Hiring a top performer is often seen as the ultimate power move for a business. In boardrooms and investor meetings, the allure of the “superstar” hire looms large. I’ve sat with founders who are ready to break the bank for that one game-changing executive, and I’ve congratulated clients when a star candidate finally signed on. As the CEO of an executive search firm, I share that excitement – top talent can indeed propel a company to new heights. But I’ve also witnessed the flip side: brilliant hires that backfire, from culture clashes to unmet expectations. In this article, I want to explore this paradox in depth, drawing on up-to-date research (with a focus on Asia-Pacific data) and my own experience. We’ll look at when hiring star performers leads to measurable success, when it fails to deliver results, how organizational context plays a pivotal role, and how external “stars” compare to homegrown talent.
The Allure of the Top-Performer Hire
Every leader dreams of a team of “A-players.” It’s no wonder – studies consistently show that top performers dramatically outproduce average employees. One landmark analysis of over 600,000 individuals found that high performers are approximately 400% more productive than the average worker . In highly complex jobs, the gap is even larger – in certain managerial and technical roles, a star can be as much as 800% more productive than others . For any business unit, those are staggering numbers.
Such outsized performance translates into real business impact. A top salesperson might bring in multiples of the revenue of an average rep; a star engineer might design a product in months that others would take years to finish. A study by Korn Ferry even quantified the return: a high-performing senior executive can deliver about a 278% return on investment within two years of hiring . In other words, they can nearly triple what the company spent on their recruitment and salary by adding that much value. Little wonder that companies scour the market for these needle-movers.
Beyond immediate output, star hires can send a powerful market signal. Bringing on a known industry leader or expert can boost investor confidence and brand reputation. It’s akin to a sports team signing an all-star player – it energizes the organization and even stakeholders outside it. In fast-growing regions like APAC, where companies face intense talent wars, the temptation to poach a competitor’s top performer is especially strong. In fact, Asia-Pacific companies have been hiring external talent at roughly twice the rate of their Western counterparts , driven by fierce competition and rapid growth goals. The logic is simple: if superior talent is that much more productive, the quickest path to business success seems to be “buying” a top-performer to lead the charge.
However, as I often caution our clients, hiring a star is not a guaranteed ticket to glory. The same research that lauds top performers’ impact also contains a warning: those productivity premiums only materialize when the context is right. Let’s examine both sides of the coin – when star hires deliver the goods, and when they fall short.
When Stars Shine: The Payoff of Top Performers
First, it’s important to acknowledge that there are plenty of scenarios where an external top performer can be a game-changer for a business. I’ve seen this in our practice: for example, a startup needed to professionalize its operations before an IPO, and hiring a seasoned “star” CFO from a larger firm brought instant credibility, improved processes, and boosted investor trust. Such success stories tend to share common themes.
1. Filling a Critical Gap in Expertise: Often, a top performer delivers exceptional results when they bring in skills or knowledge that the organization sorely lacks. This is especially true in transformative periods – say, adopting a new technology or entering a new market. If no one internally has done X, hiring someone who has “written the playbook” for X can accelerate progress immeasurably. For instance, companies undergoing a tough strategic shift or turnaround often look outside for talent. Research suggests that in situations like major turnarounds or disruptive strategy shifts, an external hire may be the best bet, particularly if the needed skill sets don’t exist in-house . In such cases, a star hire can create immediate, measurable impact (new products launched, markets opened, costs slashed, etc.) that likely would not happen otherwise.
2. Raising the Bar for Performance: Top performers often set a new benchmark for what “great” looks like. Their work ethic, creativity, or technical prowess can inspire the rest of the team. In a supportive environment, this can lead to a positive spillover effect – team members learn from the star, adopt some of their best practices, and overall performance improves. There’s evidence that the presence of high performers can lift organizational outcomes, provided that the culture encourages collaboration. For example, in one analysis of productivity, the top 5% of workers often produce over 25% of output in their domain . A single brilliant software developer can create features that significantly boost a product’s competitiveness, or a star consultant might win a marquee client that brings in substantial revenue. When the hire truly integrates and shares their expertise, the whole team’s metrics can rise, from sales numbers to innovation rates.
