The Head of HR Who Gave a Year’s Notice
A seventeen-year HR leader announced his retirement twelve months early. His successor arrived from a NASDAQ CHRO seat.
- Client
- Nationwide faith-affiliated benefits and investment organization
- Search
- Managing Director, Head of Human Resources
- Model
- Retained succession, confidential
- Engaged
- August 2025
- Start date
- First week of January 2026
- Overlap
- Four months with the outgoing leader
Nobody gives a year’s notice at a place they are eager to leave.
The Head of Human Resources had been in the seat seventeen years. When he decided to retire, he told leadership a full twelve months out. Not two weeks. Not a month. A year, so the organization would have time to get it right.
You learn more about a culture from that one decision than from any careers page.
The organization nobody has heard of
They serve more than a hundred thousand clergy, educators, laborers, and their families across the country. Think Hewitt Associates, but mission-driven. Faith-affiliated without being insular. Racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse, inclusive of LGBTQ+ leaders throughout the business. Their retention rate is above ninety-five percent.
They also keep an almost aggressively low profile. Which was the problem.
The problem
Great cultures are often invisible from the outside. Strong HR leaders see the word nonprofit and assume slow, small, and limited in scope. They were wrong on all three, but nobody was going to learn that from a job posting.
Internally, leadership had a harder concern. Seventeen years of accumulated trust does not transfer. They did not want a disciplinarian who would arrive and start correcting things. They wanted someone credible enough to raise the analytical horsepower for the next decade, and kind enough that people who had been there fifteen years would follow them.
Those two qualities rarely appear in the same person. When they do, that person already has a job they like.
What we did
I went there. Walked the building, which sits among trees and prairie paths and was obviously designed by people who thought about how it would feel to work there. Sat with the retiring director and listened to how they talked about their team. Humble, approachable, a teacher.
That was the spec. Not the job description. The person.
This organization had worked with me before, which is the only reason I got the call. When the engagement was confirmed, the line they used was we’ll be in business together again. That is the whole business in five words.
Then I went looking for people who were not looking. Eight to thirty years of HR experience, and one non-negotiable pattern: a history of staying. If a candidate had built and mentored teams over years rather than optimizing their own title every eighteen months, they got a call.
We presented two curated slates of five.
From both rounds, four of five were invited to interview. Eight of ten. On a confidential succession search, that is not normal.
It means the read on culture was right before anyone met anyone.These were not job seekers. They were mission seekers.
I also slowed the search down on purpose. The outgoing leader was not leaving until spring, and the client wanted a real overlap rather than a handoff email. A faster fill would have looked better on my scorecard and served the client worse. We used the time to reach people who needed several conversations before they would consider moving.
Where it landed
Engaged in late August. The new Head of HR started the first week of January. Nineteen weeks, paced deliberately to land ahead of a spring retirement.
Consider who they hired. Seventeen years at a thirty-four billion dollar energy company, rising to Vice President of HR. Then global People, Culture and DEI for an energy technology business with fifty-eight thousand employees across a hundred and twenty countries. Then a Chief Human Resources Officer seat at a publicly traded manufacturer.
That is a leader who could have had any Fortune 500 seat on offer, and who chose the mission-driven organization nobody had heard of. That is the entire argument this client could not make for themselves.
The handoff happened the way it was supposed to. The successor started in January. The outgoing leader stayed through the spring. Four months of overlap, which is what the organization asked for and what almost nobody actually gets.
Why this matters
Most succession failures are not hiring failures. They are timing failures. The seat empties, panic sets in, and the organization hires the most available person instead of the right one.
This client did it the other way around. They gave themselves a year and spent it on the search instead of the scramble.
Do you have someone in a critical seat within three years of retiring?
That conversation is worth having now, while it is still a plan and not an emergency.
Schedule a 15-minute conversationZach Nold, Crucial Hire · zach@crucialhire.com · 312-612-1981