Our Success is Directly Linked to Yours.
Finalist Candidate Referencing
So what, precisely, is it you're trying to accomplish anyway?
PREVIOUS POSTS:
Looking Through the Interview - In Politics and in Business
What is an election campaign if not an extended job interview?
Executive Search and Leadership Consulting: Where have we been . . . and where in the world are we headed?
At a recent AESC (Association of Executive Search Consultants) regional meeting, I agreed to serve on a panel comprised of the heads of a handful of search firms. Our task was to individually and collectively weigh in on trends in the executive search and leadership consulting industry. Obviously, the real and pertinent question to which the entire discussion boiled down was: “Where are we headed as an industry?” MORE
Hiring for Character
Character is the cornerstone upon which individual and corporate brands are built and is essential to the loyalty, trust and respect we all want from our customers, friends and co-workers.
Buckets
Many years ago, in my first career, I was approached by a leading financial entrepreneur who wanted to know if I could see myself joining a start-up investment bank. I probably should have said yes as it turned out to be GMP Capital. But I replied, “I suppose I could, but frankly I can think of a lot of people better qualified than I am to do that. So while I guess I could, I think I’d be better to…” and before I could finish they inserted the words “do something that gives you energy.” MORE
Always Be a Buyer
Some subjects are worth re-visiting from time to time. This is one of them.
In an earlier post, I wrote about meetings with “accomplished, mid-to-late career executives” who are either actively engaged in a full-blown job search or just tentatively poking their heads up and wondering what fresh challenges might be available for them ("Time for a Coffee?..."). One of the issues I regularly touch on in these meetings is the need for active job-seekers to be just as selective and cautious in a job search as “passive” candidates are (usually) when we initiate contact with them (see “Passive Candidates and Why We Like Them...A Lot!”). This need to be selective is true of all candidates, whatever their situation. But it is particularly important for senior, long-serving executives. MORE
Diversity & Inclusion
There is no question that the related topics of Diversity & Inclusion have been extensively aired in recent years. Nevertheless, I’d like to weigh in with a few personal thoughts.
I grew up in the 1960s, a period renowned for self-examination and social change. Nevertheless, I was not someone you would have described then as "enlightened". Particularly by today’s standards. I was quite aware that my household was extraordinarily conservative. What I wasn’t even vaguely conscious of was how utterly male-oriented it was. I look back now and literally shake my head. But at the time it was all I, along with my brothers and sisters, had ever known. MORE
How We Do What We Do Really Does Matter
One of the nicest things a client has ever said about our firm is: “I don’t think of McCracken as an external resource. I think of McCracken as part of my team, in another office location.” As a service-provider / business partner, this is pretty much the Holy Grail. It really doesn’t get much better!
This gratifying comment was made by a senior CEO, whose mettle has been tested and proven in widely differing settings. One commonality has been the need to achieve ambitious goals in complex, multi-stakeholder environments. Without exception, this CEO’s modus operandi has been to build the best possible team, provide clear direction, then get out of their way as much as possible. This, of course, is something you can only do successfully with strong people on your team, all of whom are performing on a coordinated basis, according to strategy.
Why am I telling you this? Well, believe it or not, it’s not to brag — although we are proud to have earned this level of trust and client satisfaction.
I’m telling you this because one reason we enjoy the relationship we do is this client understands a fundamental about the search business that not every client fully appreciates. Namely, that it’s not enough to look only at what we have achieved. How we do what we do is also important. MORE
Why We Don't (and Shouldn't) "Sell" Opportunities
I have touched on this issue before, but think it’s worth re-visiting: namely, what many people incorrectly believe we’re supposed to be doing when we’re retained to execute a search mandate.
In executing a retained executive search assignment, we assume a variety of responsibilities. Central among them is communicating effectively with the marketplace in general and prospective candidates specifically. This is the point where some of the confusion surrounding our proper role lies.
What I’m referring to in this piece is the belief that our role includes “selling” the opportunity. I regret that many people, often experienced and sophisticated in many ways, believe this is what we’re meant to do. The reason I regret this is that it is actually not in anyone’s best interests for us to do so.
But why shouldn’t we “sell” the role? After all, our client has retained us to act for them and presumably wants us to attract and develop the best possible candidate options. MORE
How to Write a General Cover Letter
While we act for employers who retain us in connection with senior appointments they need to make, in a previous post I wrote about what we call “generals”, that is to say general conversations we occasionally have with executives who, for one reason or another, are “looking”, as opposed to interviews we conduct with candidates in the course of a specific assignment. Whether these “generals” are in person or by way of telephone or video, a normal preliminary is an e-mail submission with a recent résumé. These submissions usually include a cover letter or, at minimum, some covering comments in the e-mail itself. MORE
What Good Are References Anyway?
Not long ago, I attended a dinner at which one of the guests was an acquaintance in the search business. As the conversation turned to our common business, I was taken aback when he said, “…references are a waste of time. I mean, really, who in their right mind is going to offer someone as a reference who will not say good things?” MORE
"The Road Ahead — Hope and Optimism" . . . Revisited
In my New Year’s message a year ago I wrote “ … it is my belief that 2013 will eventually be viewed as the beginning of a post-financial crisis era of gradual but inevitable improvement. So this is a message of hope and optimism.”
It was a controversial stance at the time. The pervading mood was borderline paranoid, with bleak news reports of European fragility, many predicting varying degrees of EU collapse, slowing Asian growth, the failure of the American consumer to kick-start a consumption-led recovery, and so on. The proverbial glass was decidedly half-full and, for some, emptying. My take differed and I pointed out the alternative, optimistic, lens through which each phenomenon could be viewed and wrote: “So what does this mean for 2013? Well I am bullish in that regard.” MORE
"Time for a Coffee? Just Looking for About Twenty Minutes of Your Time."
It is inevitable, in the search business, that you’ll be regularly approached to meet with job-seekers for what we call a “general”, i.e. a general conversation, as opposed to an interview in connection with a specific assignment. These prospective candidates are typically accomplished, mid-to-late career executives who, for one reason or another, are either “between opportunities” (as I like to put it) or simply poking their heads up after a solid stint somewhere, wondering what new challenges might be available. MORE
Passive Candidates and Why We Like Them . . . A Lot!
First, what do we mean when we refer to passive candidates? Very simply, a passive candidate is someone who is busy, happy and not actively looking. We’re not suggesting they either lack drive or are in need of assertiveness training. We’re referring only to the fact that, prior to our approach, they were not actively considering or seeking a career change. MORE
So What is it We Actually Do Anyway?
Given the growth and evolution of the executive search industry over the years, it is surprising to me the number of executives and other professionals who still misunderstand what it is those of us in the search (as opposed to placement) industry actually do. Not just how we operate, but what we fundamentally provide as a professional service to our clients. MORE
Buying versus Selling
It is a common experience most senior operating executives can relate to personally: By the time you finally terminate an under-performing employee, you know in your heart you should have done so a long time ago.
Now it is absolutely true that it is possible to make a hasty assessment and act too quickly, before the situation can be remedied. It is also true that there is a certain amount of time required to attempt to remediate the performance and/or other “fit” issues which, if ultimately unsuccessful (and they usually are), could have been spent, with the benefit of hindsight, more fruitfully in recruiting and developing the failed employee’s replacement. MORE
Why Leading Organizations Continue to Invest in Executive Search Services
In this uncertain “slow growth” economy, why is it that organizations, both large and small, in all sectors continue to invest in executive search services?
