Executive Outplacement Is Broken. And the Next Wave of Restructuring Will Expose It.

News · Executive outplacement

31 August 2026 · 15 min read · Kylie Hammond

I have worked across executive recruitment, human resources and career management for more than 20 years, and during that time I have watched an enormous amount change in the way organisations hire, restructure and manage senior talent.

Executive search has changed. Technology has changed. The way boards appoint CEOs and senior executives has changed. LinkedIn has completely altered how people are identified and researched. AI is now changing recruitment again, probably more dramatically than anything I have seen previously.

Yet there is one part of the market that, in my view, has barely moved with the times.

Executive outplacement.

Of all the professional services surrounding the employment lifecycle, executive outplacement remains one of the most lacklustre.

I can say that with some conviction because I see what happens at the other end of these programs. I am regularly contacted by very senior executives who have been through an outplacement program, sometimes with one of the largest and best-known providers in the market, and are still unemployed six, nine or even 12 months later.

These aren’t unsuccessful people. Quite the opposite. Many have held significant C-suite and executive director positions, managed large teams, carried substantial P&L responsibility and built successful careers over 20 or 30 years. Some have been earning several hundred thousand dollars a year and, at the upper end, seven-figure remuneration packages.

They have done the assessments. They have rewritten the CV. They have updated LinkedIn. They have reflected on their strengths, values and purpose. They have attended the workshops. They have thought about what they want from the next chapter of their career.

And yet they still don’t have a job.

Eventually, they arrive at my door and say some version of the same thing:

“I’ve done everything they told me to do. Nothing is happening.”

That is the problem.

At senior executive level, activity is not the same thing as progress. You can be incredibly busy applying for roles, meeting career coaches, adjusting your CV, posting on LinkedIn and having coffees with former colleagues without actually getting any closer to securing meaningful employment.

There is a world of difference between helping someone prepare to enter the employment market and actually helping them engage with it.

If an executive finishes an outplacement program with a better CV but no meaningful access to the market, what exactly have we achieved?

Australia is entering another period of workforce restructuring

This matters particularly now because the Australian employment market is shifting again.

The headlines are already telling part of the story.

KPMG Australia announced in August that it would cut 27 partners and approximately 360 employees, around 5 percent of its Australian workforce. Chief executive John Sams pointed to continued economic weakness and difficult market conditions and said the firm expected those conditions to continue into FY27 and beyond. He also acknowledged the rapidly changing professional services landscape as AI reshapes the way services are delivered.

Telstra has also been working through substantial workforce change. Earlier this year, proposed changes across its enterprise and consumer operations, together with its Accenture joint venture, put hundreds of positions at risk as the organisation sought to reduce complexity, improve efficiency and increase its use of AI and offshore capability.

Coles has confirmed that its partnership with Accenture will involve some redundancies, redeployment, and retraining as technology changes how the retailer operates. Its explanation is instructive: “technology reshapes how customers shop and what they expect from retailers.”

SunRice has also confirmed the loss of 78 positions across southern New South Wales, with another 92 roles changing as it restructures operations in response to reduced crop volumes and changing operating conditions.

These are very different businesses, in very different sectors, facing very different circumstances. I don’t think it is useful to bundle every redundancy announcement together and declare some kind of corporate crisis.

But beneath them lies a broader reality that HR leaders, executives, and boards need to acknowledge.

Organisations are becoming leaner. Technology and AI are changing workforce structures. Consulting and professional services models are changing. Capital is being scrutinised more carefully. Executive structures are being challenged.

Businesses are asking whether work can be automated, consolidated, outsourced or performed differently. Boards are looking much more carefully at organisational structures and costs. Investors are asking harder questions about productivity. Technology programs that once sat on the periphery of workforce planning are increasingly becoming central to it.

This isn’t simply about replacing people with technology. It is about organisations reconsidering how work itself gets done, what capabilities they need internally, what they can source externally and how many layers of management they actually require.

That inevitably flows through to leadership structures.

And when organisations restructure, senior executives are not immune.

In fact, they can be among the hardest people to reposition once they leave.

The higher you climb, the narrower the market becomes

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about senior executive career transition that I have encountered repeatedly throughout my career.

