Head-hunters & the Extraordinary!

Ian is an exceptionally reliable employee. In 15 years he has never had a day off sick, nor has he ever been late. As a result he is trusted with the most essential operational responsibilities at the bank he works for - including opening the branch each morning. The bank as a result has never opened late. However, this morning his wife suffered a stroke and he not only was late for work but didn't come to work at all and so 40 employees were locked out until 10am when the Regional Director could be found to join the second key holder to open the branch. No manner of data crunching, predictive analysis or planning based on past performance could have accounted for this event. The situation was unexpected as their prediction of the reliability of Ian was based entirely on his past performance and certainly did not take in to account his wife’s health or personal circumstances.

Such a situation is described as “out of sample” a circumstance that is out of kilter with any previous behaviours or recorded data and this simple (made up) example above highlights how easily business can fall in to the trap of assuming that historic data can be used to predict reliably future performance. Or indeed how Economists can over state future performance at a macro scale using historic data. The overwhelming challenge of headhunting is that we are frequently tackling “out of sample” events. A candidate could be the most reliable person and then on the day of the interview arrive late; or they might be the most proficient public speaker in their market – yet on the day of the final presentation to the interview panel they make some shocking errors; or, put quite simply, like so many of us humans they simply “err”.

How we tackle such circumstances marks out the professional head-hunter from the “transactional” recruiter – our goal is to develop long term trusted relationships between both candidates and clients that result in placements with impact and a client relationship that is sustainable. I am not suggesting other forms of recruitment are not driven by such objectives however the main goal is not just the placement of a candidate by any means. Indeed, occasionally we have to take decisions that might seem a poor economic choice to make in the short term but we do so for the long term good of the relationship with the client – we are paid as consultants to advise on a business challenge (that results in an appointment we hope) not just fill a vacancy.

I would be curious to hear of other peoples “out of sample” events and how we can protect against them?

The World of Head-hunting Has Changed

I have blogged before on the increasing demands of candidates in the face of the new war for talent – how the power has shifted from fast economic growth and the matching dearth of candidates, to fractured markets and the emergence of numerous new niches creating talent gaps.  Wise companies recognise that these VUCA times require them to work harder to identify and secure the very best talent but that they also need to pay attention to retaining the very best people & how to drive the highest levels of productivity from them. In order to know who to retain you have to assess first who your most talented people are, check they are in the right roles, qualify their skills, get to know them deeply and then match the long term opportunity to that person.

Historically Head-hunters have not seen this as their business, rather they have stuck doggedly to their core offering, however in the mid noughties, partly in response to the declining economic outlook they started to search around for additional revenue streams and focussed in on broadening their offer (see here) now ten years later the focus is starting to pay off. As a recent article in The Economist highlights:

Gary Burnison, Korn Ferry’s boss, says he sees his firm as a McKinsey for “talent strategy”, combining traditional headhunting with such things as coaching managers, succession planning, and analysing and improving corporate culture. Korn Ferry now gets just over half of its revenues from executive search, down from 90% a decade ago. (Source)

Gary Browning, our CEO at Penna welcomes this shift

“VUCA times and the “Black Swan” events ( highly unpredictable, disruptive and consequential) they generate,  require a new more holistic  approach to Talent Strategies – it is encouraging to see that firms like Korn Ferry are waking up  to this realisation. At Penna we have taken a full talent approach to our client work for over a decade and believe that there has never been a more appropriate time to ensure that organisations attract the right talent for the role, the context and the moment, ensuring that the person is supported and engaged throughout the early days and into their career”

We believe that this not only guarantees a better outcome for everyone it also helps us to build a strong, more stable business.  It also means we can manage complex delivery, for example I recently managed a campaign for a Networks business that required a new CEO and at the same time to hire ten senior members to the newly defined team. To maximise the market profile they also wanted us to advertise the positions. As a result I led a programme of delivery that included creative comms (including website build), the construction of a suite of formal assessment tools, the design of a 90 day coaching programme for the successful CEO, the management of advert respondents and crucially extensive research led Executive Search globally. 

The world of head-hunting has changed and Penna is at the heart of this shift.