Well, first and foremost, they understand that there is no more important decision any organization can make than hiring the right leaders. Make the right choice and your organization can grow and excel to a whole new level. Make the wrong choice and it will not only be costly, the fallout can set you back for years. MORE
The Road Ahead — Hope and Optimism
For the last dozen years I have “penned” a New Year’s message, largely focused on the events of the previous year. This year I would like to do the opposite and concentrate on the road ahead of us in 2013.
Nietzsche famously said: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Taken literally this is obviously ridiculous. Many people are permanently weakened by disease or injury. But it makes a good point figuratively. We (can) learn from our mistakes and we (can) develop both avoidance and coping mechanisms for repeat occurrences. In this spirit, it is my belief that 2013 will eventually be viewed as the beginning of a post-financial crisis era of gradual but inevitable improvement.
So, this is a message of hope and optimism. MORE
"Good to Great" Revisited
Clients that invest in our services tend to be organizations that embrace the principles of “Good to Great”.
Having caught myself using this expression the other day, I decided I should revisit Jim Collins’ 2001 book "Good" to Great to see if its principles still apply more than a decade later. MORE
Confidence . . . and the Illusion of Certainty
In describing the world’s precarious state these days, people routinely reference the U.S. "fiscal cliff", sovereign bankruptcies and bailouts, impending real estate collapses, the tsunami-like implications of slowing growth in BRIC economies and more. We collectively fear an uncertain future where most or all “surprises” are dreaded as probable negatives, not hopefully anticipated as potential positives. Now there is no doubt we live in relatively uncertain times. Equally, there is no doubt this affects us all in the decisions we make, both personally and professionally. I believe this pervading sense of uncertainty is overdone however and needs to be put into context. MORE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finalist Candidate Referencing
So what, precisely, is it you're trying to accomplish anyway?
As an aside, search consultants generally view the completion of a search assignment in the same way investment bankers acting for a corporate purchaser celebrate the closing of an acquisition. While it may be the "end" for the bankers, in the purchasing client’s world, it's only the beginning. The hard work of integration, reaping synergies, generating new opportunities, etc. all lies ahead. It is much the same with hiring a new executive. The search assignment may be complete, but the real work of integrating the new executive and realizing on their potential (for you and themselves) has barely started, let alone been finished.
Returning to the subject of formal candidate referencing, before commencing anything it helps to be clear about what you’re trying to accomplish. Are you merely determining whether to proceed further with that candidate? Might you also be interested in gaining insight into how best to work with them? In other words, are you simply determining whether to work with them or also how to work with them? There is much more than this to be determined from a proper referencing process including, for example, potential insight into your offer terms. But let’s focus here on the question of how you would best work with the candidate in question.
Equal but different
Every successful coach knows that team members collectively represent a wide range of personalities, skills and needs. Managing and motivating everyone identically is far from optimal. You may treat them more or less equally (though in pro sports this is clearly not so), but that doesn’t mean you work with each of them identically. Some need a lot of praise. Others respond better to encouragement and/or constructive criticism. Some need a lot of interaction. Others need to be left alone, to do what they do with a minimum of oversight. A good formal referencing process should provide insight into such differences. Obviously, referencing can also provide some useful comparisons for final selection purposes between, say, the final two candidates. They’re probably both excellent. But they’re almost certainly quite different as well.
Objectivity
From everyone’s perspective, including your executive search partner, there is an understandable hope that the formal referencing (conducted near the completion of a formal search assignment) will support and corroborate the considerable candidate development and evaluation work preceding it. This is only human nature. On the other hand, if there are candidate issues that need to be identified and addressed, it is obviously far better for everyone to do so during the due diligence stage, rather than afterwards. So you should be very careful…even leery…of any formal referencing process that, consciously or otherwise, amounts to little more than a simple Thumbs Up / Thumbs Down.
Consider participating yourself!
While many (most?) search consultants might cringe at the prospect, I recommend you consider taking a personal role in the referencing process. It is important that you do not simply do the referencing yourself. Some clients feel otherwise and I understand where they’re coming from. But they’re wrong. You have (or at least should have) selected and retained your search consultant for their expertise and objectivity. Like hiring a lawyer to defend you, if you don’t trust and respect them, you shouldn’t hire them in the first place! So trust your search partner’s expertise and professionalism. But consider getting personally involved in the process as well.
After completing an in-depth referencing interview (properly done, a 20-30 minute undertaking), I always ask whether the Reference Provider (conventionally a former Superior, Peer or Subordinate of the candidate) would be open to a call from the person to whom the prospective candidate will report. The purpose of any such conversation is to allow both sides – the reference provider and the candidate’s prospective “boss” – to clarify, expand upon and/or drill down on anything we’ve set out in our reference reporting. In over 20 years, I’ve never once had a reference provider decline a direct conversation of this nature…or even express reservations about doing so. The standard reply is “Absolutely.” Although few clients actually take the opportunity to make such calls, there is some measure of comfort in knowing they can, both before and after hiring the candidate in question. Personally, I think more clients should make one or more of those calls.
Bottom Line
Formal referencing is a critical step in a thorough executive search assignment. It is not a merely a hurdle to be cleared. Nor is it a process of simply hunting for concerns or potential problems. It is a valuable tool for objectively evaluating and better understanding the impressive person you’re about to hire, in order to ensure you make the most of your considerable investment in them.
As always, your comments are welcome. You can reach me at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
Looking Through the Interview - In Politics and in Busines
What is an election campaign if not an extended job interview?
Examples of this dichotomy are everywhere. In 2010, Toronto Councillor Rob Ford proved exceptionally capable at attracting media attention and “connecting” with great swaths of voters who felt under-represented and ignored by Toronto’s “elite”. These folks came to be known as Ford Nation. To everyone’s surprise, Ford’s incredibly unconventional approach proved to be highly effective. He was improbably, but decisively, elected with almost 1/3rd more votes than his runner-up.* The problem was those campaigning skills had little or nothing to do with actually being Mayor of North America’s fourth largest city and, as many feared, his term as Mayor was so ridiculously bad it was surreal. It was like a slow-motion accident: difficult to watch but almost impossible to look away. By contrast, four years later, despite considerable prior experience, John Tory was not a particularly great campaigner. Nevertheless, I sensed from the outset that Tory would make a pretty good Mayor, if he could only land the job. Well, John Tory was ultimately elected aided, in part, by an exhausted electorate who had rediscovered the virtues of bland and predictable. Fortunately, John Tory has proven, so far at least, to be a pretty decent leader and administrator.
I am writing about this phenomenon in the world of politics because there is a clear analogy to what I see in the business world. Specifically, the difference between interview skills and on-the-job performance.
There are many things a good executive search consultant should bring to the table. Among them is the combined ability and willingness to help clients “look through the interview”, as I like to put it. Understandably, consultants will usually speak up if they feel a client is overlooking a promising candidate for the wrong reasons. But how many will intervene if they feel their client is favoring a particular candidate for the wrong reasons?
The reality is there are people who are just awesome interviewees. They ace most interviews and are widely envied – and sought after. Some of them are also awesome executives. But some of them “peak” in the interviews and sadly do less well on the job. Equally, there are candidates who are just plain lousy at interviewing, but solid performers on the job. If you knew who was who in advance, who would you hire? Talk about a no-brainer rhetorical question!