People assume that because somebody has been a CEO, CFO, CIO, COO, or senior executive earning a substantial salary, they will find another position relatively easily.

After all, they are accomplished. They have networks. They have an impressive CV. They have probably been approached by headhunters throughout their career. Surely somebody of that calibre will simply be picked up by another organisation.

Often the opposite is true.

The higher you climb, the narrower the market becomes.

There are fewer suitable positions. The recruitment processes are longer. Board involvement is greater. Executive search firms are often involved. Remuneration becomes more complicated. Cultural fit is scrutinised much more carefully. References and reputation carry enormous weight. Internal candidates compete with external candidates, and sometimes an executive can spend months in a process only for the organisation to appoint somebody it already employs.

At the most senior levels, there may only be a relatively small number of organisations in Australia where a particular executive’s experience, remuneration expectations, location, industry background and leadership profile genuinely line up.

And many of the best opportunities are never advertised in the first place.

A CEO appointment can take months to conclude. There can be multiple interviews, board presentations, psychometric assessments, referencing, remuneration negotiations and due diligence before an appointment is finally made.

So telling a displaced CEO to polish their LinkedIn profile, apply for advertised roles and “network more” is nowhere near enough.

This isn’t a graduate career transition.

It is a sophisticated market-entry problem, and it needs to be treated as one.

The higher the executive, the less useful a one-size-fits-all outplacement model becomes.

The CV is not the strategy

Another problem is emerging very quickly, and I think the outplacement industry has been too slow to respond to it. The recruitment market itself has changed. AI-assisted recruitment, automated screening, applicant tracking systems, LinkedIn algorithms and enormous increases in application volumes have fundamentally changed how candidates are discovered, screened and assessed.

I have worked with resumes and executive positioning for decades. Of course I believe these things matter. The quality of an executive’s CV, LinkedIn profile, biography and value proposition can make an enormous difference.

But we need to stop pretending that producing those documents is, in itself, a job-search strategy. A beautifully written CV can still disappear into a black hole.

An executive can be an outstanding candidate and never reach the human decision-maker. They can apply for a position that appears perfectly aligned and receive an automated rejection without ever having been considered by the person actually making the appointment.

This is increasingly one of the great frustrations of modern recruitment.

It is also why I believe too much traditional outplacement remains focused on the artefacts of job search rather than the mechanics of actually getting hired.

Yes, the CV matters. LinkedIn matters. Personal branding matters.

But they are tools. They need to support the strategy rather than become the strategy.

The real work is understanding precisely where that executive fits into the market, who needs to know about them, which businesses are likely to need their capability, which search firms and decision-makers matter, where their existing network can create leverage, and what alternative commercial opportunities can keep them active while the right permanent appointment develops.

It also means being prepared to tell an executive when their positioning isn’t working.

Sometimes the role they think they should pursue isn’t the role the market is going to give them. Sometimes their remuneration expectations need recalibration. Sometimes their industry positioning is too narrow. Sometimes they have been presenting themselves in exactly the same way for 15 years while the market around them has completely changed.

Those can be difficult conversations. But good career advice isn’t about telling somebody what they want to hear. It is about helping them understand the market they are actually operating in. That requires market intelligence and real introductions, not simply career coaching.

Stop searching for one job. Build a career portfolio.

This is where I believe executive outplacement needs to fundamentally change.

When a senior executive leaves an organisation, I don’t necessarily think the first question should be:

“What job do you want next?”

A better question is:

“What should your career look like over the next three to five years?”

That sounds like a relatively small distinction, but it opens a completely different conversation.

For somebody who has spent 20 or 30 years moving from one full-time executive position to another, redundancy can be the first time they have genuinely stopped and considered whether the traditional employment model is still the right one for the next stage of their career.

The next chapter might absolutely include another CEO or C-suite appointment.

But it might also include an interim executive assignment, a fractional leadership role, consulting work, a paid advisory appointment, mentoring, a non-executive directorship, investment activity or some combination of all of them.

That is a career portfolio.

And increasingly, I believe this is how experienced executives should think about their careers.

It is not about giving up on securing the major executive appointment. It is about broadening the commercial strategy around it.

If somebody has spent decades building deep expertise, relationships, judgement and industry knowledge, there may be multiple markets for that capability. The traditional permanent employment market is only one of them.

