Why March Is the New December for Executive Hiring Timelines

For years, December was considered a natural turning point in the employment market. Companies were finalizing budgets, employees were evaluating their careers, and hiring managers were preparing for the new year. January brought new opportunities, new budgets, and the expectation that professionals considering a career move would be ready to make one. But for many professionals, particularly those in leadership, banking, and operational roles, the calendar looks quite different.

March has become the new December.

The reason is relatively simple. Many companies spend January reconciling their financial results, February finalizing performance evaluations and compensation decisions, and March paying annual bonuses and distributing long-term incentive compensation. For employees whose compensation includes substantial bonuses, equity awards, or transaction-related payouts, those dates can have a significant impact on when they are willing, and financially able, to make a career move. For employers, understanding that distinction is becoming an increasingly important part of hiring strategy.

Why Executives Wait

When recruiting experienced professionals, one of the first things to understand is how they are compensated. A senior banking executive may receive a significant annual bonus in March, following the bank’s year-end financial reconciliation and performance review process. An investment sales broker may be waiting for commissions or transaction-related compensation from deals completed during the fourth quarter, with payments occurring in the first quarter of the following year. For other executives, the timing may involve long-term incentive plans, restricted stock, deferred compensation, or equity awards scheduled to vest.

Consider a professional who begins exploring a new opportunity in September. The individual may be genuinely interested, qualified, and ready for a new challenge. However, leaving before a March bonus payment or equity vesting date may mean walking away from substantial compensation.

Does that mean the candidate is not serious about making a move? Not necessarily.

It simply means the candidate has a financial reason to remain with the current employer for another few months.

There is a significant difference between a candidate who is interested in making a move and one who is financially available to make that move.

The Conversation Needs to Start at the Beginning

At CA Search Advisors, we want to address these issues during the initial search kickoff with our clients. When a client tells us they want to begin a search in July or August, one of our first conversations centers on the industry’s compensation practices and how they may affect the hiring timeline. If we are recruiting an investment sales professional, we discuss quarterly commission structures and the potential impact of outstanding transactions. If the search involves a Chief Credit Officer or senior banking executive, we explain that many professionals in those positions receive their annual bonuses in March. This means a search beginning in August may identify an exceptional candidate in October, but that individual may not be prepared to leave until the following spring.

These are not conversations we want to have for the first time after a client has interviewed someone for six weeks and decided that individual is the ideal hire. We would rather establish realistic expectations from the outset and compensation is only part of the equation.

The Two-Week Notice Is Not Always Two Weeks

For many experienced professionals, particularly those in operations and executive leadership, the traditional two-week notice period is not necessarily realistic. While certain technology and financial securities firms may ask employees to depart immediately after giving notice, other organizations expect a more substantial transition.

In many operational leadership roles, 30 days is not unusual. Some employment agreements require it.

Consider an Executive Director of a senior living community. This individual is responsible for residents, employees, families, financial performance, and the overall operation of the community. Leaving on two weeks’ notice may not be practical, and in some circumstances, the professional may be required to provide at least 30 days.

Now consider what happens when compensation and notice periods overlap. An Executive Director receiving a bonus during the final weeks of December may wait until that payment is received before submitting a resignation. If notice is given in early January, a new employer may not see that individual until February.

For a banking executive receiving a bonus in late March, the timeline could stretch even further. Add a 30-day notice period after the payment, and a realistic start date may be late April or early May.

Suddenly, a company that began its search in the fall is looking at a spring start date. And that does not necessarily mean anything has gone wrong with the search.

Should You Buy Out the Bonus or Wait?

Of course, employers have options. A signing bonus, guaranteed first-year bonus, or another form of compensation can sometimes bridge the financial gap and allow a candidate to transition earlier. But there is a point at which the economics of a buyout need to make sense for both parties.

A company might reasonably consider replacing an annual bonus that a candidate would otherwise receive in March. It may also consider offsetting the value of certain equity awards about to vest.

