More than 3,700 clients and 6,500 new searches: does scale mean universal access?

Korn Ferry's fiscal 2026 Form 10-K shows the reach of a major executive-search provider: more than 3,700 engagement clients, over 6,500 new assignments, executive-search fee revenue of $924.1 million, and an average of 563 consultants. Those 6,500 engagements are searches opened, not the number of completed appointments or a reported success rate.

Yet in that same filing, the company says agreements and client-relationship considerations can stop it from recruiting certain employees of existing clients on behalf of other employers. It explicitly warns that these restrictions can cause the firm to lose search opportunities to competitors. A large client network and an unconstrained candidate market do not necessarily expand together.

The 3,700 clients should not be treated as 3,700 companies currently subject to off-limits restrictions. Korn Ferry does not disclose the exact number of restricted organizations or executives in this filing. The supportable conclusion is that both substantial scale and a meaningful contractual business constraint exist.

Off-Limits regulates a search firm's activity, not an employee's right to change jobs

In executive search, off-limits refers to restrictions under which a search provider agrees or decides not to actively recruit certain employees of an existing client for another client. Korn Ferry says these rules can result from client agreements, relationship management, or business considerations for specified periods.

Consider a hypothetical search firm that recently helped Company A appoint a chief financial officer. If it promised to protect covered employees at A, it might later be restricted from soliciting those individuals for a CFO search at Company B. This is an illustration of how agreements can work, not a claim about any specific organization's contract.

That arrangement is not a general law preventing individuals from resigning or moving to another employer. The restrictions relate primarily to actions taken by a search firm under its client commitments. Unsolicited employee contact, contractual exceptions and the legal enforceability of a particular restriction require separate case-specific analysis.

Korn Ferry explicitly describes losing new work because of existing-client commitments

In the risk-factor discussion of its fiscal 2026 annual report, Korn Ferry acknowledges that it may be required, or may choose, not to recruit candidates from a client when working for another client. It says these off-limits arrangements can cause it to lose searches to competing firms. A September 2026 report reiterates the same category of constraint.

The company explains that an arrangement may cover an entire client organization and affiliates or only certain business divisions. Scope and duration may depend on negotiations or internal policies and on client size, business complexity, relationship length and how frequently the search provider has been engaged.

A prospective employer should therefore avoid assuming that the search firm's contact with a large industry client automatically makes all that client's talent available for a different mandate. The reverse assumption is also unsafe: the existence of off-limits policies does not establish that any particular search is materially restricted. This needs assignment-level clarification.

Heidrick & Struggles identifies the same issue in its own filing

Heidrick & Struggles' FY2024 Form 10-K says that existing-client agreements can prohibit recruiting certain employees when serving other clients, and that this can restrict the firm's ability to obtain or fulfill executive-search assignments. Its filing notes that such arrangements can include time and geographical limitations.

The specific scope may reflect how long the parties have worked together, how many searches were completed for the client, engagement frequency and expectations of future work. The firm also notes that competitors with smaller client bases may face fewer off-limits arrangements. These are disclosed competitive conditions rather than an assertion that every large search firm is prohibited from searching inside all of its client companies.

Fewer restrictions do not establish superior research, assessment, persuasion or delivery. A specialist boutique with access to more employers can still fail to understand the exact leadership mandate, while a large firm can conduct a deep, high-quality search in an unrestricted market. The contract constraint is one dimension of the service, not a universal quality ranking.

Why the issue may matter especially when specialist executive experience is scarce

Imagine a manufacturer seeking a technical leader who has brought a highly specialized process from development into reliable volume production. Relevant executives might be concentrated in a small number of companies. If a search provider has off-limits obligations covering some of those employers, the pool it can approach may be narrower than a buyer expects.

Knowing a person's career history or having their profile in a database is not the same as being permitted to actively recruit them for the current mandate. A large candidate database cannot remove contractual obligations attached to particular organizations or individuals. This distinction can become especially consequential when the addressable experience is genuinely scarce.

But legal or contractual ability to approach a candidate is still not the same as that person's willingness to move, suitability for a role or likelihood of accepting an offer. A useful search proposal must distinguish market research, authorized outreach, credible assessment and actual candidate engagement rather than counting accessible names alone.