A senior executive leaving a $300,000 role shouldn’t assume the only acceptable outcome is finding an equivalent position. There may be several different ways to rebuild that income, influence and professional momentum.

That shift in thinking can be enormously powerful.

It doesn’t mean lowering your sights or abandoning the ambition to secure another substantial executive appointment. It means recognising that a senior career doesn’t necessarily have to be built around one employer, one title and one source of income.

For an experienced executive, the next chapter might ultimately combine a significant executive role with a board appointment. Or it might involve an interim assignment, advisory work, or a fractional role while the right permanent opportunity develops. In some cases, that portfolio becomes more interesting and commercially rewarding than simply replacing the job that was lost.

It also removes some of the desperation that inevitably creeps into a prolonged executive job search.

Anyone who has been unemployed for an extended period knows what happens psychologically. At the beginning, there is usually optimism. Then there is frustration. Then people start questioning themselves. They begin applying for positions they wouldn’t previously have considered. They become increasingly anxious about every recruitment process because too much is riding on each opportunity.

That is not a particularly good position from which to interview for a major leadership role.

Creating multiple pathways changes the dynamic.

You are no longer sitting at home waiting for somebody to decide whether you are employable. You are working, meeting people, contributing, building relationships, and remaining visible in the market.

That matters enormously.

Keeping executives commercially active matters

I worked recently with a very senior C-suite executive who was struggling to land the right CEO appointment. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the candidate. The problem was the market.

CEO recruitment processes are long. Some involve major executive search firms, extensive referencing, multiple board interviews, assessments and lengthy negotiations. Even when an executive is performing extremely well through the process, there can be weeks between stages.

You cannot force those processes to move faster.

So we changed the strategy.

Rather than simply waiting for the CEO position, we worked on securing advisory opportunities in the interim.

That mattered far more than simply giving him something to put on his CV.

It kept him commercially engaged. It expanded his network. It gave him current work to discuss. It created some income. It maintained confidence. It put him into conversations with business owners, directors and other executives that would not otherwise have occurred.

Frankly, it also helped keep him sane.

Then the larger opportunity landed.

This is exactly why I don’t believe successful executive outplacement should be measured solely by whether somebody has secured another permanent job.

There should be milestones along the way.

Are they meeting decision-makers? Are they getting into executive search processes? Are they being introduced to boards, CEOs, founders, and investors? Are they generating interim opportunities? Are they building commercial relevance? Is the market responding differently to them than it was 30 or 60 days ago?

Most importantly, is momentum increasing?

Those are meaningful measures because they tell us whether the strategy is actually working.

100 days should matter

I don’t believe senior executives should be casually told that finding their next role might take a year.

Sometimes it does.

There are economic cycles, industry conditions, and individual circumstances that no adviser can control. Anyone promising that every senior executive will have the perfect new job within a particular number of days isn’t being realistic about how the senior employment market works.

But that cannot become an excuse for a passive service model either.

My view is that the first 100 to 120 days following an executive exit are critically important.

That period should be active.

There should be a market strategy. Target organisations should be identified. Executive search relationships should be activated. Networks should be mapped. Introductions should be happening. Interim and advisory opportunities should be explored. The executive’s positioning should be tested against real market feedback.

There should be a sense that something is moving.

If an executive has spent 90 days following a strategy and there is virtually no response from the market, that is information.

Something needs to change.

Maybe the positioning is wrong. Maybe the target market is too narrow. Maybe the CV isn’t communicating the right proposition. Maybe the executive is relying too heavily on advertised positions. Maybe they aren’t talking to the right people.

Whatever the problem is, identify it and deal with it.

Don’t wait another six months.

Outplacement should create momentum. Not homework.

There is another side to this: the employer’s reputation

For HR Directors, Chief People Officers, CEOs and boards, executive outplacement is not simply an employee benefit tucked into a termination package.

It is part of how an organisation exits its leaders.

And people remember how organisations behave when things become difficult.

A senior executive may have spent five, ten or 15 years building a business before suddenly finding themselves outside it. They may have worked extraordinary hours, travelled extensively, relocated their family, managed crises and carried significant responsibility for the organisation.

Then one day the structure changes.

Their role may have disappeared through restructuring, a merger, a change of strategy, a new CEO or simply because the organisation requires something different.