Here's the "bottom line"
Most interviewers treat the interview process as a proxy for how well the person would perform and/or fit in. If it is ever a good proxy for either, it’s probably better at the fit question. But even there, if it’s compatibility you’re most concerned about, a formal interview is a questionable way to conduct a “first date”. Treat the interview as a means, not an end or a test. The purpose of the interview is to get to know the candidate, as a professional and a person. Trust me, six months down the road, you’d far rather laugh at how bad an interview was, compared to how well the candidate has actually performed, than shake your head remembering how promising they seemed back then…and how underwhelming they’ve proven to be on the job.
* (It’s tempting to draw an analogy with Donald Trump’s performance so far in the current US Presidential election, but let’s wait to see how he fares in the end.)
As always, your comments are welcome. You can reach me at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
Executive Search and Leadership Consulting: Where have we been . . . and where in the world are we headed?
At a recent AESC (Association of Executive Search Consultants) regional meeting, I agreed to serve on a panel comprised of the heads of a handful of search firms. Our task was to individually and collectively weigh in on trends in the executive search and leadership consulting industry. Obviously, the real and pertinent question to which the entire discussion boiled down was: “Where are we headed as an industry?”
I must have been in a very accommodating mood when I agreed to participate because, when it comes to subjects of importance to me, my genuine preference is to listen and learn, rather than expound upon my own thoughts. You might be surprised to hear this from a guy who likes telling stories as much as I do. But I assure you it is true.
In any event, my three fellow panelists and I answered each of the moderator’s questions in turn. So we all weighed in, individually, on each question. Naturally, we agreed on a lot. But we differed as well. What was interesting, but not surprising, was how little we all felt we “knew” about where our industry is headed. This is good, as who really “knows” anything about the future? Also, as I said at the time, I find it difficult to separate what I hope the future holds for us, from what I objectively think or guess might actually lie ahead. Nevertheless, here are some of my thoughts, beginning with some observations on how I think things have changed in the last 20 years.
When I came into this industry in 1995, it was very trust-based, reputation-focused and relationship-driven. All of which remains true today, but to a slightly lesser degree, I would say.
Also, while cost was (and always should be) important to clients, it was not the primary consideration in deciding whether to conduct a professional search or with whom they were going to work. This may, in part, reflect greater uniformity in pricing approaches then. However, I think it also reflected a greater client focus on value for money, rather than simple cost. Admittedly, after a challenging early ‘90s recession, the world was spinning quickly and optimism was running high. But the difference between value and cost remains an important and powerful distinction.
Also, the internet was pretty new then and we were all only just beginning to speculate how it might impact the way we conduct business and live our lives. In our industry, much of the discussion centered around whether it was a tool that would assist us in doing what we did, or a fundamental threat that would eventually render us obsolete. In this respect, the conversation was a bit like some of today’s discussions involving robotics. It is now apparent it was both a threat and a tool. The internet and all that has flowed from it has been an enormous tool that has fundamentally impacted how we live our lives, both personally and professionally. It has also been enormously disruptive (as was the industrial revolution, in its time) in rendering some activities redundant, while simultaneously creating vast new areas of opportunity.
In our industry, the disruption has been greater in the placement industry than the search industry, given the former’s focus on supplying people versus the search industry’s focus on supplying services to assist in all matters related to making the best possible executive appointments. Job boards and social networks like LinkedIn are increasingly relevant the further one descends on the seniority ladder. Correspondingly, the more senior the role, the more important and valuable are the services of a trusted third-party advisor / consultant. But the internet has spawned whole new industries, executive functions and processes. It has literally impacted almost every aspect of every business and household.
There have been other changes in our industry as well. Just as some very large companies have staffed up in-house legal departments in recent years, some larger employers have established in-house recruitment departments. Once upon a time, in-house legal departments handled only the most routine legal work and out-sourced everything else. Recently, more and more expertise has been assembled in corporate legal departments, with correspondingly less work awarded externally. Similarly, some larger employers have used in-house “search” teams to handle much of their routine recruitment needs, again skewed toward the less senior and/or less managerial roles.
So where does this leave us going forward? What does the future hold for executive search and leadership consulting?
It seems obvious and, I believe, desirable that change will continue and even accelerate. Examples of long-established industries being disrupted are everywhere: Uber and the taxi industry (and soon the food delivery industry); AirBnB and the lodging industry; ETFs and the investment management industry; iTunes (and now Apple Music) and the music retailing industry; and, yes, LinkedIn and certain segments of the recruiting industry. These industries are permanently impacted, for sure. But they don’t disappear. They just evolve, as must we. However, I believe objective, trusted advisors have never been more critically needed than they are today. The stakes, at the most senior levels of organizations, have never been higher and there is simply no substitute for third-party intermediaries in certain delicate aspects of senior recruiting. Until robots and other applications of artificial intelligence begin replacing coaches and/or members of the clergy, there will be a need for the human touch in the very human enterprise of assembling teams, identifying and approaching talent and, crucially, ensuring that talent’s motivation in considering new opportunities is fully understood.
That is what I both think … and hope.
As always, your comments are welcome. You can reach me at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
Hiring for Character
“The good-to-great companies placed greater weight on character attributes than on specific educational background, practical skills, specialized knowledge, or work experience.”
Jim Collins, author of “Good To Great”
Character is the cornerstone upon which individual and corporate brands are built and is essential to the loyalty, trust and respect we all want from our customers, friends and co-workers.
We want people with good character in our organizations because a person’s character determines whether they will do the right thing when faced with tough decisions. A person’s character will determine how they’ll respond to ethically questionable situations. A person’s character will determine how they treat their co-workers, customers, suppliers and boss.
Sadly, we also, and too often, learn of leaders and other role models displaying not only poor judgement, but illegal and, frankly, despicable behaviour. And it’s by no means unique to young millionaire sports and entertainment celebrities. Whether it be corruption scandals, fraud or extra-marital affairs, they are all too common today in political, academic and business circles alike. It’s not surprising that in recent polls only 20% of people ranked corporate CEOs as trustworthy compared to 90% for nurses and firefighters and 7% for car sales people and politicians.
This underlines the critical importance of individual and corporate character and why, when recruiting senior leaders, we need to look for it, just as we evaluate such other prerequisites as the right skills, talent, knowledge, intelligence, energy, experience and vision.
So What is Character?
Character is an overarching concept and the subject of multiple disciplines ranging from philosophy to theology, from psychology to neuroscience. It is the sum of traits formed from our experiences and choices over time.
Character is not something we are simply born with. Our children participate in character development programs in school, and organizations of all stripes are helping professionals in most sectors improve the ethical quality of society by changing personal and organizational decision-making and behaviour. In both cases, the discussion often speaks to the Six Pillars of Character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship.
One definition I particularly like from CITRS, a non-profit education company that partners with schools, educators and youth organizations: “Character is a pattern of behavior, thoughts and feelings based on universal principles, moral strength, and integrity – plus the guts to live by those principles every day. Character is evidenced by your life’s virtues and the “line you never cross.” Character is the most valuable thing you have, and nobody can ever take it away.”
How Do You Hire For It?
If an organization wants to have a culture of character, it cannot, as is often the case, simply assume successful leaders are men and women of character. So, the question becomes how do we inject character into the recruitment screening process?
When recruiting senior executives (and all staff for that matter), in addition to looking for the defined skills, talent, knowledge, intelligence, experience and vision, organizations also need to define the character traits it looks for in success. Some attributes may include such things as respectfulness, cooperation, compassion, humility, fairness, courage, loyalty, integrity, honesty, discipline, passion and selflessness. Once these are understood and defined, an interviewer can begin to understand a candidate’s character by reviewing the candidate’s résumé and exploring the choices made throughout their career – asking questions about “why” and “how” they made certain decisions.
