The Talent Work Doesn’t Stop After Year One. So How Do You Sustain It?

The pressure on talent in private equity isn’t new. What’s changing fast is the cost of underestimating it.

Every year, the Private Equity International Operating Partners Human Capital Forum offers a reliable read on the industry’s center of gravity. This year, it had clearly shifted, not toward talent as a priority, but toward talent as a pressure point.

Firms that treat talent as central to value creation are pulling ahead of the pack.

A couple of related themes ran through the conference at large:

• AI came up in nearly every session, though rarely as a standalone technology discussion. The more interesting conversation was about its impact on leadership, and how firms, and the executives inside their portfolio companies, need to think and operate differently as the ground shifts beneath them.
• Pace also threaded through everything. The rate of change is getting faster every day, and adaptability – in talent partners, in operating partners, and in the executives they put in place – is no longer optional.

Against this backdrop, our team hosted a panel that zeroed in on a more specific question: Once you have the right leaders in place, how do you stay close to them, and stay ahead of problems, for the full duration of the hold?

I was joined by Katie Czerepak, Operating Partner and Head of Talent at Bain Capital; Merche del Valle, Chief Talent Officer at Kingswood Capital Management; and Maggie van de Griend, Managing Director of Portfolio Talent at Warburg Pincus.

Three critical themes shaped our conversation:

1. Maintaining Visibility on Leadership Over Time

One of the themes that came through most clearly in our discussion: the value of regular, structured CEO reviews conducted by the full Board.

When Boards build consistent review cadences with their CEOs, with ongoing input from the talent partner, the benefits compound over time. Small issues get surfaced early, when there’s still room to course-correct. Strengths get recognized and reinforced. And the relationship between the CEO and the Board stays grounded in a shared understanding of what’s working and what needs attention.

That kind of rhythm also changes the nature of leadership transitions when they do happen. Because those conversations are often exactly the right call at the right moment, and when they’re informed by a steady stream of context rather than a sudden concern, firms have the runway to conduct a thoughtful search and land the right leader. The result is a transition that happens on the firm’s terms, with a clear brief and a strong pool of candidates.

2. Assessments Need to Go Below the C-Suite – And the Bar Is Changing

A second theme that surfaced: the growing focus on leadership one level below the C-suite.

Historically, many firms concentrated their assessment efforts on the C-suite alone. In many cases, we are seeing assessments expanding to the individuals one layer below, who are often the difference between a thesis that works and one that quietly stalls.

Expanding assessments to this group earlier in the hold gives firms a clearer picture of where the organization is strong and where it isn’t. It also changes the nature of hiring when gaps do emerge: instead of reacting to a vacancy, firms are operating with a defined sense of what the role requires and why it matters to the thesis.

But it’s not just a question of who gets assessed. What firms are looking for in those assessments is evolving, too.

Alongside functional expertise, there’s growing emphasis on intellectual curiosity, adaptability, and the ability to lead through sustained ambiguity – qualities that matter in any environment, but are especially predictive right now, as AI reshapes how organizations operate and how leaders need to show up.

That’s why AI fluency has moved from a bonus attribute to an active screening criterion in the searches we’re running. It’s not evaluated in isolation; it shows up as an extension of how a leader learns, adapts, and thinks about the future of their function. Firms that bake this into their assessment frameworks now, rather than retrofitting it later, will be better positioned for every leadership transition ahead.

3. The Power of Alignment: Talent Partner, Deal Partner, Operating Partner, CEO

Across our panel discussion, one model consistently stood out: strong, ongoing alignment between the talent partner, the deal team, the operating partner, and the CEO.

When those voices are aligned and communicating consistently, talent issues surface before they widen into gaps. And when a leadership search does need to happen, the brief is sharper because everyone involved has a shared understanding of what the business needs and where it’s headed.

One point that stayed with me: physical proximity matters more than we think when it comes to this alignment.

Being in the office with the deal team creates the kind of informal, hallway-level conversations about talent that simply don’t happen on scheduled calls. The quick check-in after a board meeting. The unscheduled moment where someone says, “I’m a little worried about the VP of ops.” Those interactions often shape the quality of decisions more than any single formal process.

For talent partners working to establish themselves as strategic voices in the investment process, those moments are where trust gets built, and where the best firms catch issues before they become emergencies.

Why This Matters Now

Hold periods are longer than they’ve ever been. CEO tenures are shorter. And the margin for error on leadership decisions is narrowing as value creation becomes more dependent on operational execution than financial engineering.

The talent partners earning real credibility with their investment teams right now aren’t waiting to be asked. They’re connecting every talent decision to a business outcome: tying compensation to growth targets, setting retention benchmarks well before an exit, building leadership pipelines around specific milestones. They’re showing up as investors in the work, not just supporters of it.

The question is no longer whether your firm believes talent drives returns. It’s whether you’ve built the infrastructure to prove it, year after year, through every phase of the hold.