Lauder Beaumont Associates

Let me give you a real example of exactly what I’m talking about.

• Day 0 – Candidate details submitted by headhunter
• Day 15 – 1^st Interview
• Day 34 – 2^nd Interview
• Day 41 – Hiring Manager confirmed intention to make an offer
• Day 77 – Offer still awaiting approval

From the first interview to confirmation of intention to make an offer, the elapsed time is less than one month.  More than one month later and no offer has materialised.

The elapsed time brings a number of things into play.  Once the candidate has an offer, they typically stop exploring other opportunities and competing offers are much less likely to emerge.  But that’s not the most important factor.  It’s what it says about your organisation that is the real issue.  Indecisive, bureaucratic, talk a good game but same as all the rest!

Yes, taking weeks to get a written offer out for a senior executive position is unfortunately the norm.  Whatever was said in the interview about your dynamic, forward-thinking organisation starts to lose its gloss. Actions speak louder than words and the drawn out approval process tells the candidate all they need to know.

What an opportunity missed.  How easy it would be to stand-out from the crowd.  Of course, big salaries and bonus packages need consideration but the approvals should be completed before the interview process starts.

Be different, be slick and secure the best talent.

Continue Reading

An article in the Grapevine this morning was asking what value executive search firms add.  The article was written by an individual from the executive search industry stating that an increasing number of companies in the FTSE250 are conducting their own searches for board level executives to save costs.  According to the article, the flaw in the house model is that the best senior executives are never likely to respond well to being asked to apply for roles they have become accustomed to being sought out for.

This assumes that in house recruiters are simply advertising roles rather than proactively seeking passive candidates, which is not the case.  Even if this was true, if the only value that the executive search firm brings is presenting candidates who wouldn’t respond to an advertisement, then I would argue that there are more cost effective ways of doing this.  Seeking out candidates is only one step in the process and any executive search firm worth its salt should be guiding their clients through the entire process, adding value at every stage.

Whilst I’m clearly an advocate of an executive search firm taking responsibility for the entire process because I believe it delivers more successful outcomes, I have come to recognise that there is a lack of flexibility in the model.  At the moment, you take the full service or no service at all.  Clients should have the choice of selecting the level of service they require and importantly only paying for the services they use.  I believe that there is a place for an innovative service catalogue approach to executive search.

If you are interested in finding out more about how a service catalogue approach to executive search could work for you, drop me a line at rob.andrews@lauder-beaumont.com

Continue Reading

So much time is wasted in organisations thinking about how to motivate talented employees.

The best employees have all the motivation they need when they have a goal to achieve.  The goal is the motivation so stop worrying about motivation and start thinking about goals.  Once the goal is set, just get out of the way and let your talented employee get on with it.

Goals and objectives need to flow down from the top.  Any goal you set must contribute to the goals of the company, department, section etc.

When looking to attract the best talent, you should not waste time with detailed job descriptions about the scope of responsibilities.  It is far better to focus on the key goals and objectives that you need your next superstar employee to achieve.

For senior appointments, i.e. the people who are responsible for business growth or operations; don’t get prescriptive.  Just outline the company goals and objectives and give them the freedom to do their job exactly as they see fit, so long as it contributes to achieving those company goals and objectives.

Nothing is more motivating for the best and most talented people.

Continue Reading

Not my words but those of Michael Masterson, entrepreneur, best-selling author and creator of several multi-million dollar businesses.

He says “Every businessperson I know complains about the dearth of good people.  But when I ask them how much time they spend on finding good people, they look at me like I’m asking a stupid question.  There are plenty of great and super great employees out there in the workforce.  But you won’t get to them if you do the normal things – like asking someone to place an ad in a paper or on the Internet, then sorting through resumes, and then doing some interviews.  That process is designed to usher mediocre people into your company.  To find extraordinary people to fill your top management positions, you have to take extraordinary measures.”

Masterson believes that most hiring managers don’t place enough importance or invest enough time in finding superstar employees.  Most business people I meet understand the importance but just don’t have the time so they engage a headhunter to invest time on their behalf.

My question is, how many headhunters are taking extraordinary measures to find their client’s extraordinary people and how many are doing the normal things that uncover mediocre people?  Perhaps it’s time you asked your headhunter the question, “what extraordinary measures are you taking to find me extraordinary people?”

