In the game of football, perspective is important. That is where the leader of the team — the head coach on the sidelines – has a headset so he can communicate with colleagues high above the field in the press box. They have a different perspective than he does as to what’s happening on the field so they can see things he cannot see on the sidelines.
In bigger stadiums the press box affords coaches many amenities, complimentary food and nice restrooms. They also have improved perspective because they can be 400 or 500 feet above the stadium. In smaller stadiums the press box is much less lavish, some not much bigger than a walk-in closet. The coaches that frequent these more primitive facilities do not have the same height advantage because often they are less than one hundred feet up. They have headsets and two-way communication but because the stadium is so much smaller they could probably yell at their colleagues working the sidelines.
I share these observations because there are some interesting comparisons with the leadership of business and career management.
Running a small business, I would argue, can be much tougher than guiding a large corporation. Ample resources and support infrastructure can significantly improve an executive’s ability to have access to sufficient data and perspective to make the right decisions. Smaller companies, especially start-ups, have fewer people to rely on, they may have access to data but small mistakes in interpretation can, and probably will, crash to the organization’s bottom line.
Adequate resources, seasoned talent, and the ability to see the playing field more clearly — good perspective — all improve the chances for continued success, or at least more wins than losses, assuming the right supporting team members are in place.
Executives in a job search are much like the coaches on the sidelines, they see and hear but they do not always have the benefit that perspective brings from being on high and watching the interview unfold. Because they lack this type of perspective, many miss scoring opportunities with their answers.
Here is a good example. A bright, well pressed executive showed up for an interview. He spoke well but when asked how he would approach dealing with a potential employer’s reputation for having a silo-ed culture with ongoing battles over turf, and people and technology that did not talk to one another, he struggled with an answer. It was as if he had no real experience with dysfunction except that, in fact, he was coming from a company with similar characteristics.
The CEO who was leading the recruiting had charged his search team to find executives with the experience, insight and desire to change the culture by tearing down silos and promoting improved communications — people and technology. This would be a major rebuilding campaign and he wanted his core hires to have a strong appreciation for a better way to organize and operate the business. The reason this candidate was in the market was because he was exhausted by his current employer’s toxic cultural with ever intensifying turf battles.
Our well turned out candidate fit the selection criteria bill in many ways but because he was not adequately prepared for the interview, because he failed to do his homework about the company he was interviewing with, he missed the boat, along with an officers title and a nice 20 percent boost in base salary. If only his career coach high above the interview room had whispered in his headset to emphasize his experience in dealing with this kind of infected workplace.
Preparation is the friend of good perspective and is essential for improved performance. If the otherwise impressive candidate had done research he would have known what the recruiters were really looking for and could have hit the ball out of the park with his answer – that he had a deep understanding of the problems in such a dysfunctional company because for the past 5 years he had lived in that dysfunction. He thought that if there were issues he should be aware of that he would be told.
The harried recruiter assigned by HR to find candidates did not make the CEO’s focus crystal clear and in the end, there was missed opportunity.
© 2017 John Gregory Self
How do you hire? What characteristics do you look for to ensure this new addition to your team will deliver important value to the organization? How do you avoid employing the wrong person?
There is no magic formula, no certain mathematical algorithm. There are some best practices but, in the end, the “how you hire process” must be built around the type of company you run and the culture you attempt to sustain. Are there psychologist/recruiters who argue they can make determinations by reviewing “test” results? Absolutely, and fortunately they are in the minority.
The type of company you operate is an important consideration for the type of hiring process you employ. A company whose lifeblood and revenue is tied to the creative process requires individuals with certain skills and attitudes. People who are reluctant to change or who require large amounts of data before they stop digging in their heels — both easily diagnosable dimensions on any of a number of DISC or other behavior and values profiles — would not be someone you would want to employ. But to get to the core of who a candidate really is, you still have to spend the time to get to know them. Some candidates who might “naturally” resist change can do well in an environment of change if they have adapted that behavior. That is why you risk eliminating an otherwise exceptionally qualified individual if you base your decisions on an easy to complete behavior profile or analytic tests that some firms utilize.
One of the great joys of my job as a partner in an executive search firm is to invest the time to learn a client’s operational and organizational culture. That cannot be done over the telephone, or in a one day site visit. You have to take the time to listen, over several days to a week.