How to Secure the Best Candidate at Interview

I spend a vast amount of time interviewing candidates that I approach with opportunities. The key point here is that I "approach them". Generally speaking they are not looking for a job, it is therefore essential they are considered with this in mind. However I think the general approaches that I outline here are the same if you want to secure any preferred candidate. The war for talent is not over, it has instead shifted slightly. Beth Axelrod's book that first popularised this concept was anchored on the fact that economies were booming and the skills base was not keeping up. Now we have shifted to slow growth and/or recession the best candidates are move nervous to move, this is further exaggerated by the fact that there has been a boom in certain niche skill requirements - each creating its own skills gaps. Moreover, no matter what the market conditions there are always a limited number of outstanding candidates.

When you add to this the importance of cultural fit to a business if you find a great person who also has the skills then you need to fight to secure them. As a result the best employers know that you can not interview any candidate with the mindset of "why should I hire you" - chances are they might think of you as arrogant as they don't yet know if they want the job. The interview is a chance for you to sell your company and an opportunity and to attract them. Seems obvious doesn't it? Yet so many companies get this wrong. Candidates are assessing employers too and your attitude and/or interview process tells them a lot about the culture and how you treat people generally. Candidates will steer clear very fast if they test the temperature and find it wanting.

Right from the 1st point of contact you want everything to be positive and welcoming to candidates. Make sure all your correspondence is warm and welcoming and that the people who front your recruitment are positive. An attitude that gives any impression that the business is an unhappy or negative place to be will but people off. When you meet with a candidate for the first time make sure there is a clearly agreed agenda in place with all interviewees. Plan out what you want to achieve and who are the best people to deliver the messages.

Use the recruiter / HRs notes to plan out what the candidate will need to know. A good recruiter should also be able to coach you on the candidates emotional hot buttons - the things personal to them that they will need to know or see. For example, if the candidate is very visual in their thinking prepare a presentation with lots of images and graphs, if they are detailed and analytic get numbers together in a spreadsheet in advance and so forth. The meeting needs to start with an appropriate introduction to the business, the main selling points as if you are pitching to a prospective client. Include the things you are most proud of. Then it should move to more detail of the role, the vision you have for that role if it performs and what you expect of the future. Only after this point should you then move to questioning the candidate and this should be done by check backs "how does this sound to you?", "is this vision aligned to what you want" and then progressively move towards more probing questions such as "help me understand when in your career to date you have solved a similar issue" or "how does that resemble your skills"?

 Assuming you handle this right and get the balance between selling the business and assessing them - then you will have the best candidates willing themselves to do well so they can join your team. But go in under prepared and the very first thing that you say is: "so tell me about yourself and why you would be good in this role" then you will make the candidate double take, draw in a depth breath and flounder because they haven't a clue what you need or indeed if they even want to tell you, resulting in a missed opportunity for you both.

 Sounds simple but it is remarkable how many great candidates I have sent to interview who come back and when I ask if they want the job they say "I don't know".

The Importance of a Sales Excellence in Executive Search

The Executive Search world is diverse, consultants range from the aggressive lone wolf to the highly inclusive and collaborative worker, both can be successful. Which ever the style however, the daily focus for a head-hunter or Executive Search consultant is selling. There is rarely a moment that the consultant is not selling. They need to sell to attract the client commissions and agreement to conduct the search, they need to sell to close the deal, sell the opportunity to prospective candidates, sell to over come client issues after interview, sell while negotiating an offer, sell to the candidate to get them to accept the offer and so forth. Sell, sell, sell, sell & sell. It is more often than not therefore an exhausting process.  Clearly sales ability is a key attribute of a successful Search Consultant however it runs much deeper than this as in addition to these numerous "sales points" the successful consultant will also be handling multiple assignments at various stages at anyone time, plus they need to keep their prospecting live to keep the pipeline going. Add to this the need for healthy marketing - particularly via social media - and the expectation for the consultant be always available via email or phone, then it is amazing that any one in Exec Search makes it as a career!  The reality is that very few people do. In my 18 year career I have seen hundreds of people pass through the profession and only a small percentage of people stay the course and / or develop their careers even further.  Great search consultants are then a rare thing.

The challenge for the Exec Search consultant is further exaggerated by the diversity and range of expertise that they are expected to profess. Clients pay the consultant to sell their organisation to senior candidates as expertly as they would themselves with all the accompanying understanding of the structure of the business, the products that they offer and the structure of the organisation - sometimes this needs to be a global picture too. Further to this we need to be able to turn our hand to markets or companies in certain markets that are exceptionally niche.