Continue Reading

In these turbulent economic times, the Eurozone debt crisis and uncertainty in the United States, what is happening in the executive job market?  Are we about to turn the clock back to the dark days of the banking crisis three years ago which led to a number of executive job losses and shortage of new openings?

News out today form European IT giant, Capgemini, would suggest that there is no reason to panic.  They reported strong third quarter sales growth and reiterated ambitious forecasts for the full year. Even more encouraging for the jobs market is that they reported that a large number of IT professionals are still changing jobs.  In uncertain economic times, people are more likely to stay put in their current roles but the attrition rate at Capgemini in Q3 was 18.8%, up from a year ago.

OK, so the IT sector still looks good on the jobs front but is that reflected in the wider executive jobs market?

Third quarter data released by the Association of Executive Search Consultants (AESC) shows overall revenue levels have been sustained continuing the momentum of the past two years which has returned the industry close to its all time revenue high of 2008. The year-on-year trend, from Q3 2010 to Q3 2011, revealed a 5% increase in the number of new search mandates and an 8.3% rise in revenues.

The Q3 loss at global executive search firm Heidrick Struggles doesn’t tell the full story.  This was due to a one off charge to write down the value of its European Business.  Revenue actually increased 14% in Q3 and they have 386 consultants, up from 343 this time last year with average revenue per consultant unchanged from a year ago.

So do we conclude from this that the executive job market is thriving despite current business sentiment?  Most people in the employment and staffing industry remain cautiously optimistic.  For me, the one fly in the ointment is that the number of new executive searches started is down from the previous quarter.  According to AESC data, there is a quarter-on-quarter reduction in the number of new executive searches started (-8.1%).  Revenues for executive search firms are holding up because average revenue per executive search has risen but if the number of new searches continues to decline; this is a sure indicator that the executive jobs market is weakening.  We often see a dip in new searches started in Q4 as pressure builds to deliver the year end numbers but if all is well, there should be a significant bounce back in Q1 2012.  Watch this space……

Continue Reading

If you have read any of my previous articles, you will know by now that I put little faith in traditional interview techniques for making successful hires.  I tell my clients and anyone else who will listen, that the best approach is to get the candidate to do the job in the interview.

Whilst most people applaud the theory, I have lost count of how many times I have been told that it is impossible to get a board member or senior executive to do the job in the interview because of the complexity of the role.  To design a work package that will test the intellect, business acumen, strategic thinking and interpersonal skills etc. required to do the job is just too difficult.

I disagree; the answer is to set some homework (most likely at 2^nd interview stage). You need to outline one specific strategic challenge that you can articulate in a few written sentences and also provide relevant background material.  Don’t ask the candidate to come back with a presentation as this makes the task more time consuming for already busy people, plus you are less interested in presentation style than their proposed solution.  Make sure you give candidates sufficient time to consider the strategic challenge and work on their solution, a week to ten days is ideal.

You should tell the candidate to come to the interview ready to discuss the challenge with your executive team and propose a solution along with timescales for implementing that solution.  Let them present without interruption.  Listen to see if they made a well-reasoned argument for their point of view. Did they frame the issue properly, or not really understand it?  Observe how accurate their assumptions were and if they acknowledged things they couldn’t possibly know or see.

The next part of the exercise is where the real value lies, when you get to discuss the solution presented.

You should question their solution, challenge assumptions and disagree with their conclusions.  You and other members of your team should discuss the challenge from different angles and explore different perspectives. You want to see the candidate in action and engaged in lively debate, you want to observe how they take criticism, whether they become defensive, energised or whether they meekly back-down and defer to others.

You are looking to see how they handle disagreements and how forcefully they are prepared to push their own solution.  Do they have to be right or are they really interested in reaching the best solution?  Do they take on the views of others or are they dismissive – is it their way or the high way?  Do they try and build consensus for their solution and find a way to get people on board with it?  You should observe how they interact with others.  Is there a noticeable difference in how they take on comments from their superiors than everyone else in the room?

What you have just played out could have been an executive board or management meeting, tackling a real strategic challenge.  You have seen how your candidate has tackled the problem, what solution they have come up with and how they have presented it.  You have seen them debate with other members of the senior team.  Come to think of it, you just got them doing the job in the interview!

Continue Reading

Most of us want to follow our gut instinct when it comes to identifying good hires, whether hiring a board member or an administrative assistant.  The problem is that our gut instinct is not reliable for making good hiring decisions.