We do also obtain DISC profiles from colleagues and the future direct reports, but these are just tools to help us in developing a panel of potential recommended candidates. It is not used on its own, but as one part of the big picture. This information is also integral to our onboarding process which is incorporated into every search we undertake.
Once we have the cultural information, along with the selection criteria, performance deliverables, and ideal characteristics profile from our site visit, we begin to construct a screening questionnaire, as well as questions for the more comprehensive 3-hour face-to-face interview with the partner.
Based on my earlier example of a company that is in a highly creative sector, we would craft questions based on the candidate’s feelings about change, their ability to analyze situations and develop solutions as well as propose creative strategies. Most of these questions require a candidate to provide a walk-through overview of their approach and process as well as examples of their conclusions or creative expression. It is easy for a candidate to say, “I did this or that” and try to move on to the next question, sans detail. Our job is to dig into the detail, to authenticate the accomplishment.
Over more than 20 years of executive search, with a three-year placement guarantee, we have found that our screening system, anchored in the behavior and values approach to interviewing, is amazingly accurate. We have only a handful of candidates who have not excelled and remained at least three years.
The secret to hiring well? Not relying too much on any one tool to make decisions, but instead leveraging multiple tools available to create a big picture view of each candidate.
© 2017 John Gregory Self
Today I want to share a soup-to-nuts summary of the executive recruiting process as well as highlight some common misunderstandings.
Along the way I will probably share some information on the search process you have not heard before.
Let’s begin with the biggest misunderstanding in the search process, and it is very understandable one — if you are a candidates the process is not about you. It is all about the recruiter or search firm who is working to meet the needs of the client.
I once remember being frustrated when I was not selected for an executive position. The search firm never called me to provide an update but one day I received a letter telling me I had not been selected. This was at least a month after I assumed the search had ended. I was very busy at the time and participating in that search, at least from my perspective, was a big imposition on my time. When I was not selected I remember thinking: well if they weren’t interested in me, then why did they bother calling me in the first place! Clearly I did not understand that the whole of the recruiting process revolves around helping the client find the right match, not me or my now bruised ego.
Secondly, most people do not think about the amount of time it takes to complete a search. When you are out of work and earnestly — anxiously — seeking employment, the search process will not move as a fast as you want it to – ever! Recruiters should provide qualified candidates a project timeline at the outset, but few do. I am not sure why — the candidates are an important asset to the process and are worthy of respect — but that is just how some organizations operate.
If you are involved in a search for a senior level executive, the candidate sourcing phase could take up to 30 to 45 days. If you are early to the party, you will have to wait the longest. Now, if you are provided a schedule then you will know the deadline for making decisions concerning which candidates will advance. If you are not provided a schedule, you have the right to ask for that information.
The information on a particular position that recruiters and search firms share with candidates varies widely. The average “position description” is about 12 pages with narrow margins and generous spacing between the lines. Primarily candidates are provided a narrative of the selection criteria as well as a brief overview of the position and the hospital.
With a 12-page summary, much of the necessary research for the position is going to fall to the candidate.
Pursuing a position based on 12 pages can be risky since many search firms, as well as internal recruiters, do not address the organization’s culture, the performance deliverables or the obstacles to success. It would seem that clients only want the candidates to hear positive things about their organization. That’s too bad since ever organization, from the Mayo Clinic to the remote cowtown community hospital, have their good, their bad and their ugly.
Not providing full disclosure to candidates is but one reason the turnover of candidates recruited externally is so high. So if you have questions that were not addressed in the job overview, it is perfectly ok to ask questions … with this caveat: there are some recruiters who see candidates who ask a lot of questions as high maintenance. High maintenance candidates take more time and to some, they pose more risks, and for recruiters who are notoriously risk-adverse, these candidates may be moved to the “bubble” for possible elimination.
If an external search firm is coordinating the search, there is another important question you should ask: how long is your placement guarantee? Contingency recruiters would just as soon not offer any guarantees given the nature of their business model, but most will offer up between 90 to 180-days. Executive search firms, including the global giants and industry specialists, typically offer a 12-month guarantee.
Why should you care?
The shorter the guarantee the less risk a firm has. If they are not comfortable with the concept of complete transparency in their disclosures to the candidates, the one-year pledge is actually no guarantee at all.
