5 years’ experience. Having someone retained, dedicating their time to your search, when skills are hard to find, is really advantageous.

Other times retained is unnecessary. If the candidate pool is broad, if speed is the priority, or if you are hiring mid-level roles with a clear and abundant talent base, then contingency may serve you better. Remember, recruiters operate in specialist markets and so they speak to candidates with certain skills sets daily.

The danger lies in advisors who recommend retained for every situation. A good partner should be able to explain why a retained approach is right in some cases and not in others. Recruitment is not one-size-fits-all.

We also get asked a lot about AI. So far we haven’t seen any drop in roles due to AI. There is lots of speculation on its effect on graduates, but I’d put this more down to the economy being low growth at the moment. However, firms have always changed and have become more efficient over time. A good example of how hiring needs have changed is in asset management’s middle office. Once upon a time, larger firms could afford separate teams for operations, fund accounting, finance, and treasury. Today, many boutiques and mid-sized managers run leaner models. Execution is often outsourced, and what remains in-house is oversight and control. This changes the personality traits and skills required.

Hiring the right people here is not about finding someone who can do every calculation, but someone who can manage providers, review NAVs, monitor reconciliations, and keep the process watertight. These are hybrid roles that require breadth as much as depth. Technical skills matter, but so does adaptability and cultural fit. If you hire the wrong person into a small team, the strain is immediate.

Actually, this is precisely the type of situation where the recruitment model should reflect the role. A firm making its first middle office hire may well benefit from the structure of a retained process. A firm simply adding another pair of hands to an existing team may not need it. Choosing the right hiring approach can be just as important as choosing the right candidate.

Periods of uncertainty always feel uncomfortable, but they also create opportunity. The firms who make smart hiring decisions now will be better placed to capture growth when confidence returns. If you are thinking about your next move as an individual, or your next hire as a business, now is an excellent time to get ahead of the competition.