Jeffrey Cohn, a succession planning expert and author of the book Why Are We Bad at Picking Good Leaders?, sums it up nicely  “We get really seduced by someone’s charm and intellect and we think that means they’re going to be able to use good judgement and make effective decisions.”

The problem ultimately stems from the hiring system (the end-to-end set of processes that a company uses to make hires).  A robust hiring system goes a long way to eliminate most hiring mistakes and certainly leaves no room for making key hiring decisions based on gut instinct.

Naturally I am an advocate of our own LBA Hiring Management System™ but simply having a systematic approach is more than half the battle.  A well thought through set of hiring processes will uplift your success rate and will also provide a baseline from which you can measure the effectiveness of your system and allow you to make improvements.

So rather than trust your gut, what else might you do?  Some companies are reshaping their hiring processes to select traits that truly reflect good leadership qualities.  Members of hiring committees from some companies have begun to talk to a candidate’s previous employers and colleagues to see how he or she motivates people, expresses empathy, and voices a vision that translate into specific, achievable goals for other members of the organisation.

Just one example of something more reliable than trusting your gut.

Continue Reading

Question: I’m often asked what single piece of advice I would give to help hiring managers make more successful hires.  The most important thing is to have a systematic approach to hiring.  You need a consistent way that you do things and to develop a baseline from which you can measure the impact of change.  For most organisations this doesn’t happen, hiring managers do their own thing.  So I decided over the next few weeks to look at some fundamentals that will help you make more successful hires even if you go ‘freestyle’.

Rob’s Answer:

No 11: To make successful hires a Performance Agreement is essential.

Here’s a scenario:

The Beginning: You can’t wait for your new hire to start.  You need them to fix that problem, or overcome that challenge and you’re keen for your brilliant new hire to get stuck in.  Finally your new hire starts and she seems to hit the ground running.  Your first meeting goes well and you share a clear vision about the future and a brighter tomorrow.

30 Days In: You’ve been really busy and you haven’t had as much time as you hoped to spend with your new hire.  However, you’re not in the least bit concerned, they seem to be just getting on with the job at hand.  They don’t need hand-holding and in any case she knows where you are if she really needs you.

90 Days In: The first nagging doubts in the back of your mind start to appear.  There seems to be lots of activity and clearly your new hire is integrating well into the organisation, but there is not as much progress as you had hoped on the two big challenges you wanted your new hire to tackle.  You decide to set-up a meeting to discuss progress.  You push negative thoughts to the back of your mind, your new hire is still settling in after all.

120 Days In: You finally managed to align diaries and have a ‘drains-up’ discussion on progress regarding the two key challenges.  It turns out that your new hire has realigned priorities.  She has been building relationships with her peers and yours and got herself immersed in some key projects which although important to the wider company, won’t help you with the major challenges that you needed your new hire to work-on.  120 days in and to most people in the organisation she’s doing a great job and she’s certainly enjoying it – but she hasn’t met your expectations.

There are a thousand different scenarios that I could have played out here but the key message is the importance of agreeing and documenting the key role objectives and getting buy-in.  Signing-up is the best way to do this.  Explain that this is a complex role and that there will be many facets to it, including many forums and projects that they will be asked to contribute to – that’s fine.  But also make it clear from the outset what are the two or three key objectives that you require them to focus on and make it crystal clear that their performance will be measured against these objectives.

In my experience it is not good enough just to talk about performance objectives.  Writing it down as an agreement and then both signing it cements the importance and priorities.

The Performance Agreement is a key part of the LBA Hiring Management System™ and is a simple way to make clear what outstanding performance looks like and ultimately leads to more successful hires. You can find more about the Performance Agreement in chapter 11 of my book, How To Hire Top Performing Talent.

Continue Reading

Question: I’m often asked what single piece of advice I would give to help hiring managers make more successful hires.  The most important thing is to have a systematic approach to hiring.  You need a consistent way that you do things and to develop a baseline from which you can measure the impact of change.  For most organisations this doesn’t happen, hiring managers do their own thing.  So I’ve decided over the next few weeks to look at some fundamentals that will help you make more successful hires even if you go ‘freestyle’.

Rob’s Answer:

No 10: A Performance Agreement will help provide clarity about what success in the role looks like and will lead to more successful hires

Very occasionally there can be a complete disparity between a hiring manager and their new hire about how the new hire is performing in the role.  More often than not, both parties know that it’s not going very well but putting their finger on the nub of the issue can be more difficult.  This is usually a result of a lack of clarity about what success in the role looks like and what constitutes poor, average, good or outstanding performance.