Consider this: fifty percent of externally recruited candidates usually leave within two years, according to search industry research. In 2009, Heidrick and Struggles disclosed that more than 40 percent of their placements were fired or left within 20 months.
Ask about the firm’s “stick rate” — the average tenure of a placement at your level in the organization. You may also want to know if the firm has recruited other executives to the organization you are considering, ask about their status.
We offer our candidates detailed information on each client we represent. We cover all facets of the position. We detail the organization’s cultural profile. We list the performance deliverables as well as the challenges that the candidate must overcome in order to be seen as successful. We specifically ask our clients to define what success will look like at the end of the first year.
So here is the big takeaway: the longer the placement guarantee the more likely it is that the search firm has done ample due diligence to protect their financial interests.
Lack of communication between recruiters and candidates during the recruitment and screening process is the source of most of the candidate complaints about the search process.
Candidates call it the dark hole and they hate being left there.
While communication in a search, given the number of candidates in the process, can be challenging, we as an industry need to step up and realize this is really not about our convenience but respect for the candidates.
Now, let’s spend a few minutes with the search process.
In terms of the actual screening process, no two search firms are alike.
Some rely heavily on candidates they source themselves, and pay less attention to those who might submit but are not known to the firm.
There are also firms that deploy extensive psychological testing, online and in-person, to identify the candidates who will be the best fit for their client’s organization.
Other firms require candidates to fill in detailed professional and personal profile forms, and write mini-essays on their leadership style, or even how they would approach a client-specific issue.
Most firms, including those with special features like those I just mentioned, conduct two or three interviews with targeted candidates before they are submitted.
In our case, we use two or three screening interviews along with a DiSC profile from each candidate that we will match against the cultural profile we developed from our client. The first interview is typically conducted on the telephone. If you are selected to advance, you will meet the engagement partner for a 3+-hour interview in which a portion will be videotaped and presented to the client as part of our overall dossier.
In this age of technology, some firms are forgoing the face-to-face interviews in favor of videoconference meetings between the partner and the candidate. They say it saves time and money. Ok, I get it – we need to be sensitive to client expenses. But not at the expense of obtaining a complete assessment of a candidate’s substance and that is something, I believe, you cannot obtain by looking at someone on a computer or big screen tv.
Let’s talk about references. Most firms will also conduct reference checks prior to you being submitted for client consideration. While the industry standard has been for the candidate to provide three references, we recommend four — one or two superiors, people you have worked for in the past, one or two colleagues, peers you have worked with in recent past and at least one subordinate, an individual you have previously supervised.
Increasingly, firms are now conducting background checks on candidates they plan to submit to the client. We use outside investigators which requires that candidates sign a special release under the fair credit reporting act of 1998, as amended. Even if they are not checking a candidate’s credit, the requirements and protections of this law come into play.
So why would a recruiter want to review your credit profile? What investigators are typically looking for are patterns of inappropriate behavior or evidence of prior fraud or judgments from inappropriate business ventures. In essence, what they want to know is if there is something in a candidate’s background that, if disclosed publicly, would prevent them from discharging their duties or would harm the reputation of the employer.
In my more than 22 years of executive recruiting, I have encountered only a small handful of situations from a credit report that precluded a candidates from advancing. By law, we cannot show the client this report. We can only report serious adverse findings.
The search process can be a frustrating ordeal for candidates, even when all the trains are running on time.
If the firm cannot provide you information on the project timeline, or if there big gaps in what they do not know about their client, that is a red flag that you must seriously consider. You do not want to accept a position that turns into a career train wreck that seriously damages your brand.
Finally, as a candidate, you must remember that regardless of your relationship with the recruiter, internally or with the firm, they are not your representative or your career coach. They represent the client. The honest souls who practice this craft do an amazing job of balancing the needs of their clients with the needs of the candidate, but in the end, you must keep your own counsel when it comes to negotiations.
Less you think I am being too tough on my brethren, please know that I love my profession just as so many of my colleagues do. We know that our work can help a client be more successful, or can cause great harm.
We also know that when you recruit an executive to move to a new job — across town or across the country — that is serious business. So much rides on these types of decisions, from the happiness and the well-being of an executive’s family to the success of their new company.
© 2017 John Gregory Self