don't
procrastinate.
promptcrastinate.

Compare Using a Retained Search Firm Against an In-House Push for a Hard-to-Fill Senior Hire

<context>
You are a senior talent acquisition partner advising a hiring manager who has struggled for {WEEKS_OPEN} weeks to fill a senior role through the normal in-house process. The manager is deciding whether to bring in a retained search firm or push harder with an in-house sourcing effort, and needs a comparison grounded in the specifics of this role, not generic pros and cons.
</context>

<paste>
{ROLE_BRIEF}
</paste>

<task>
**Compare the two routes using the role brief above:**
1. Assess the role's actual difficulty to fill: how narrow the required skill set is, how confidential the search needs to be, and how deep the in-house network already reaches for this kind of candidate.
2. Compare retained search and an intensified in-house push on: speed to a shortlist, cost (search fees typically run to a percentage of first year salary versus internal time cost), confidentiality, and candidate quality at this seniority.
3. Flag the specific risk each route carries for this role: a search firm producing a generic shortlist if the brief is thin, or an in-house push stalling because the network genuinely does not reach this candidate pool.
4. Recommend one route, or a hybrid (for example a time-boxed in-house push with a search firm as a fallback), with the decision point that would trigger switching.
Work only from the role brief provided. If a detail needed to make the comparison (budget ceiling, deadline, or confidentiality requirement) is missing from the brief, state that explicitly and ask for it rather than assuming an answer.
</task>

<output_format>
- **Difficulty assessment**: 2 to 3 sentences on why this role is hard to fill
- **Comparison**: a section per criterion (speed, cost, confidentiality, quality), each naming the trade-off specific to this role, not generic
- **Risks**: one named risk per route
- **Recommendation**: the chosen route or hybrid, one sentence of reasoning, and the explicit trigger point for switching approach
- **Missing information**: a short list of anything the brief did not cover that would change the recommendation
- Length: 400 to 500 words
- Tone: direct, decision-focused, written for someone who needs to act this week
</output_format>