This is one of the simpler hiring problems to solve.  A Performance Agreement is a one or two page document that clearly identifies the key success factors in a role and leaves no room for doubt about whether key performance targets have been met.  It provides a baseline for progress and performance review meetings and allows both parties to focus on what truly matters in terms of achievement.

I acknowledge that style can also be important, i.e. how you achieve something and the Performance Agreement is less effective for assessing this.  However, in the majority of cases, the achievement of the goal is more important than how it was achieved.  The caveat is that you have to look at long term impact of how something is achieved, e.g. you might hit the new cost reduction targets but if you did it by cutting end of year bonuses and cancelling the Christmas party then you are probably storing up a whole new set of problems.

Many organisations have a performance review system which is good but it needs to kick-in from day one, not after 3, 6 or 12 months.  Also, many of the performance review systems don’t produce meaningful outcomes about what exactly an employee needs to do to get star ratings at the next review meeting.

My message is to be clear what success in the role looks like.  Sit down with your new hire and make sure they understand exactly what you are looking for them to achieve and in what timescale.  Signing-up to a written agreement will avoid any misalignment in terms of expectation.

More details about how to start off on the right foot can be found in Chapter 11 of my book, How To Hire Top Performing Talent.  It forms a key part of the LBA Hiring Management System™ which is proven to help you make more successful hires.

Continue Reading

Question: I’m often asked what single piece of advice I would give to help hiring managers make more successful hires.  The most important thing is to have a systematic approach to hiring.  You need a consistent way that you do things and to develop a baseline from which you can measure the impact of change.  For most organisations this doesn’t happen, hiring managers do their own thing.  So I decided over the next few weeks to look at some fundamentals that will help you make more successful hires even if you go ‘freestyle’.

Rob’s Answer:

No 9: To make successful hires you need to manage the offer process and remember that time kills deals

Let me share with you my biggest frustration when working with companies looking to hire top performing talent.  It’s when they run a great hiring process and find the perfect candidate, then completely mismanage the offer process and blow the deal!

I recently worked on an assignment that took seven months to get to a point where the ideal candidate had been identified and my client was ready to make an offer. Unfortunately, it took three weeks for a verbal offer to be made and then another five weeks before the offer paperwork was produced.  At about the same time as the candidate finally received the written offer, an old contact got in touch because he had heard that the candidate was considering a move and wondered whether he might like to go for dinner to explore an opportunity with his company.  I’ll let you guess how things turned out.

There were three main reasons for the delay in getting an offer out to the candidate.  The first was that the salary required to get this top performer on board was above the salary signed off for the role when the requisition was initially approved so a new requisition had to be raised for approval before the offer could be produced.  The second was that the offer approval process itself seemed to have been purposefully designed to delay offers going out the door and just for good measure, throw in a large slice of incompetence by the recruitment team who are responsible for driving the process.

The first problem could have been easily avoided as I had informed the hiring manager at the very beginning that the candidate presented was going to cost a bit more.  Once this candidate became a strong contender, the hiring manger should have started the process to get a higher salary approved.  In this case it took three weeks to produce a recruitment requisition with a revised salary.  Once this was gained the offer was finally produced but because it was of above a certain salary threshold, it had to go back up the line again for the actual offer to be approved.  I know this sounds crazy but it happened and what’s more it’s not uncommon. This was also summer so many of the executives who are authorised to approve such offers were away on their summer holidays and getting an audience with someone else who could approve the offer (someone more senior and even more difficult to get hold of) seemed almost impossible.  Then finally, the person in internal recruitment who was responsible for producing the offer and obtaining approvals continually made promises about doing things by certain dates but consistently reneged on their promises.

There are clearly many improvements that can be made here but the main message is for hiring managers.  Take responsibility for the offer process and ride it hard.  Don’t hand it off to HR or internal recruitment and sit on your hands.  This matters far more to you than anyone else in the organisation so do whatever it takes to get that offer out the door in a timely fashion.

So far we have focussed on delays in getting an offer to a candidate which is a big issue.  Time really does kill deals.  However, a slick offer process is about more than getting offers to candidates in a timely fashion.  Good communication with the candidate during the offer process is also very important.  You can find more about this and the offer process in general in chapter 10 of my book, How To Hire Top Performing Talent.  Making an offer candidates can’t refuse is a key part of the LBA Hiring Management System™ which is proven to help you make more successful hires.

Continue Reading