AESC's client standards call for clarity on off-limits and conflicts

The Association of Executive Search and Leadership Consultants (AESC) explains in its Client Bill of Rights that member firms should agree engagement terms in writing, addressing the project scope, senior consultant, timing, fees and deliverables, and specific issues that may include off-limits rules, conflicts of interest and data management.

It also says members should identify, disclose and mutually resolve potential conflicts with clients, including an appropriate waiver when suitable. Its Candidate Bill of Rights emphasizes protecting sensitive information about individuals who are considering career moves. Neither source authorizes a search provider to share another client's confidential contract simply to win a new account.

These are professional standards applicable to AESC members, not a claim that every recruitment agency in Korea or elsewhere is legally bound by identical terms. They nevertheless identify practical questions that buyers can ask when evaluating an executive-search assignment.

Buyers need clarity about their own mandate, not another customer's secrets

Before signing an executive-search assignment, a company can ask whether there are material off-limits restrictions affecting important organizations, functions or candidate groups for this specific role. If a relevant restriction exists, the parties can discuss its practical scope—business divisions, seniority levels, locations or durations—within what the search provider is legally and contractually permitted to disclose.

The buyer should not demand every competing client's nonpublic agreements, employee records or confidential personnel information. What matters is whether the firm can communicate material conflicts and adequately describe the reachable search market without violating duties to other clients or candidates.

A relevant limitation does not automatically mean the firm must be rejected. The mandate could still allow credible alternative employers, adjacent capabilities or an appropriate resolution of the conflict. Whether any exception, waiver or amendment is available is contract-specific and should not be assumed from a general article.

BANSEOG VIEW | The number of clients a firm serves is not the number of candidates it can approach

Korn Ferry disclosed more than 3,700 Executive Search clients and 6,500 new engagements in fiscal 2026, while also warning that protections for some existing clients can constrain its ability to win or perform searches for others. Heidrick & Struggles reports the same kind of issue. These statements can coexist without proving a failure in either company's recruiting capabilities.

Protecting clients' employees can be part of building trust. Global research coverage, assessment capabilities and industry expertise also create value. On the other hand, a small firm having fewer restrictions does not make it a better search provider by default. The relevant factors include the assignment, actual consultant capability, confidential information obligations, outreach restrictions and available market coverage.

For an employer choosing a headhunting or executive-search firm, 'How many clients do you serve?' is a different question from 'Which relevant talent populations can your team actually research and approach for this role?' Client relationships, data holdings and the genuinely addressable talent market require separate examination.

BANSEOG VIEW

Banseog View — A client network and a genuinely addressable talent market are not identical

Korn Ferry's 3,700+ FY2026 Executive Search clients are NOT a count of restricted clients. Its filings nevertheless document off-limits commitments that can obstruct other searches.

Heidrick & Struggles and AESC explain that client-protection terms and conflicts are real and may vary by geography, duration and scope. Fewer restrictions do not prove higher recruiting quality.

An employer should ask for an assignment-level account of material restrictions and search coverage without demanding confidential information belonging to other clients or candidates.

SOURCES

Primary sources and references

Prepared 2026-10-16. Korn Ferry FY2026 Form 10-K filed June 26, 2026 reports 3,700+ Executive Search engagement clients, 6,500+ NEW engagements, fee revenue $924.1m and 563 average consultants. These numbers are not restricted-client counts, successfully completed placements or a placement success rate. Korn Ferry FY2026 annual report and September 9, 2026 follow-up filing disclose both contracted and voluntary client-relationship off-limits restrictions, variable coverage of departments and affiliates and possible losses of new search opportunities to competitors. Heidrick & Struggles FY2024 Form 10-K discusses restrictions with varying time/geography/relationship scopes and the possibility that smaller competitors have fewer restrictions. Neither document identifies exactly which clients or employees are currently restricted. Off-limits limitations on search-provider solicitation are NOT the same as a person's general right to resign or change jobs. AESC Client and Candidate Bills of Rights are professional standards for member firms, not universal laws requiring identical behavior from all headhunters in Korea or elsewhere. Buyer diligence is independent Banseog interpretation.