So why choose a career in Exec Search?  Well, clearly after eighteen years in the business I am biased but for me there are a number of outstanding features:, the intellectual stimulation - you have to deeply understand quickly a range of diverse roles, companies, industries and countries (much search work is international these days); the roller-coaster, both emotionally and professionally (if you like steady state then Exec Search is not for you); the ability to bring change to an organisation and operate as a peer and lastly the chance to earn well.  All in an exhausting but rewarding combination.

The Self-service Revolution and Customer Engagement

Piggly Wiggly in 1916, under the guidance of the pioneering retailer Clarence Saunders, revolutionised the shopping experience.   By his idea, of not serving each customer by hand but rather individually pricing items, putting them on a shelf and suggesting customers help themselves, he planted the seed that a little under a hundred years later lead to the endless frustration of “unrecognised item in the bagging  area”. During this intervening period retailers, airlines, hotels and even hospitals have adopted the self-serve culture with considerable enthusiasm. Sainsbury’s in the UK for example not only provide self-checkout solutions but also a handheld device to scan items as you walk the shop. But it is possibly the travel industry that has done the most to replace its staff with technology and encourage customers do the work – you can book your trip via an app, print your own boarding pass, scan it at a machine, swipe your own passport at the gate and even (for some airlines) weigh your own luggage and haul it on to the belt yourself. Then at your Hotel you are not met by a human but rather a self-check in screen that issues a card for you to scan at your room for entrance.

The benefits of this “self-serve” revolution for the providers are legion, not at least the reduced wages bill but rather the wholesale farming of customer behavioural data and the ability to track the customer journey from the moment of the first search, “hotel in Paris” though to the return back home; or from the moment the customer searches on-line for that new camera to the moment the take delivery from TNT. For the introvert the self-serve culture could be nirvana, the potential to travel thousands of miles from your home to hotel bed without having to speak to a single fellow human. However, not everyone is pleased by the revolution; Craig Lambert has dubbed this economy as “Shadow Work”:

I define shadow work as all the unpaid jobs we do on behalf of businesses and organizations: We are pumping our own gas, scanning our own groceries, booking our travel and busing our tables at Starbucks. Shadow work is a new concept, so as yet, no one has compiled economic data on how many jobs we, the consumers, have taken over from (erstwhile) employees. Yet it is surely a force shrinking the job market, and the unemployment it creates is structural. Thanks in part to this new phenomenon, widespread joblessness could become entrenched in the social landscape (Source: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/shadow-work-excerpt-118119.html#ixzz3ar4YVS94)

Indeed, Lambert goes even further and suggests that this self-serve economy will lead to the destruction of commerce as we know it:

“Shadow work is squeezing out entry-level jobs that have launched countless careers. These jobs at the base of the economic pyramid pay little but lay the foundation for everything that rises above them—and as with any structure, when the foundation crumbles, the superstructure may collapse as well”

It is however a rather too negative analysis. Most people welcome the benefits that self-service offers. Anyone, who has turned the corner from a corridor at the airport to the large expansive queueing area funnelling hundreds of people through passport control at Heathrow airport and then compared it to the much shorter and fast moving queue to one side for those with e-passports, will know the sense of relief. Or indeed patients who have stood frustrated at the reception of a large hospital not knowing where to go, who to speak to, or how long their wait will be, are considerably comforted once they have engaged with the systems provided by queuing management providers such as Q-Matic. Moreover, these systems not only reduce stress but also increase efficiency within the hospital by flagging metrics such as missed appointments, a constant bug bear for the NHS.

What this rapid process of technical development and self-serve has created, some argue, is a sharp division between economy class customers and those willing, or able, to pay for luxury.  Passengers who fly Virgin Upper Class are met at home by a chauffeur, have their bags carried for them, and a human not technology ushers them through to the plane. It would logically follow then that luxury retailers would spurn technology; however this too is a misleading assumption. Burberry are frequently referenced as the pioneers of Digital in luxury and offer perhaps the best conclusion to why they have adopted it so readily:  “Technology is an intrinsic part of most people’s lives,” believes Christopher Bailey, chief creative officer. “All we’ve done is make sure to weave technology into the fabric of the company”. “This is how customers live,” echoes its (now departed) CEO, Angela Ahrendts. “They wake up with a device in their hand and life begins.”