3. Tangible Business Metrics Improvements: Ultimately, the value of a star hire is proved in the numbers – revenue growth, market share, product development speed, stock price, etc. There have been cases (especially in sales-driven roles or executive leadership) where bringing in a top performer correlates with a notable uptick in business performance. One might see, for example, a fast-growth ASEAN e-commerce firm hire a renowned supply chain expert and subsequently cut delivery times by 30%, yielding higher customer satisfaction and repeat sales. These are the “home runs” everyone hopes for. Academic research supports that when stars deliver, the business gains can be significant. High performers have been linked to faster project completion and even market gains – one study noted that if just 20% of a project team are “great” talent (instead of average), a project could be finished months sooner and beat competitors to market . For a business, that speed advantage or quality leap directly translates to dollars and competitive edge.
It’s worth noting that context plays a big role in enabling these successes (a theme we’ll delve into shortly). A star will shine brightest in an organization that knows how to harness their abilities – meaning the company gives them the resources, autonomy, and support to do what they do best. A strong existing team can amplify a star’s impact too, by handling complementary tasks and preventing bottlenecks. When all these pieces align, hiring a top performer really can lead to measurable success – increased revenue, innovation, and even improved team capabilities over time.
That said, for every tale of “we hired a star and doubled our growth,” there is a cautionary tale of “we hired a star… and it just didn’t work out.” Let’s examine why that happens so frequently – more frequently, in fact, than many realize.
When Stars Struggle: Why Great Hires Fail
Despite the best intentions and impressive resumes, many star hires fail to deliver the expected results. This isn’t just anecdotal pessimism; it’s grounded in research and, frankly, in the reality I see on the ground. A much-circulated Harvard Business Review study famously found that when companies hire “star” performers from competitors, on average those hires underperform. In the study of over 1,000 star Wall Street analysts, nearly half (46%) saw their performance drop after switching firms . Even more worrying, their arrival often demoralized the rest of the team, and the performance of the group declined in the year after the star’s hiring . These are sobering findings: the very hire meant to boost results can end up doing the opposite.
Why does this happen? Several common failure modes have emerged, and they usually come down to a misalignment between the star and their new environment:
• Culture Clash and Poor Integration: A top performer from one company can be like a transplant organ in another – without the right “antirejection” measures, the new body might reject it. Corporate cultures vary widely, and a style of leadership or work that succeeded elsewhere might rub a new team the wrong way. I’ve observed cases where a top-performer manager arrives with a directive, hard-charging approach that worked at a Wall Street firm, but lands in a Southeast Asian company that values consensus and relationships. Without adaptation, friction is inevitable. Academic research backs this up: the more unique and strong a company’s culture is, the harder it is for an outsider to assimilate and perform . Newly hired stars often struggle to navigate unspoken cultural norms, whether it’s how decisions are made or how teams communicate. If managers fail to help them integrate, the star can become isolated or even a source of conflict. In the worst cases, culture clash can lead to the star’s quick exit – a lost opportunity for the company and a bruising experience for the individual.
• Lack of Systems and Team Support: Top performers rarely succeed entirely solo; they excel as part of an effective system. One common mistake is assuming a star can thrive anywhere, when in fact their success was enabled by a specific ecosystem of support in their old firm. As one analysis put it, “every star performer relies on a great team to get the job done” . When you hire the star but not the supporting cast, you may only get a fraction of their former output. For example, a star salesperson might falter if the new company’s product is weaker or the marketing lead generation is inferior to what they’re used to. A brilliant engineer might struggle without the high-caliber technical team or R&D tools they had before. Company-specific processes and resources matter deeply – and a star cannot carry those over to a new employer. Research by Boris Groysberg concluded that much of an executive’s performance is tied to firm-specific skills and resources that don’t transfer . Thus, when the star leaves their old company, they often cannot replicate their results immediately (if ever) in the new one . It may take years to learn the new system and rebuild the needed support structure, during which time the new employer may see little benefit.
• Unrealistic Expectations and Misalignment: The “halo” around a star can distort expectations on both sides. Executives hiring a famous talent sometimes expect instant miracles – a turnaround completed in months, or a stagnant product suddenly gaining viral growth. The newly hired individual, on the other hand, might expect the red carpet and a mandate to make bold changes. When reality settles in, both sides can face disappointment. If a top hire is brought into an environment that actually needed deeper fixes (process, culture, strategy) beyond what one person can solve, they are being set up to fail. Likewise, if the star arrives and finds their scope limited or the company resistant to change, frustration mounts. These misalignments explain why external star hires often have short tenures. One study noted that transplanted stars tend not to stay long in their new organizations – they either leave out of frustration or are managed out when they don’t meet the sky-high expectations. It’s telling that, in Asia-Pacific’s competitive markets, one in five new hires overall leaves within the first year . When that new hire is a high-profile (and highly paid) star, such turnover is especially costly.