That does not make them a failed executive.

It means a chapter has ended.

How that chapter is closed matters.

When announcing KPMG Australia’s latest restructuring, chief executive John Sams said the firm’s immediate focus was on treating affected people with “care, dignity and respect” and providing practical support.

I would take that one step further.

Dignity is not simply how somebody is told they have lost their job. It is what practical support you give them afterward.

There is little point in delivering a beautifully handled termination meeting, paying for a premium outplacement package, and then discovering nine months later that the executive is still unemployed and feels abandoned by both the provider and their former employer.

For organisations, particularly those dealing with senior leadership departures, this should be viewed as part of reputation management.

A high-quality executive outplacement program protects the departing executive.

But it also protects the employer.

Former executives become alumni, referees, customers, suppliers, investors, directors and sometimes future employees. They talk to recruiters. They talk to other CEOs. They talk to board members. They talk to prospective employees.

Australia is a relatively small senior business community.

People talk.

A poorly managed executive departure can do reputational damage long after the redundancy payment has cleared.

A well-managed departure can do the opposite.

I have seen executives remain extremely positive about organisations that have made their roles redundant because they felt they were treated properly. They understood the commercial decision, they were treated with respect, and they received meaningful help to move forward.

That is what good offboarding should look like.

This is why I have launched Executive Outplacement

After years of seeing senior executives come to me after traditional outplacement programs have failed to generate results, I decided there needed to be another model.

So I have launched Executive Outplacement, a Kylie Hammond service specifically designed for mid-to-senior executives, C-suite leaders, and executive directors navigating significant career transitions.

The difference is fairly simple.

I personally work with the executive.

For me, that is important.

The objective isn’t to put somebody through a program, complete a predetermined number of coaching sessions, and graduate them at the other end.

The objective is to get them moving again.

That means understanding their real market value, recalibrating their positioning where necessary, developing the right career strategy, accessing my networks, engaging with executive search, identifying target organisations, creating introductions and exploring permanent, interim, fractional, advisory and board opportunities.

It means looking at the whole person and the whole career, rather than simply trying to replace the job they have just lost with an identical one.

It also means being commercially realistic.

If the major executive appointment is going to take six months, what can we achieve in the meantime? Can we secure an advisory board appointment? Is there a consulting engagement? Could an interim assignment open another door? Is there a board opportunity? Who should this person know who they currently don’t know?

These are practical questions.

The service includes the things you would expect, such as getting the CV, cover letter, LinkedIn profile, and executive positioning right for the contemporary market. But that is really the starting point.

The work then moves into the market itself: introductions to executive search firms, access to the unadvertised market, private introductions to chairs, non-executive directors and C-suite executives, and identifying opportunities that may never appear on a job board.

And I work with clients through to conclusion.

Because ultimately, that is the point.

Not completing an outplacement program.

Getting back into meaningful work.

We need to expect more from executive outplacement

The Australian employment market is changing quickly. AI is changing recruitment. Organisations are restructuring. Roles are disappearing and being redesigned. Executive search processes remain lengthy. Portfolio careers are becoming more relevant.

I suspect the next few years will force us to rethink quite a lot about what an executive career actually looks like. The old model of climbing the corporate ladder, reaching the C-suite and moving neatly from one large permanent role to the next is not disappearing. But it is no longer the only model. For many executives, the future will be messier and potentially much more interesting.

There may be periods of permanent employment combined with board work. There may be fractional roles between major appointments. There may be advisory work, investment activity, consulting and mentoring sitting alongside traditional executive leadership.

Outplacement needs to catch up with that reality.

Against that backdrop, giving a displaced senior executive a generic career program and sending them into the advertised job market is simply not enough. We can do better. And organisations paying for executive outplacement should expect better.

If you are an HR Director, Chief People Officer, CEO or board member reviewing executive outplacement arrangements ahead of a restructure, I would be very happy to discuss what a genuinely hands-on senior executive service can look like.

And if you are a senior executive who has already been through outplacement and you’re still struggling to gain traction, you’re welcome to have a confidential conversation with me.

Sometimes the problem isn’t your capability.

Sometimes the strategy simply isn’t working.

And if it isn’t working, it’s time to change it.

How Kylie can help