Is it possible to discover a person’s complete character in the course of an employment interview, assessment and selection process? Of course it isn’t. Not completely. But that’s not to say we shouldn’t try!
I’d love to hear your views and experiences on this critical matter. If you’d like to share them, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Paul Bruner
Leadership is a potent combination of character and strategy.
But if you must be without one, be it strategy.
Norman Schwarzkopf
Buckets
Many years ago, in my first career, I was approached by a leading financial entrepreneur who wanted to know if I could see myself joining a start-up investment bank. I probably should have said yes as it turned out to be GMP Capital. But I replied, “I suppose I could, but frankly I can think of a lot of people better qualified than I am to do that. So while I guess I could, I think I’d be better to…” and before I could finish they inserted the words “do something that gives you energy.”
I realized at the time that this was a useful way to segment everything I was able to do. Namely, sorting it all into one of two buckets: “Things that Give Me Energy” and “Things that Take Energy”.
The reason I raise this is simple. Prospective employers may know the things you’re capable of doing, but they’re unlikely to know into which bucket each of those things should fall.
The reality is that many of the things you become very adept and even expert at doing become less fulfilling over time for the very reason you’re great at doing them: you’ve done them a lot! You might very well be the best in your company or even in your industry at doing something because you’ve had a great deal of practice at doing it. But it is often true that if you never did it again, it would not be a hole in your life.
The reason you should review, segment and sort everything you’re capable of doing into one of the two buckets above – before you start interviewing – is simple. An executive offering you a role, no matter how senior, is motivated by their agenda, not yours. They need something accomplished and they believe from your résumé and track record that you can do it. What they can’t determine quite as easily is whether you doing it will energize you or drain you. But it’s very easy for you to be temporarily energized by their enthusiasm for you (because you might meet their needs), only to find the actual day to day, week to week, month to month work is less than completely fulfilling.
Trust me, it’s in everyone’s interests that the core majority of what you do professionally be work you’re not just very good at doing, but also sustainably energized by doing. No matter how good you are at doing something, if it drains you instead of energizing you, the applause won’t sustain you for very long.
As always, your comments are welcome. You can reach me at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
Always Be a Buyer
Some subjects are worth re-visiting from time to time. This is one of them.
In an earlier post, I wrote about meetings with “accomplished, mid-to-late career executives” who are either actively engaged in a full-blown job search or just tentatively poking their heads up and wondering what fresh challenges might be available for them ("Time for a Coffee?..."). One of the issues I regularly touch on in these meetings is the need for active job-seekers to be just as selective and cautious in a job search as “passive” candidates are (usually) when we initiate contact with them (see “Passive Candidates and Why We Like Them...A Lot!”). This need to be selective is true of all candidates, whatever their situation. But it is particularly important for senior, long-serving executives.
It is true that an executive on the “back nine” of their career often has more flexibility – both financially and sometimes geographically – in the range of career options they can consider. Perhaps it’s because their children are older and more independent. It might also be that, as a result of career success and other life events, they are more flexible financially and can afford to consider work that has long appealed to them on a personal level but is comparatively less rewarding financially. The thinking here is “I can now consider work that really appeals to me, not just the work that will pay me the most.” Whatever the circumstance, it is critically important they approach the job marketplace as a buyer, not a seller.
By definition, when you approach any marketplace as a buyer, you are “looking”. For example, looking for a new car or a new house. In these settings, people naturally “shop” carefully and selectively. Unfortunately, when it comes to searching for a new job, a surprising number of accomplished, savvy executives act more like sellers than buyers. Their focus is often on writing the perfect résumé and brushing up on their interview skills, as opposed to thinking strategically about what they're seeking in an ideal next challenge, doing early research on any situations they identify and, crucially, conducting careful due diligence when a suitable opportunity is close at hand. This is enormously unfortunate because the consequences of saying yes to the wrong job – in effect, buying poorly – are significant. In fact, the further along you are in your career, the greater the consequences of such a mistake. Not only are the expectations placed upon you in your new role generally higher, there are fewer years ahead of you to make up for lost time and momentum in the event of a stumble. Besides, even if everyone is delighted with your performance, you don’t want a future where your new employer and colleagues are happy, but you’re either bored, frustrated, miserable or, worse, all of the above. Your options in such a scenario are to hang in for a couple of years and waste precious remaining career years, or leave early and potentially raise questions about your ability to adapt to and succeed in new environments.
So, all job seekers should act more like buyers than sellers. To draw an analogy, just as mature investors with shorter investment horizons need to exercise greater caution in their investing decisions, so must mature executives in their career decisions. None of this is intended to discourage executives looking at new opportunities. Perish the thought. Remember, I'm an executive search consultant! All I'm saying is if it's not a great fit, it will not likely get better once you're "in and on". So look and buy carefully. It's a big decision.
As always, your comments are welcome. You can reach me at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
Diversity & Inclusion
There is no question that the related topics of Diversity & Inclusion have been extensively aired in recent years. Nevertheless, I’d like to weigh in with a few personal thoughts.
I grew up in the 1960s, a period renowned for self-examination and social change. Nevertheless, I was not someone you would have described then as "enlightened". Particularly by today’s standards. I was quite aware that my household was extraordinarily conservative. What I wasn’t even vaguely conscious of was how utterly male-oriented it was. I look back now and literally shake my head. But at the time it was all I, along with my brothers and sisters, had ever known.
Diversity is multi-faceted
Canada has long embraced immigration and, by conscious social decision and political engineering, Canada is more an extensive mosaic of differing cultures than it is a melting pot into which foreign cultures are blended. As a result, Toronto, the city in which I live, is among the most multicultural cities in the world. This cultural diversity is one of the things that makes Toronto such a wonderful place. However, this diversity of cultures and backgrounds brings with it a wide range of attitudes and norms in social matters like, for example, equality of the sexes. It doesn’t take long to realize that some of what we, in my culture, now consider to be unenlightened are the very attitudes and behaviours we ourselves displayed not so very long ago. This is not to assume superiority and pronounce our current views as “right”. Moreover, doing so isn’t a productive approach to changing behaviour anyway. Someone attempting to change my youthful behaviour and attitudes by labelling mine as “wrong” and theirs as “right” would have had an uphill battle just to hold my attention, let alone change my behaviour, other than possibly for the sake of political correctness.
Embracing diversity and inclusion isn’t just right, it’s smart
Political correctness is the wrong reason to change your behaviour. I believe it is important to understand why your behaviour should change – and why changing your attitude and behaviours is actually the smart thing to do. Quite apart from benefiting those previously marginalized, I firmly believe embracing diversity and inclusion is in your own self-interest, both personally and organizationally.
Allow me to provide an illustration.
In the 1980s, I studied at a business school known for its fervent devotion to the case method of teaching. Their case-based teaching method comprised three-stages. The first was to read and analyze a detailed “case” plus related material, privately, i.e. on your own. The second was to discuss/debate the case the following day, after classes, with your study group (comprised of a small group of peer students). The final stage was a full class discussion/debate/analysis the day after that. There were three new cases assigned daily, which meant that with the approach outlined above, you were juggling a total of nine cases at any given point in time. All of this was topped off by either an Exam or a formal Group Report (alternating) every Saturday. Trust me, the load and pressure was considerable and unrelenting.