• Resentment and Team Morale Issues: There’s a human element too – bringing in a top-performer can unintentionally demotivate the existing team. If internal employees feel a prized role will always go to an outsider, or that the newcomer is being treated like a savior, it can breed quiet resentment. A 2024 study highlighted that hiring external talent into leadership roles can depress staff morale, as employees may perceive that the company doesn’t value rising its own people . I once saw a case where a company hired a big-name creative director; the incumbent team of designers, who hoped one of them might get that role, became disengaged and a few quit within months. Instead of lifting the whole team, the hire drained it of enthusiasm. Furthermore, star hires can inadvertently hinder innovation or collaboration if they dominate discussions or if others defer to them too much. Harvard researchers Muzio, Gabbioneta, and Mawdsley noted that newly hired stars can sometimes lower incumbents’ performance or hinder innovation, despite their individual talent . The presence of a star can upset the team dynamic – some colleagues might compete with them, others might pull back assuming “the star will handle it.” The net effect can be a drop in overall performance, precisely the opposite of what was intended.
Taken together, these factors paint a clear picture: a star’s past success is far from a guarantee of future success in a new setting. In fact, one analysis found that only about 25% of top performers hired from competitors managed to maintain their high performance in the new firm, and a mere 7% performed even better than before . The majority either perform worse or flame out. This doesn’t mean companies should never hire external high achievers, but it underscores that doing so is a delicate endeavor. It must be done with eyes wide open to the risks and a plan to mitigate them. This is where organizational context and thoughtful integration become crucial.
Context Is King: Team, Culture, and the Environment for Success
Why do some star hires succeed brilliantly while others fail? Organizational context is often the deciding factor. I’ve learned to ask clients not just “Who do you want to hire?” but “What are you bringing them into?” A top performer’s impact will be magnified or muted by the environment around them – the team they join, the culture and structure of the company, and the support systems in place. Let’s unpack a few key contextual elements:
1. Strength of the Surrounding Team: Think of a star as a force multiplier – in a strong team, they can elevate it; in a weak team, they might struggle or even be dragged down. Research on “star migration” found that when star analysts moved to weaker-performing firms, the team often continued to underperform and even pulled the star’s results down with it . On the other hand, if you drop a highly skilled individual into a well-run, competent team, that team can pick up the star’s methods quickly, cover any gaps, and prevent the star from burning out. A cohesive team also helps integrate the newcomer: colleagues can show “how things get done here” and ensure the star’s talents are applied where most effective. The lesson is that hiring a star is not a fix for a fundamentally weak team – in fact, it can exacerbate weaknesses. For maximum success, either bring a star into a strong team, or be prepared to also upgrade the team and resources around them. In practice, we sometimes help clients do both: recruit a star and bolster key positions underneath them, almost like bringing in a small “ecosystem” of talent instead of one lone hero.
2. Organizational Culture and Openness: Culture fit is paramount for any hire, but especially so for a high-profile one. As noted earlier, very strong or idiosyncratic cultures can pose a challenge – for example, a star from a Silicon Valley startup might find a traditional Japanese corporation’s culture stifling, and vice versa. Companies known for welcoming diverse perspectives and external ideas tend to give outsiders a better chance to thrive. If your culture is flexible and “multiple perspectives are welcome” (as one set of experts put it ), a star’s new approaches are more likely to be embraced rather than resisted. Conversely, in organizations where “how we do things” is deeply ingrained and firm-specific knowledge is critical, an external hire will struggle to gain credibility. A Wharton study by Matthew Bidwell and colleagues found that the more a job relies on firm-specific knowledge or unique processes, the harder it is for an external person to excel in that role . In Asia-Pacific, we often see this in family-run businesses or companies with long-tenured staff – unwritten rules and relationships drive success, and newcomers face a steep learning curve. Assessing culture fit and adaptability is therefore essential. Some firms have made it a policy that no matter how brilliant a candidate’s credentials, they must meet a “culture guardian” panel or pass a values interview. This might slow the hiring of a star, but it can save enormous pain later by ensuring alignment.
