The evidence behind the radar

Why the trigger beats the posting.

Every claim on the radar traces to a source — and the few that only exist as industry folklore, we leave off on purpose. The evidence below, flagged by how strong it is:

peer-revieweddisclosed sampledirectional
The funnel · leading vs lagging

By the time a seat is public, the search is ~70% over.

The trigger that creates a leadership seat fires weeks to months before the job is posted. That gap is the lead window.

An outside CEO turns over a third of the team disclosed

Executive turnover runs ~17% with no CEO change, ~22% under an internal successor, and ~33% when the CEO is hired from outside — each rebuild is a cluster of VP+ searches.

Korn Ferry Institute / HBR — "Bucking the CEO Turnover Trend."

A CFO seat takes ~110 days to backfill directional

The quarter between a departure (often public via an 8-K or LinkedIn) and a filled role is the off-market window. The public req is the lagging confirmation.

Focus Search Partners — CFO transition benchmarks.

Buyers are ~70% through before they engage anyone analyst

B2B buyers spend only ~17% of the journey meeting suppliers, and most requirements are set before the first vendor conversation. Whoever shaped the thinking earlier already won.

Gartner — B2B Buying Journey; corroborated by 6sense.
The route in · network science

The strongest introducer, not the most connections.

The warm-path ranking rests on four findings about how trust and information move through a network.

Weak ties carry the opportunities peer-reviewed

Acquaintances in other circles carry the non-redundant information; close ties mostly know what you already know. ~83% of people who found a job through a contact heard it from a weaker tie.

Granovetter (1973), "The Strength of Weak Ties," AJS 78(6); replicated by Rajkumar et al., Science (2022).

Brokers spanning a gap hold the edge peer-reviewed

The person who spans the structural hole between two disconnected clusters gets earlier information and controls the framing. That broker is the highest-value introducer.

Burt (1992), Structural Holes, Harvard University Press.

Only an active-layer tie is genuinely warm directional

Relationships nest in layers (~5 / 15 / 50 / 150). An intro is only warm if the target sits in the introducer’s active inner layers — not a dormant contact. (150 is a heuristic, not a constant.)

Dunbar (1992/93); the precise "150" contested by Lindenfors et al. (2021), Biology Letters 17(5).

Influence is recursive — who do they reach? peer-reviewed

A connector matters to the extent they reach other well-connected people — not by raw count. The same math that ranks web pages ranks introducers.

Bonacich (1972), eigenvector centrality; Brin & Page (1998), PageRank.
The first move · reciprocity

An unsolicited give beats an offer to help.

"Can I help?" asks the recipient to do the work. An unconditional give inverts that — and the effect is measurable.

A free favor roughly doubled compliance peer-reviewed

In Regan’s experiment, an unsolicited gift nearly doubled later compliance — and whether the person was liked no longer mattered. The gift created the obligation on its own.

Regan (1971), J. Experimental Social Psychology 7.

Reciprocity is a relationship’s "starting mechanism" peer-reviewed

A give deposits a socially-enforced debt that stabilizes a relationship before trust exists. The five-minute favor (high value to them, low cost to you) is the practical form.

Gouldner (1960), "The Norm of Reciprocity," ASR 25(2); cf. Cialdini; Grant, Give and Take.
The rhythm · timing

Speed where it’s hot; spaced where it’s dormant.

Five minutes vs thirty changes the odds ~100× disclosed

Responding to a fresh signal within five minutes versus thirty raised the odds of contact ~100× and of qualifying ~21×. On a hot trigger, the first firm in usually wins.

InsideSales–MIT Lead Response Study, via HBR (2011).

Spaced, varied touches beat frequent identical ones peer-reviewed

Familiarity grows with repeated exposure but saturates if overdone — and varied exposures beat identical repeats. To keep a relationship alive over a year, space touches ~monthly and change the substance each time.

Zajonc (1968) & Bornstein (1989) meta-analysis; Cepeda et al. (2006), Psych. Bulletin.
The math · conversion

The numbers on the overview, sourced.

84% go with the first firm they talk to disclosed

And the eventual winner was the first vendor engaged ~81% of the time — the economic case for being early, not loud.

6sense buyer-experience research (n > 900).

~74% win rate when you shape the brief analyst

Sellers who help create the buying vision — rather than respond to a finished spec — win about three-quarters of the time.

Forrester (Lindwall), "How to create a buying vision."

A warm intro converts ~8× a cold touch disclosed

Referred candidates reach hire at ~16% vs ~2% for inbound — and referred relationships retain longer, the signature of transferred trust.

Ashby Talent Trends (38M applications); Schmitt et al. (2011), J. Marketing; Burks et al. (2015), QJE.

5.8% cold reply once the seat is public disclosed

The baseline for cold outreach into a flooded, contested req — the opposite end from a warm, give-first first move.

Belkins — analysis of 16.5M cold emails (2024).
The honest part

The numbers we refuse to cite.

A radar is only as trustworthy as the claims it won’t make. These get quoted everywhere in our industry — and they don’t survive a source check, so they’re not on this report.

  • "80% of sales need 5 follow-ups." Attributed to the "National Sales Executive Association" — an organization that does not exist.
  • "Referrals convert 30% better / close 4× more / 69% faster." Untraceable folklore with no primary study. We use the peer-reviewed trust-transfer evidence instead.
  • "391% lift if you respond within 60 seconds." Unverifiable; we cite the InsideSales–MIT 5-minute finding instead.
  • Dunbar’s "150" as a hard number. A useful heuristic, not a constant — the re-analysis puts the real interval anywhere from ~4 to ~520.