I’m telling you this because what became apparent, very quickly, was that a study group comprised of very similar students – for example professionally (engineers, accountants, etc.), age-wise, gender-wise – was in trouble. Their similarity in background meant everyone thought similarly. As a consequence, they saw all the same issues, problems, risks and opportunities. This was efficient, for sure. But as a group they often (usually?) failed to identify issues that other groups identified and were then able to examine, consider and address. Further, this limitation was often compounded by the understandable temptation to leave rapidly achieved consensus unexamined, in favour of moving on to the next matter at hand. So they worked quickly, but missed a great deal. As a consequence, they performed noticeably less well than groups with greater diversity.
Sound familiar?
In the 2000s, I still observe and sometimes experience “groupthink” in team meetings, committees, project groups, even Boards, which a little more genuine and enabled* diversity could have reduced or even eliminated. I’ve not done it formally, but in many cases the damage and/or lost opportunities brought on by “groupthink” can be quantified or at least roughly estimated. If ever you attempt to do this yourself, I think you’ll quickly be surprised at the numbers you generate.
*Accepting that diversity is valuable in and of itself is only a start. Failing to ensure that such diversity is given a genuine, equal voice will compromise its value. If contrary, non-consensus ideas and views are either shot down or merely tolerated, as opposed to encouraged and examined, those voices will quickly fall silent . . . and the benefits diversity can yield will disappear.
The Bottom-line
Diversity and inclusion shouldn’t be embraced just because they’re good for others and society in general. Diversity is something we should enthusiastically embrace because they are tools which, properly wielded, directly benefit us, both individually and organizationally.
As always, your comments are welcome. You can reach me at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
How We Do What We Do Really Does Matter
One of the nicest things a client has ever said about our firm is: “I don’t think of McCracken as an external resource. I think of McCracken as part of my team, in another office location.” As a service-provider / business partner, this is pretty much the Holy Grail. It really doesn’t get much better!
This gratifying comment was made by a senior CEO, whose mettle has been tested and proven in widely differing settings. One commonality has been the need to achieve ambitious goals in complex, multi-stakeholder environments. Without exception, this CEO’s modus operandi has been to build the best possible team, provide clear direction, then get out of their way as much as possible. This, of course, is something you can only do successfully with strong people on your team, all of whom are performing on a coordinated basis, according to strategy.
Why am I telling you this? Well, believe it or not, it’s not to brag — although we are proud to have earned this level of trust and client satisfaction.
I’m telling you this because one reason we enjoy the relationship we do is this client understands a fundamental about the search business that not every client fully appreciates. Namely, that it’s not enough to look only at what we have achieved. How we do what we do is also important
For example, how we treat candidates during the search assignment process has a real and direct impact on how successful we are in developing outstanding candidacies, particularly among those candidates who are busy, happy and not actively looking to make a move.
Just as important is the fact that how we operate directly reflects upon our client. In a candidate’s eyes, we are an extension of our client. Which is exactly what we are; retained agents acting on behalf of our client and dedicated to their best interests. Acting in any way other than with total professionalism simply can’t reflect well upon our client, particularly when being viewed as a prospective employer.
This leads to another reason why how we operate matters. An enlightened understanding of what we do recognizes that while we are always ultimately acting in our client’s best interests, we aren’t doing that to the best of our abilities if we aren’t also acting in the best interests of the candidates as well. This includes treating both declared candidates and potential candidates with the same professional courtesy and respect with which we treat our clients. Treating individuals as applicants competing for a job is, in our view, both condescending and disrespectful. After all, with a few exceptions such as Board Directors, anyone selected and offered the role will, should they choose to accept, be investing 100% of their employment resources and capital in the new role. They have much, much more than “skin in the game”. They have their whole body invested — and then some! If ever a significant investment deserves respect and professionalism, this must surely be it. Besides, the long-term mutual success of candidate and client together is in everyone’s best interests. It’s what we all want.
Also, the fact is that usually only one individual is offered the role. But a large number of people — both prospective candidates and many others who act as referral sources — are “touched” during the search process and there is a very real “PR” aspect to what we do. It does not matter whether our client is a start-up, an established but lesser-known entity or a household name. Having a firm such as ours proactively and systematically contacting executives and other professionals on a client’s behalf is quite impactful. Trust me, word of mouth is an enormously powerful medium . . . both positively and negatively. How a firm operating on your behalf in the marketplace portrays you as an organization and treats people on your behalf matters . . . a lot.
So how we go about doing what we do is important, How we treat the marketplace in general, not to mention candidates in particular, really does matter. This is why our client’s comments above are so gratifying. It's also one reason we have enjoyed so much success together.
As always, your comments are welcome.
You can reach me at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
Why We Don't (and Shouldn't) "Sell" Opportunities
I have touched on this issue before, but think it’s worth re-visiting: namely, what many people incorrectly believe we’re supposed to be doing when we’re retained to execute a search mandate.
In executing a retained executive search assignment, we assume a variety of responsibilities. Central among them is communicating effectively with the marketplace in general and prospective candidates specifically. This is the point where some of the confusion surrounding our proper role lies.
What I’m referring to in this piece is the belief that our role includes “selling” the opportunity. I regret that many people, often experienced and sophisticated in many ways, believe this is what we’re meant to do. The reason I regret this is that it is actually not in anyone’s best interests for us to do so.
But why shouldn’t we “sell” the role? After all, our client has retained us to act for them and presumably wants us to attract and develop the best possible candidate options. Isn’t it true that the more people you can sell on the merits of the role, the better? Well the answer, in fact, is no. Why? Like a marriage proposal, if you have to sell the opportunity, you’re very likely selling it to the wrong person.
This isn’t to suggest that, to continue the marriage analogy, there shouldn’t be an initial “dating” period, where everyone is on their best behaviour and “putting their best foot forward”, so to speak. But there comes a time, much earlier than most people think, when there needs to be some very frank and honest discussion and disclosure, to ensure you’re attracting the right people, and for the right reasons.
Think of it this way: some mandates entail appointing someone to assume responsibility for a troubled operation of some sort, which will inherently require a lot of analysis, reinvention and/or re-building. New strategies and tactics need to be developed and implemented, difficult decisions need to be made, change has to be communicated and sold to all concerned, etc. By contrast, other equally important mandates require someone to assume responsibility for something which is running as expertly as a Swiss watch. These situations involve smooth transitions, a lot of continuity, defending great track records, respecting and, if possible, improving already successful strategies, protecting market positions and refining internal processes. While equally important, these two scenarios are very different mandates, requiring very different candidate profiles and track records. This is precisely why “selling” the role can quickly get you into trouble.
If in “selling” what is, in reality, a fixer / builder role, you’ve focused on all of the positives and de-emphasized or ignored any flaws or challenges, you will attract candidates who may very well be world-class at the organizational equivalent of accepting the baton in a relay race. But often these otherwise outstanding candidates can be like “a deer in the headlights” in a troubled situation.
At the same time, you will have turned off many high-performance candidates who are extremely skilled at fixing and building and, therefore, attracted to such situations. They see problems as challenges and think in terms of “low-hanging fruit” and “first-100-day deliverables”. They are decidedly uninterested in maintaining excellence. They want to be credited with creating it. So you will not only attract the opposite of what you need, you will scare away precisely who and what you do need. Trust me, very few operating executives are excellent in both settings.