3. Onboarding and Integration Processes: The first months of a star hire’s tenure can make or break their success. Yet many organizations under-invest in onboarding, assuming a high performer will simply figure things out. In reality, structured integration is critical – it’s about transferring essential knowledge and building relationships, not just signing HR forms. As one executive recruiter aptly said, “Hiring them is just the starting line, not the finish line.” The company must actively help the star learn internal systems, understand unwritten power dynamics, and meet key stakeholders. Setting up a transition plan (e.g. 30-60-90 day goals, assigning an internal mentor or “buddy”, regular check-ins on integration) greatly improves the odds that the star will gain traction. Consider that 57% of executives report it took them six months or more to reach full impact in a new role – even for top leaders, the ramp-up is real. Organizations that acknowledge this and provide runway (and patience) are effectively giving the star hire a platform to eventually shine. Those that expect day-one magic or leave the person to sink-or-swim are risking a premature failure. Especially in APAC, where regional nuances and relationship networks are key, investing in cultural acclimation for a star from a different market can determine whether they succeed in, say, China or Indonesia.
4. Internal Equity and Employee Perceptions: As discussed, context isn’t just systems and culture – it’s also how the existing employees feel about the new hire. Companies that handle this well set the stage by communicating to their team why the hire is being made and how it benefits everyone. They often combine an external hire with internal promotions elsewhere to show that employee growth is still valued. If instead the context is one where employees feel passed over or fear being eclipsed, they may unconsciously resist the newcomer. I’ve seen scenarios where internal managers withhold information or fail to cooperate fully with the “outsider” star, undermining projects. Building a context of mutual respect is key: the star must show humility and respect for the legacy of the company, and the company must show respect for the fresh expertise the star brings. Leadership plays a role in setting a collaborative tone. When done right, the new hire is viewed not as a threat but as a much-needed addition to help everyone win.
In summary, the context into which you place a high performer can determine 90% of the outcome. A great hire in a poor context will likely fail, whereas even a merely “good” hire in a superb context can excel. The truly winning formula is a great hire and a great context – that’s when you see exponential results. For organizations, this means before you recruit that star, get your house in order: solidify your team, clarify your strategy, nurture an inclusive culture, and plan the onboarding. As an old proverb goes, “Don’t put a racing horse on a rocky field” – first, prepare the track.
Grow or Buy? External Stars vs. Internal Talent
Every company faces the classic talent strategy question: Do we hire proven stars from outside, or grow our own? In reality, as Harvard’s Boris Groysberg notes, it’s not an either/or decision – most successful companies do both . However, understanding the trade-offs is crucial in deciding when to “buy” talent and when to “build” it internally.
Let’s compare external hiring of stars versus developing internal high-potentials on a few key dimensions:
• Performance and Ramp-Up: Internal talent comes pre-loaded with firm-specific knowledge and established relationships – they often can hit the ground running in a new role. External hires, even talented ones, face a learning curve. Research in investment banking found that external hires received significantly lower performance evaluations in their first two years compared to those promoted from within . It often takes time for an outsider to reach full productivity (remember that 6+ month ramp-up stat). On the flip side, an external star might bring new capabilities that allow for a level of performance previously impossible internally (e.g., launching a new product line). So while the initial performance dip is real for external hires, their ceiling could be higher in certain areas if they bring unique expertise.
• Cost and ROI: Hiring from outside tends to be more expensive – there’s the direct cost of recruitment (search fees, sign-on bonuses, relocation) and often a salary premium. External hires in comparable roles earn about 18-20% more than those promoted internally , partly as a lure to attract them. Companies are willing to pay this in hopes of a big impact. But if that impact doesn’t materialize, the ROI can be disappointing. Internal promotions usually cost less (sometimes they are even underpaid relative to their value initially) and have no recruitment fees attached. From a pure financial standpoint, many CFOs love internal hires for leadership roles because they’re more cost-effective and have lower risk of turnover. (It’s worth noting too: if an external star fails and leaves, the cost isn’t just financial – there’s lost time, possibly lost clients, and the morale effect of a public mis-hire.)
• Risk of Turnover: It’s a bitter irony that a star you lure away might themselves be lured away by someone else. External hires, especially those accustomed to moving up by switching companies, may not stay as long. Internal talent often has deeper loyalty or at least fewer outside pulls in the short term. A study cited earlier showed how in Asia-Pacific, job-hopping is endemic – a lot of external hiring is simply trading talent in a hot market, and top performers in APAC have higher turnover rates (9.1% annually) than in the West . If you perpetually rely on “buying” stars, you may end up in a cycle of higher attrition (as your own staff leave and stars you hire come and go). Developing and promoting internal people can foster greater loyalty, as employees see a growth path. Many companies strike a balance: use external hires for infusion of skills or when scaling up rapidly, but retain and develop your known internal stars to take on bigger roles – those are the people more likely to stick around.