So “life begins with technology” has become the retailers, travel company and healthcare providers mantra, but it has to be accepted that the more they embedded it in to their customer engagement the more they risk the chance that we will uncouple. Retailers have found people less willing to travel to large impersonal out of town mega-markets, complaints about automated call centres have forced banks to revert to people answering phones and the mini-boom in farmers markets and artisan goods hint at a desire to return to the personal and small scale one to one service. There is no doubt that used correctly technology can improve the customer experience and generate efficiency but we are dangerously close to becoming slaves to the machine.

The Danger of Counter Offers

Counter Offers
Never Accept a CounterofferIt's nice to be wooed, but don't expect to stay long 

Source: The Wall Street Journal. Reprint from the National Business Employment Weekly.By Paul Hawkinson

A tax accountant with a Chicago-based public accounting firm accepted a top corporate position at a local manufacturer that paid $15,000 more than he currently earned.  But the accountant changed his mind after his firm's senior partner made him a counteroffer. The partner dangled a plethora of incentives, including the promise of a partnership in the near future.  Three months later, after the tax season ended, the accountant was fired. A manufacturing manager with a medium-sized metal products company in Albuquerque, NM, accepted a new position that included a higher salary and better benefits.  But he decided to stay put after his company agreed to match the offer and told him of great things on the horizon.  However, he wasn't told that the firm might be merging with another.  Six months after the executive decided to stay, he was merged out of his job.  Following nine months of unemployment, he landed a lower-paying position.

Ask any executive recruiter and you'll hear dozens of heartbreaking stores like these involving counteroffers.  Unfortunately, more executives seem to be getting and accepting them because of the inconsistent economy.  Companies are operating with reduced staffs and any defections from the ranks create problems for those who remain.  It's much easier for employers to sweeten the pot to keep executives from deserting than to conduct grueling and expensive searches for placements.

Mathew Henry, the 17th-century writer said, "Many a dangerous temptation comes to us in fine colors that are but skin deep."  The same can be said for counteroffers, those magnetic enticements designed to lure you back into the nest after you've decided it's time to fly away.  But in good times, or bad, the dictum remains constant.  Counteroffers should never be accepted...EVER!  Those few, rare instances where accepting one is beneficial occur about as frequently as being struck by lightning.

The Right Perspective

A counteroffer is an inducement from your current employer to get you to stay after you've announced your intention to take another job.  It doesn't include instances when you receive an offer but don't tell your boss, or when you tell your employer about an offer you never intended to take in a classic "they-want-me-but-I'm-staying-with-you" ploy. These are merely positioning tactics that can reinforce your worth by letting your boss know you have other options.  Mention of a true counteroffer, however, carries an actual threat to quit.  Interviews with employers who make counteroffers, and employees who accept them, have shown that accepting a counteroffer, tempting as it may be, is tantamount to career suicide.  Consider the problem in its proper perspective.

What really goes through a boss's mind when someone quits?

• "This couldn't be happening at a worse time."
• "He's one of my best people.  If I let him quit now, it'll wreak havoc on the morale of the department."
• "I've already got one opening in my department. I don't need another right now."
• "This will probably screw up the entire vacation schedule."
• "I'm working as hard as I can and I don't need to do his work, too."
• "If I lose another good employee, the company might decide to 'lose' me too."
• "My review is coming up and this will make me look bad."
• "Maybe I can keep him on until I find a suitable replacement."
• "We're working with a skeleton crew already.  If I lose this one, we'll all be working around the clock just to stay even.

What will the boss say to keep you in the nest? These comments are common:

• "I'm really shocked.  I thought you were as happy with us as we are with you.  Let's discuss it before you make your final decision."
• "Aw gee.  I've been meaning to tell you about the great plans we have for you, but it's been confidential until now."
• "The VP has you in mind for some exciting and expanding responsibilities."
• "Your raise was schedule to go into effect next quarter, but we'll make it effective immediately."
• "You're going to work for who?"
• "How can you do this in the middle of a major project?  We were really counting on you."  (They're always in the middle of one.)