All of which is why we believe one of our most important responsibilities is to ensure that everyone in the recruitment process is acting like a buyer – our client, the candidates and, just as importantly, ourselves. Which is precisely why we don’t – and shouldn’t – “sell” the opportunities entrusted to us.
As always, your comments are welcome.
You can reach me at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
How to Write a General Cover Letter
While we act for employers who retain us in connection with senior appointments they need to make, in a previous post I wrote about what we call “generals”, that is to say general conversations we occasionally have with executives who, for one reason or another, are “looking”, as opposed to interviews we conduct with candidates in the course of a specific assignment. Whether these “generals” are in person or by way of telephone or video, a normal preliminary is an e-mail submission with a recent résumé. These submissions usually include a cover letter or, at minimum, some covering comments in the e-mail itself. These cover letters and/or comments are of widely varying degrees of value to us. Frankly, a great number of them are of little or no incremental value in addition to the résumé itself. This is a lost opportunity...for both the sender and the receiver.
So here is what I recommend you do – and don’t do – when composing your cover letter:
(1) Don’t summarize your résumé.
A résumé documents your career history and achievements to date, your educational and other professional credentials, along with any awards and honours you may have received and, often, any community activities you’ve undertaken.
In other words, a résumé is a summary. So if your cover letter summarizes your résumé, what you’re in fact doing is summarizing a summary. Which is fine in a presentation – a) Tell them what you’re going to tell them, b) Tell them, then c) Tell them what you told them” – but not in a résumé submission.
Storing résumés in filing cabinets ended about twenty years ago. These days, résumés are received and stored electronically and, in the case of a search firm, incorporated into a fully searchable relational database. So if the information you are summarizing is already in your résumé, providing it again by way of a covering letter is redundant.
(2) Focus on the future, not the past.
A résumé is an historical document, whereas the whole point and context of your job search and interaction with the search industry is the future. When others think résumé, I recommend you think “brochure”. Let the cover letter say, in effect, “This will tell you where I’ve been. More to the point, here is where I’d like to go.” Believe me, search professionals – and employers – are only interested in what you’ve done to date in the context of what you can do in the future.
(3) Be specific, both in terms of the sorts of things you are good at, as well as the subset of those things that you are interested in doing again.
I know people who are great at doing many things which they’d be more than happy never to do again.
If you take everything you’re good at and divide them into separate categories of “things that give me energy” and “things that take energy”, it will be clear what you should focus on trying to do again.
Trust me, you will get old fast enough without doing more of those things which drain you than necessary. Besides, if you successfully pursue a job in the wrong category, sooner or later your performance will reflect it.
(4) Make your cover letter about the reader, not about you.
No one is going to hire you because you need or a want job. If they hire you it will be because they need something done and believe you’re the right person to do it for them. However, the first point - what they need done - isn't always obvious, even to the person who might hire you. Sometimes you need to connect the dots for people.
If I come home this evening and there is a résumé in my mailbox from someone with a storied career of house building, renovations, contracting etc., I will likely shake my head and toss it with the rest of my junk mail. If that same person leaves a Post-it Note on my mailbox pointing out that my chimney needs re-pointing, I will likely glance up and notice that it could use some attention. If the note also succinctly points out that a quick quote would be obligation free…and that, oh by the way, they’ve built, renovated, repaired hundreds of homes for “X” number of years…I just might call them!
I hope this quick overview is helpful. As always, your comments are welcome.
You can reach me at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
What Good Are References Anyway?
Not long ago, I attended a dinner at which one of the guests was an acquaintance in the search business. As the conversation turned to our common business, I was taken aback when he said, “…references are a waste of time. I mean, really, who in their right mind is going to offer someone as a reference who will not say good things?” For most of the other guests, his comment appeared to make a certain amount of sense. I, on the other hand, couldn’t believe it. This was coming from a man who had spent his entire career in the recruiting business. The fact he held and argued so rigorously an opinion completely contrary to conventional wisdom and recruiting practices everywhere was nothing short of shocking.
I soon understood that my fellow guest clearly came from a school that viewed references as simply a confirmation that “so and so is a good guy”. So it wasn’t surprising he believed references yield little value. For the sake of the dinner party, I thought it best to listen politely, bite my lip, have a little more wine and then change the subject.
Had I chosen to respond to his strongly held opinion, I would have said that we would never, ever, “green-light” a client hiring someone without performing thorough reference checks. Done properly, references are a critical step in the selection process and are often quite helpful in determining a candidate’s fit with a specific role and culture. Insight provided into the individual’s demonstrated personality and observed work style can also serve as valuable coaching notes for the hiring manager to understand how best to successfully bring them on-board and manage them in a way so as to help them achieve their highest potential.
To do references properly, however, requires spending the time and having the skills to ask questions that provoke honest and thoughtful responses. In fact, because it’s true that candidates usually offer up references from people they hope will say positive things about them, our standard referencing template includes questions purposefully designed to obscure the “right” answer. The associated explanations and qualifications these questions and answers usually generate can be very revealing. In-depth references go beyond a simple “he or she is great” assessment and can help corroborate – or question – what you’ve seen and heard from the candidate. They can also identify conflicts or contradictions and raise other issues that require further exploration and clarification.
As for the suggestion that no candidate would ever provide anyone as a reference who would say anything but positive things, I can honestly say that I have, on numerous occasions, spoken with references, usually former bosses, who gave less-than-positive feedback. More often, and more importantly, however, when considering the person in the context of the role, they concluded that the candidate, while being a strong performer, may not, in fact, be the right fit in this situation.
There are times, of course, when candidates, through no fault of their own, have problems providing high quality references. Former bosses may have moved on or even died and large organizations frequently limit references to confirming titles and dates of employment. While this can be a problem or, at a minimum, an obstacle, there are ways to get around it. You can, for example, ask the candidate for colleagues, bosses or even clients who are no longer linked to the firm who would be willing to speak “off the record”.
What do we mean by “high quality” references? Well, for me they’re credible, thoughtful and articulate individuals who’ve worked with and know the candidate well. Ideally, we’re looking for people who can speak from different perspectives (i.e. a boss, colleague, client, employee), possibly at different stages of their career, and people who can provide invaluable insight into their skills, character and other key attributes. As an aside, I find that people are generally happy to act as references and open up when asked in-depth provocative questions. Also, the best reference providers recognize that providing honest answers, that accurately describe and portray the candidate, is the best favour they can provide to someone. Helping someone land a role in which they are unlikely to succeed is a questionable favour indeed.
As for my search industry colleague’s views about the limited value of references, I’m afraid we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Paul Bruner, Partner
"The Road Ahead — Hope and Optimism" . . . Revisited
In my New Year’s message a year ago I wrote “ … it is my belief that 2013 will eventually be viewed as the beginning of a post-financial crisis era of gradual but inevitable improvement. So this is a message of hope and optimism.”
It was a controversial stance at the time. The pervading mood was borderline paranoid, with bleak news reports of European fragility, many predicting varying degrees of EU collapse, slowing Asian growth, the failure of the American consumer to kick-start a consumption-led recovery, and so on. The proverbial glass was decidedly half-full and, for some, emptying. My take differed and I pointed out the alternative, optimistic, lens through which each phenomenon could be viewed and wrote: “So what does this mean for 2013? Well I am bullish in that regard.”
I believe it’s fair to say I was right. It could easily have gone the other way, mind you. But it didn’t. For which I am very thankful.