• Impact on Internal Morale: As discussed, repeatedly favoring external candidates for top jobs can demotivate your staff. If employees see a “glass ceiling” where big roles go to outsiders, engagement can drop and valuable people may leave . On the other hand, bringing in an outsider can also inject fresh energy that rallies a team if they feel this person completes the puzzle and will help them succeed. Internal promotions clearly send a positive signal to the workforce about growth opportunities and culture. There’s also a middle path: boomerang hires, where you re-hire a former employee who became a star elsewhere – this can combine internal familiarity with external experience. But generally, a healthy organization will have a mix of homegrown leaders and selectively chosen external hires, maintaining morale and bringing in new ideas.
• Skill vs. Culture Fit: An internal candidate by definition has proven culture fit (or they wouldn’t have thrived and stayed). External stars are an unknown on culture fit – even with thorough interviews, it’s hard to predict. If your culture is a key driver of success (e.g., a highly innovative design firm with a quirky, free-form culture), an internal promotion who “gets it” might outperform a more decorated outsider who just doesn’t gel. Conversely, if your culture has grown stale or insular, an external hire can challenge the status quo and introduce better practices. Some studies suggest companies in need of change benefit from outside hires shaking things up, whereas companies that are already high-performing culturally should favor insiders to preserve what works . It comes back to context: why are you hiring from outside? If it’s for change and new skills, ensure your culture is ready to embrace that person. If it’s simply a talent grab, be mindful of cultural friction.
Given these comparisons, when should you hire an external star and when should you grow from within? The research and expert consensus point to a few guidelines, which I’ll summarize in table form for clarity:
| When to Consider Hiring Externally (Buying a “Star”) | When to Focus on Internal Promotion/Development |
| The company is undergoing a major turnaround or shift in strategy – fresh expertise is needed to navigate new challenges . | The company is thriving or in a steady growth phase – build on your existing cultural strengths and momentum . |
| Specific skills or knowledge are lacking internally and are critical (e.g. emerging technology, new market experience) . | The role requires deep firm-specific knowledge or relationships that only an insider would have . |
| The culture is open to change and welcomes outside perspectives; robust onboarding processes are in place to integrate newcomers . | The culture is strong and unique, making it hard for outsiders to adapt (and few processes exist to onboard them) . |
| Succession planning has gaps – no obvious internal candidates (often due to lack of development or rapid expansion). | Succession planning is effective and transparent – good internal candidates are ready and waiting . |
| Need to “disrupt” stagnant thinking or bring in fresh ideas to spark innovation. | Need to reward and retain top internal talent to sustain morale and signal growth from within. |
Table: Factors favouring external hires vs. internal promotions.
Of course, these are general tendencies, not ironclad rules. The best decision will always depend on the specific context and the individual people involved. Some of the most successful leaders I’ve placed were external hires brought into very supportive environments, essentially combining the two approaches – we “bought” talent and then immediately “built” around them to ensure success. Conversely, I’ve seen internal rising stars falter when promoted without adequate training or when the company scaled beyond their experience.
The key is to be deliberate and data-driven in your approach. If you do hire externally, recognize the risk and offset it: invest in onboarding, align expectations, perhaps even pair the new hire with an internal co-leader initially. If you focus internally, don’t become complacent: keep developing your people, and be honest about when an infusion of new blood is necessary. In Asia-Pacific, where the market for top talent is so hot that employees often hop for 20-30% pay raises, companies are increasingly realizing they must develop their own stars to avoid being held ransom by talent shortages. It’s no coincidence that developing internal capabilities is cited by 63% of APAC CXOs as their top talent priority in recent surveys – leaders know they can’t win long term by external hiring alone. A balanced strategy (“build and buy”) is often the healthiest, with an emphasis on building from within as the sustainable core.
Conclusion: Building a Talent Strategy for Lasting Success
Hiring top performers is one of the most impactful – and tricky – decisions an organization makes. As a search firm CEO, I’ve had a front-row seat to both the triumphs and tragedies of top-performer hiring. The evidence is clear that individual talent matters enormously for business success: in the right conditions, a single high performer really can change the trajectory of a team or company, delivering output worth several times that of a typical employee . However, the evidence is equally clear that talent is not a simple commodity you can plug and play. A star’s performance is deeply contextual. Hire the right person for the wrong environment (or vice versa), and you might end up worse off than before – money spent, team disrupted, and time lost.
