The leaders organisations struggle most to find are rarely unavailable. They are simply already in conversation, long before a role is defined, with people they trust to protect their judgement as much as their opportunity.
Why the Best Leaders Are Rarely “Unavailable”
At this level, career decisions carry asymmetric risk. A single misstep can erode years of credibility, narrow future options, or place a leader in an environment where their judgement is compromised by incentives they cannot control. As a result, senior technical leaders become selective about who they listen to. They seek conversations with people who understand their world, can see the trade-offs clearly, and are willing to advise against a move as readily as they are willing to support one.
From the outside, this can look inefficient:
- Fewer conversations.
- Less visible activity.
- No obvious funnel.
Yet in practice, it moves faster because it removes false starts. When trust already exists, context does not need to be rebuilt, intent does not need to be tested, and alignment can be assessed early. Decisions happen with less noise, fewer reversals, and far lower risk of costly misalignment later.
Why Trust Moves Faster Than Process
This is also why traditional hiring processes struggle to surface the same outcomes. Process is designed for comparison, fairness, and defensibility, not for judgement built over time. It works well when roles are clear and risk is bounded. It struggles when the real work involves ambiguity, foresight, and decisions whose consequences only emerge years later.
Between these worlds sits a different kind of role. Someone who spends years in quiet conversation with senior leaders, understands the pressures on both sides, and knows when alignment is real and when it is still performative. Their value is not in making introductions, but in knowing which ones should never be made, and in protecting judgement on both sides long before a decision is required.
The Strategic Advantage of Being Early
Organisations that work this way tend to move earlier, not faster. They sense inflection points before urgency sets in and begin conversations while there is still space to think. By the time a role becomes visible to the market, alignment has often already been tested, trust established, and timing clarified. What appears to others as decisive action is usually the result of patient groundwork laid long before a vacancy existed.
In senior technical leadership, access is rarely the constraint. Timing and judgement are. The leaders who shape outcomes over the long term are usually willing to talk long before they are willing to move, and only with people they trust to see the whole picture.
That is why trusted relationships matter more than reach. They allow organisations to explore alignment without pressure, test assumptions without commitment, and make decisions before urgency distorts judgement. By the time the market notices a role, the most important thinking has often already happened elsewhere.
As you look ahead to the year to come, it may be worth considering a different question. Not who is available right now, but who you would want in conversation if timing were right. And whether you are building those relationships early enough for trust to do its work.
If you would value a quiet, exploratory conversation along those lines, my door is always open.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this approach slower than traditional hiring?
It can appear slower, but it often moves faster in practice. Trust reduces false starts, misalignment, and late-stage reversals, which are the true sources of delay.
Does relying on relationships introduce bias or risk?
Trusted relationships are not about informality or favouritism. They are about accumulated context, challenge, and judgement built over time. When used well, they strengthen rigour rather than replace it.
What if we don’t have a role open right now?
That is often the ideal moment. Many of the most valuable conversations happen before urgency sets in, when leaders can explore alignment without pressure.
Who benefits most from operating this way?
Boards and leadership teams operating in complex, regulated environments where senior technical decisions shape long-term outcomes and cannot easily be reversed.
Where should leaders begin if this feels unfamiliar?
By reframing the question. Not who is available now, but who you would want in conversation if timing were right, and whether those relationships are being built early enough to matter.
Harun Rabbani 
Leave a comment