Just a Stalling Tactic

Let's face it.  When someone quits, it's a direct reflection on the boss.  Unless you're really incompetent or a destructive thorn in his/her side, the boss might look bad for allowing you to go.  It's an implied insult to his management skills.  His/her gut reaction is to do what has to be done to keep you from leaving until he/she is ready.  That's human nature. Unfortunately, it's also human nature to want to stay, unless your work life is abject misery.  Career change, like all ventures into the unknown, is tough. That's why bosses know they can usually keep you around by pressing the right buttons.  Before you succumb to a tempting counteroffer, consider these universal truths:

• Any situation is suspect if an employee must receive an outside offer before the present employer will suggest a raise, promotion or better working conditions.
• No matter what the company says when making its counteroffer, you'll always be a fidelity risk.  Having once demonstrated your lack of loyalty (for whatever reason), you will lose your status as a team player and your place in the inner circle.
• Counteroffers are usually nothing more than stall devices to give your employer time to replace you.  Your reasons for wanting to leave still exist.  They'll just be slightly more tolerable in the short term because of the raise, promotion or promises made to keep you.
• Counteroffers are only made in response to a threat to quit.  Will you have to solicit an offer and threaten to quit every time you deserve better working conditions?
• By accepting a counteroffer, you have committed the unprofessional and unethical sin of breaking your commitment to the prospective employer making the offer.
• Decent and well-managed companies don't make counteroffers...EVER!  Their policies are fair and equitable.  They will never be subjected to counteroffer coercion, which they perceive as blackmail.

If the urge to accept a counteroffer hits you, keep on cleaning out your desk as you count your blessings.  And, if you decide to stay, hire a lawyer to put your newly won promises in the form of a long-term no-cut contract.

How to conduct an interview to secure the best candidates

I spend a vast amount of time interviewing candidates that I approach with opportunities. The key point here is that I "approach them". Generally speaking they are not looking for a job, it is therefore essential they are considered with this in mind.

However I think the general approaches that I outline here are the same if you want to secure any preferred candidate. The war for talent is not over, the austere times we are in have not changed this. It has instead shifted. Beth Axelrod's book that first popularised this concept was anchored on the fact that economies were booming and the skills base was not keeping up. Now we have shifted to slow growth and/or recession so the war for talent has shifted and the best candidates are move nervous to move. The challenge is further exaggerated by the fact that there has been a boom in the demand for niche skills each creating its own gaps. Moreover, no matter what the market conditions there are always a limited number of outstanding candidates. When you add to this the importance of cultural fit to a business if you find a great person who also has the skills then you need to fight to secure them.

 The best employers know that you can not interview any candidate with the mindset of "why should I hire you", chances are they might think of you as arrogant as they don't yet know if they want the job. The interview is a chance for you to sell your company and an opportunity to attract them. Seems obvious doesn't it? Yet so many companies get this wrong. Candidates are assessing employers too and your attitude and/or interview process tells them a lot about the culture and how you treat people generally. Candidates will steer clear very fast if they test the temperature and find it wanting. Right from the 1st point of contact you want everything to be positive and welcoming to candidates. Make sure all your correspondence is warm and welcoming and that the people who front your recruitment are friendly and positive. An attitude that gives any impression that the business is an unhappy or negative place to be will put people off. I am sure you don't have a surly receptionist but if this is even a slight problem get your best person front of house on interview day.

When you meet with a candidate for the 1st time make sure there is a clearly agreed agenda in place with all interviewees. Plan out what you want to achieve and who are the best people to deliver the messages. Use the recruiter / HR's notes to plan out what the candidate will need to know. A good recruiter should also be able to coach you on the candidate's emotional hot buttons or the things personal to them that they will need to know or see. If the candidate is very visual in their thinking prepare a presentation with lots of images and graphs, if they are detailed and analytic get numbers together in a spreadsheet in advance and so forth. The meeting needs to start with an appropriate introduction to the business, the main selling points - as if you are pitching to a prospective client - include the things you are most proud of.

Then it should move to more detail of the role, the vision you have for that role if it performs and what you expect of the future. Only after this point should you then move to questioning the candidate and this should be done by check backs "how does this sound to you?", "is this vision aligned to what you want" and then progressively move towards more probing questions such as "help me understand when in your career to date you have solved a similar issue" or "how does that resemble your skills"? Assuming you handle this right and get the balance between selling yourself and assessing them - then you will have the best candidates willing themselves to do well so they can join your team. But go in under prepared and open with "so tell me about yourself and why you would be good in this role" will make the candidate double take, draw in a depth breath and flounder because they haven't a clue what you need or if they want to tell you, resulting in a missed opportunity for you both.

 Sounds simple but it is remarkable how many great candidates I have sent to interview who come back and when I ask if they want the job say "I don't know".