For HR professionals, startup founders, and executives reading this, what are the takeaways? I’d boil it down to a few guiding principles:
• Hire for Fit as much as Skill: When pursuing a top performer, rigorously assess how they will mesh with your mission, values, and ways of working. Does your organization truly embrace the kind of change this person will bring? If you’re in APAC hiring a Western executive (or vice versa), invest in cultural bridging. Remember that a slightly less famous candidate who fits like a glove may outperform a top-performer who doesn’t.
• Don’t Underestimate Firm-Specific Capital: Take an inventory of what makes people effective in your company – be it certain technologies, a collaborative workflow, or client relationships. Assume an outsider will need time (and help) to build that capital. Plan for a learning curve. If you can, transfer some of that know-how to the new hire proactively (through mentorship, documentation, etc.). This is essentially teaching the star to shine in your sky.
• Set Realistic Goals and Support the New Hire: Avoid the “messiah myth.” Yes, they were amazing at XYZ Corp, but in your company they will need clear, achievable goals and support from leadership. Provide the resources, team, and authority they need, but also check in and ensure they aren’t burning out or hitting walls silently. Treat them not as a saviour, but as a highly capable partner who is joining your journey. That mindset encourages mutual accountability.
• Mind the Team Dynamics: Before the star arrives, communicate with your team. Frame the hire as adding to the team, not a commentary on anyone’s inadequacy. If you have internal stars, continue to nurture them – maybe the new hire can even mentor some, creating knowledge transfer. Watch for any morale dips and address them. Integration into the social fabric of the company is as important as the job tasks.
• Have a Plan B: Despite all precautions, some hires just don’t work. It’s prudent to have a contingency – perhaps an internal deputy who can step up if needed, or keeping the talent pipeline warm. This isn’t pessimism, it’s risk management. Interestingly, companies with strong internal talent pipelines are more confident even in making bold external hires, because they know they have a safety net. It takes the pressure off the star and the organization, ironically increasing the chance that the match will succeed.
In closing, hiring top talent is both an art and a science. The science lies in the data – understanding the productivity premiums, the failure rates, the conditions for success (we’ve cited studies from Harvard, Wharton, McKinsey and more to illuminate these). The art lies in the human touch – recognizing the intangibles of your organization and of the candidate, and crafting a story where one can thrive in the other. For those of us in executive search, it’s gratifying to place a star who not only has a brilliant track record but who also “clicks” with a company’s ethos and needs. Because that’s when the magic truly happens: not just a great hire, but a great hire who stays and elevates everyone around them.
So, as you hunt for your next top-performer (or plan to grow your own), remember the complexities behind the glowing CVs. Hire slow and smart, integrate with care, and never lose sight of developing the talent you already have. With that balanced approach, you’ll maximize the chance that your next top performer hire leads to genuine, lasting business success – and minimize the chance of an expensive disappointment.
Executives often ask me, “What’s the one thing to get right in hiring stars?” If forced to choose, I’d echo what research and experience both say: focus on context. Get the context right, and the star will likely shine. Neglect it, and even the brightest star can fade. In the end, it’s not just about finding the best talent – it’s about building the best environment to unleash that talent. And that is something every organization, in APAC and beyond, can strive to do with intention and insight.
Sources:
• Groysberg, B. et al., Harvard Business Review – Hiring stars and performance portability
• McKinsey & Co. – Productivity differential of high performers
• Willyerd, K., HBR – High performers deliver 400% more productivity
• Korn Ferry Institute – ROI of hiring high-performing leaders
• LinkedIn Pulse (Petrone, P.) – Why superstar hires often fail (analysis of HBR study)
• Bidwell, M., Wharton study via SHRM – External vs internal hire outcomes (cost and performance)
• SHRM (Krell) – Conditions favoring external vs internal hires
• People Matters & PwC APAC Study – External hiring rates and turnover in Asia-Pacific
• HBR (Muzio et al., 2025) – Dangers of star hires on innovation and incumbents
• AEEN & TalentCompass summary – Impact of external star hires on team morale
📩 Contact Kanry Search to build future-ready hiring plans or find your next opportunity in Singapore’s evolving employment market.