In retrospect, the mood in Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 stood in polar contrast to the innocently giddy mood to which we had all succumbed, to varying degrees, in the years preceding the financial crisis. In those years, all anyone could see were opportunities. Whereas twelve months ago, despite considerable recovery from the depths of 2008, pretty much all we were still seeing were threats. Hence the reaction to my optimism. One very senior, almost iconic, Canadian businessman wrote: “Thank you for your kind and optimistic note. In a short space you have covered a lot of territory and left me with a better feeling about this year and its prospects. Bless you for the message and your other observations. And let’s make sure 2013 will work out as you suggest. Regards … ”
My reaction at the time was a combination of feeling flattered that he had both read my message and felt compelled to respond to it and, at the same time, a degree of wonder that someone so senior and so experienced was in pretty much the same head-space as the rest of the country.
If it is true that economic recoveries are like pendulums, always swinging far from centre and eventually reversing and retracing their swing, then the question becomes: Has the pendulum reached its apogee, implying a near term reversal in our collective fortunes, or has it simply recovered back to the centre of its swing, implying more in the way of improving fortunes to come?
I believe the latter is the case. It seems to me, at least, that there is much more to celebrate about our current circumstances than there is to worry about. With certain Provincial exceptions, we are in pretty good shape economically. Broadly speaking, I believe the same can be said about our social and political circumstances as well.
This doesn’t mean there’s nothing to worry about. There will always be much to worry about, if one is determined to do so. My 94 yr old mother-in-law is a case in point. She has been continuously worried about something — actually it has never been just one thing and has always included her impending demise — for every one of the 34 years I have known her. She worries. Eventually, some of her worries will come to be. But all the worrying will have done little or nothing to avoid anything.
What strikes me about the pervading sentiment this year is that we are all pretty much ‘in the moment’, so to speak. Animal experts say this is the reason why dogs, for example, are fundamentally happy. They neither dwell on the past, nor worry about the future. They are simply “in the moment”. Last year, all we could see were threats, largely because we were still dwelling on the past. This year, it seems to me that most people are simply in the moment. We’re enjoying what turned out to be a pretty good year, both absolutely and relative to earlier concerns. We aren’t overly worried about the future, but we aren’t giddy about it either. We know some challenges lie ahead. When didn’t they? But we aren’t paralyzed by fear and worry.
Life, like any long-term project, will always surprise us with unexpected challenges. But we’ll deal with whatever comes our way … and we’ll succeed!
From all of us to all of you, Happy New Year and best wishes for a great 2014.
Gary McCracken
"Time for a Coffee? Just Looking for About Twenty Minutes of Your Time."
It is inevitable, in the search business, that you’ll be regularly approached to meet with job-seekers for what we call a “general”, i.e. a general conversation, as opposed to an interview in connection with a specific assignment. These prospective candidates are typically accomplished, mid-to-late career executives who, for one reason or another, are either “between opportunities” (as I like to put it) or simply poking their heads up after a solid stint somewhere, wondering what new challenges might be available.
As you can imagine, these requests come on a fairly steady basis and we must be judicious as to which of these meetings really make the most sense, both for us and for the would-be candidates. In reality, the tangible benefits of these meetings are limited. Particularly for candidates and particularly in the short run. To boot, every half-hour we spend in such meetings is a half-hour we’re not spending on something we’ve been retained to execute.
But failing to meet anyone on a general basis is a great way to generate feelings of resentment and even anger among candidates. So we agree to them, but judiciously. When we do, it is usually a pleasure to meet someone interesting, talented, authentic and enthusiastic, with whom we often share common acquaintances and occasionally even friends.
However sometimes these “generals” are, well, underwhelming. Which is worse than no meeting at all. Making an impression is, obviously, about making a positive impression. So it’s a little disconcerting when the meeting is a bust and/or the real purpose of the meeting remains unclear. Occasionally I'm left with the impression the individual involved had little game plan or goal in mind beyond getting the meeting itself…implicitly hoping that simply meeting over a coffee will somehow generate a job opportunity. If only the search business were so easy! But usually the agenda is simply to a) make a personal contact / impression for the purpose of future considerations, and b) to seek advice on search strategy, résumé presentation, etc.
As far as advice goes, I really do try to offer up something useful. But I sometimes wonder if the advice I’m giving is at all helpful. I sincerely hope so, but who knows? I’m an executive search consultant (aka "headhunter”), not a career transition consultant. At the very least, I hope my advice isn’t harmful!
I also wonder whether my advice is consistent with what others in my industry are saying. I really haven’t a clue whether it is, as I’ve never compared notes on this topic with anyone else…including my own colleagues.
In a future entry, I’ll share some of the advice I give, along with some observations about how would-be-candidates might better use their valuable time in seeking out new opportunities. For now – whether you’re a colleague in the search industry, an executive with feedback to share from a candidate’s perspective, or an employer with an interest in ensuring displaced former executives find meaningful re-employment in a timely manner – I would be grateful for stories and/or feedback from any readers of this piece about how you've been treated by search professionals in general and the value of any advice you've received from them.
Whether your stories are about heroes or horrors, I am genuinely interested. Also, anything you share with me is purely on a not-for-attribution basis. You have my assurance your feedback will never be attributed to you personally.
As always, you can reach me at [email protected]
I genuinely look forward to hearing from you.
Gary McCracken
Passive Candidates and Why We Like Them . . . A Lot!
Last month I wrote about “passive” candidates and promised to explain why we like them. For the record, they aren’t the only candidates we like, but we do like them a lot.
First, what do we mean when we refer to passive candidates? Very simply, a passive candidate is someone who is busy, happy and not actively looking. We’re not suggesting they either lack drive or are in need of assertiveness training. We’re referring only to the fact that, prior to our approach, they were not actively considering or seeking a career change. The possible reasons for this are obviously numerous, but often reflect the simple fact that the best and the brightest are usually busy and happy. Not always, mind you, but more often than not. Why is this so? Well, high-performers get asked for advice and assistance a lot. They also get asked to take on additional projects a lot. And they say “yes” a lot. So they’re busy more often than they’re idle.
They are also usually quite happy. Once again, not always, but most of the time. Why? Because they are happiest when they’re busy. They prefer being over-employed to being under-employed. They’re also happy because colleagues and superiors say positive things about them, they feel appreciated and, by and large, they are adequately compensated. They also value job content, challenge and satisfaction as highly as they do compensation. Which, as an aside, is one reason it’s often a red flag for us when a candidate goes to “comp” too quickly, other than to simply ensure it’s not a non-starter.
So, if that’s what we mean by the term “passive candidate” and those are some of the common traits found in such individuals, why do we like them so much? After all, isn’t someone actively looking to make a change going to be easier to recruit? Well, all things equal, the answer is “yes”. But our clients don’t retain us to recruit those most easily “recruitable”. They retain us, in part, to help identify, develop and, ultimately, recruit those candidates who represent the very best “fit” with their needs, organization, culture, etc. Often those individuals are the very candidates described above as passive candidates.
So the first answer to the question of why we like passive candidates is that it’s a good sign someone is both busy and happy. The second answer lies in the candidate’s motivation. We pay a lot of attention to candidate motivation. It is all well and wonderful they are keen to explore and ultimately land the opportunity, but it’s critical to understand why. Are they really interested in the position itself, or just the opportunity to get out of whatever they’re in . . . including being “between opportunities” as I like to put it.
The Grass is Always Greener . . .