However, long-term incentive compensation can become more complicated. For example, an executive may have existing stock scheduled to vest in March 2027, along with additional awards that vest in 2028 and beyond. Waiting until March 2027 allows the executive to receive the value of those existing awards.

But should the new employer also be expected to compensate the individual for future equity awards that have not yet vested? Or delay the hire until another round of stock becomes available? Not necessarily.

Some employers are willing to replace an upcoming annual bonus but draw the line at long-term equity. Others may prefer to wait for a scheduled vesting date rather than fund a substantial buyout.

There is no single answer. The right decision depends on the importance of the position, the financial implications, the urgency of the hire, and the strength of the available candidate pool.

We recently worked on a search where a highly qualified candidate had an upcoming bonus that represented a meaningful amount of compensation. The hiring company needed someone to begin sooner and was not willing to replace the bonus. Waiting until the candidate received the payment was also not an option. As a result, the candidate was no longer under consideration.

We continued the search and identified other candidates who were even stronger fits for the position and were not facing the same compensation-related timing constraints. It was a good reminder that while compensation timing can significantly influence a search, it should not dictate every hiring decision.

Sometimes a buyout makes sense. Sometimes waiting is the better financial decision. And sometimes continuing the search produces a stronger outcome. The important thing is understanding the options before making the decision.

The Search Timeline and the Start Date Are Two Different Things

One of the misconceptions about executive search is that the process should begin shortly before a company needs someone in the position. In reality, identifying the right individual can take months, particularly when recruiting professionals who are successful, well compensated, and not actively looking for another opportunity. These individuals may be open to a conversation long before they are prepared to make a transition.

A company might engage a search firm in June, begin interviewing candidates in September, and identify its preferred executive in November. Yet that individual may not be available to begin until April or May.

It is easy to interpret that extended timeline as a delay. But is it?

If the position is critical and the company needs someone immediately, waiting may not be practical. That is a legitimate business consideration.

On the other hand, if the goal is to identify a leader who will have a meaningful impact on the organization for the next five or ten years, waiting several additional months may be a worthwhile investment.

The key is distinguishing between an immediate operational need and a strategic, long-term hire. It is also why a search should begin with more than a target start date.

We encourage clients to consider how flexible that date is, what financial accommodation they may be willing to make, and whether they would wait for an exceptional candidate whose compensation structure makes an immediate transition difficult. These questions help shape the search strategy from the beginning.

Start Early, Understand the Finish Line

None of this means employers should delay beginning a search until March. Quite the opposite.

Companies that begin their planning early have more time to identify strong candidates, understand their motivations, evaluate compensation expectations, and consider different transition scenarios. They also have more options.

An employer starting a search in September may discover that its strongest candidate cannot begin until April. But knowing that in October or November creates an opportunity to plan accordingly, evaluate other candidates, or determine whether a compensation arrangement could accelerate the transition.

At its core, executive search is not simply about identifying individuals with the right experience. It is about understanding what motivates those individuals, what might prevent them from making a move, and what it will realistically take to bring them into a new organization.

The date a company needs someone and the date the right candidate can realistically start are not always the same.

Neither side is necessarily being unreasonable. Companies have legitimate business needs and hiring deadlines. Candidates have financial commitments, earned compensation, and professional responsibilities to consider. The objective is to understand those realities early enough to make informed decisions.

As companies begin planning for the coming year, the traditional hiring calendar deserves another look. For many professionals, December 31st no longer represents the natural finish line. It may be the end of the company’s fiscal year, but the financial rewards associated with that year may not arrive for another two or three months.

March may be the new December, but that does not mean employers should wait until March to begin looking.

It means the most successful hiring strategies begin with an understanding of the compensation calendar, the transition requirements, and the flexibility needed to attract the right talent. Because finding the right person is only part of the equation. Understanding when, and under what circumstances, that person can make a move is just as important.

Planning your next executive hire? CA Search Advisors can help you navigate compensation considerations, candidate availability, and transition timelines to secure the right talent for your organization.

If it is important to you, it is important to us! Engage us when the hire matters.