Everyone likes to be approached, but busy, happy people haven’t the time to explore and entertain a new challenge unless their initial reaction is genuine intrigue. Also, once they’ve made the decision to explore an opportunity they weren’t actively seeking, they will only remain engaged if their interest grows with additional information and consideration.
This need to remain interested and for such interest to grow throughout the recruitment process should be true of every candidate. However, the fact remains that, when someone is unhappy and therefore looking to make a change, it is very easy to fall into the “grass is greener” trap with which we are all so well acquainted.
Your Move Should Always Be About Going To Something, Not Just Getting Out Of Something
Never underestimate the power of self-delusion. An active, motivated candidate might be easier to land and even genuinely believe they are interested in the new role. Regrettably, it might actually be that their interest is mostly rooted in a desire to extract themselves from a lousy situation. And if that’s their primary motivation, where’s their motivation once they are in the new role? It is absolutely possible to leave something flawed and move to something wonderful. But it’s also possible to leave something flawed, for the wrong reasons, and find you’ve moved to something equally flawed, just differently so.
So, a fundamental reason we like passive candidates is that they’re choosy. They have “skin in the game”, so to speak, in that they are busy and happy in a good situation and will make a change only when they truly believe it’s a fit and a positive step forward in some way, justifying their giving up their current position. This is good because if a choosy candidate honestly thinks it’s a fit . . . and our client thinks it’s a fit . . . and we think it’s a fit . . . it’s probably a fit!
All of this is not to be interpreted as dismissing the many viable candidates who are actively looking. There are many, often excellent, candidates in this category at any given point in time. It’s just that we all have to be that much more alert to the risk of confusing enthusiasm with sober objectivity, thereby increasing the risk of a mistake. Which no one wants or needs. Candidates want to avoid stumbling at a critical phase in their career. Clients obviously want to avoid a mistake. And we have a lot at stake too: our guarantee to replace the successful candidate, repeat and referral business in the future and, most importantly, our reputation.
As always, you can reach me with any comments or questions at [email protected]
Gary McCracken
So What is it We Actually Do Anyway?
Given the growth and evolution of the executive search industry over the years, it is surprising to me the number of executives and other professionals who still misunderstand what it is those of us in the search (as opposed to placement) industry actually do. Not just how we operate, but what we fundamentally provide as a professional service to our clients.
The most common misunderstanding is that we assist people in finding employment. For the record, we don’t. At least no more than you do when, for example, you refer friends and colleagues to us in connection with assignments we’ve been retained to execute.
Another related misunderstanding is that we match people who are “looking” for a new opportunity with clients, whether or not they (our clients) are looking. Once again, we don’t. This may be what placement people do, but it isn’t what we, as a retained executive search firm, do. I call the former headplacers. We, by comparison, are true headhunters.
The fact is that the majority of people we contact in the course of executing an assignment are busy, happy (either generally or completely) and not proactively looking for a new opportunity They’re busy because they get asked for advice and assistance a lot, and they tend to either get asked or volunteer for new challenges. Similarly, they are happy because they prefer being busy to being idle. So they’re generally not looking and when we call with regard to a specific assignment we never assume they’ll either be interested or free to seriously consider it — let alone be both. We do, however, assume that they’ll probably know of someone who both sounds like who we’re looking for and might be interested.
So what do we do?
One way of expressing what we do is to say that we find people for jobs, not jobs for people. But this doesn’t really capture what we do. So, what do we actually do?
Over-simplified, our services can be summarized as:
- We help clients determine what they should be looking for. We don’t tell them — we help them to articulate it.
- We create options for them they would not otherwise have available to them.
- We help clients make the best selection decision — for them — and this isn’t simply landing the most qualified candidate they can afford.
Finding someone generally consistent with what a client is seeking is not always difficult. It can be time-consuming, mind you, but probably not too difficult. Maybe LinkedIn, an ad or a job board is all you need.
By contrast, finding people who indeed are truly consistent with what a client is seeking — and very likely not “looking” — is where we shine. Managing the process from assignment launch through to completion, including acting as a trusted go-between for both sides, is not only time-consuming, it requires a variety of skills including diplomacy, objectivity, creativity and patience. What we do also requires the ability to justifiably maintain trust and credibility with both client and candidate. It is always a delicate process and, like diplomacy, employs skills that improve with experience. Trust me, we genuinely earn our keep.
If, like most executives, you believe that making the very best appointments in key positions (at all levels) is critical to your sustained success, we’re who you should call. There is obviously a cost involved (we don’t work for free!) and it is a cliché to portray it as an investment, rather than an expense. However, it really is an investment; it is a one-time expense that, if successful, will generate ongoing returns for years ahead. Some prefer to look at it as insurance against the very significant cost of a bad hire. Either way, it really is a rounding error compared to either the cost of making the wrong appointment (the risk) or the significant benefits of making a key appointment you wouldn’t otherwise be in a position to make (the return).
To summarize: Rather than supply people, we provide a professional service that helps ensure you make the very best appointments possible. In the unfortunate, albeit rare, eventuality that we collectively get it wrong, we guarantee to re-do the search at no additional fee.
Pretty valuable stuff, when you think about it, particularly in view of the considerable upside and downside scenarios involved.
Next Time: “Passive” candidates and why we like them . . . a lot.
Gary McCracken
Buying versus Selling
It is a common experience most senior operating executives can relate to personally: By the time you finally terminate an under-performing employee, you know in your heart you should have done so a long time ago.
Now it is absolutely true that it is possible to make a hasty assessment and act too quickly, before the situation can be remedied. It is also true that there is a certain amount of time required to attempt to remediate the performance and/or other “fit” issues which, if ultimately unsuccessful (and they usually are), could have been spent, with the benefit of hindsight, more fruitfully in recruiting and developing the failed employee’s replacement.
The fact is, however, that the delay in dealing with a problem situation is usually nothing more than denial and procrastination, however it is otherwise justified. It is simply human nature to avoid admitting a mistake and to hope, often unrealistically, that the mistake can be reversed.
Similarly, it is quite common in our business to witness clients — and experienced consultants — overlooking “fit” and other concerns in an earlier decision point: namely, the assessment and selection phase immediately prior to hiring and appointing the now struggling employee in the first place.
While it is stating the obvious, it is worth stating nonetheless: If it’s not a good fit before the candidate / employee is “in and on”, it doesn’t get better once they are!
This brings me to one of the bigger misconceptions about what we actually do, or more precisely should be doing, on our clients’ behalf.
I would venture to say that most clients and search consultants believe our role includes selling the company and specific opportunity to prospective candidates. In my humble (though experienced) opinion, this is fundamentally wrong. In fact, I think it’s the precise opposite of what we should be doing.
One of our most fundamental services and responsibilities — to both our client and those candidates we approach and develop on our clients’ behalf — is to ensure everyone is acting like a buyer. And I do mean everyone: our client, ourselves and, most importantly, the candidate.
Put simply, in recruitment, no one has more “skin in the game” individually than the candidate. However senior the role — even a CEO role — if the appointment is a failure and the incumbent is “put off the ship”, so to speak, it isn’t like the entire organization fails to show up the following day. By contrast, from the now “exited” employee’s perspective, the whole organization has indeed failed to show up! The role was a 100%, all-in, investment from the employee’s perspective and that investment is now a write-off.
Hence our need to ensure everyone — particularly the candidate — is acting like a buyer. The prospective employee is “buying” both the organization as an employer and the role as a position in which they can operate, succeed and flourish. Buy poorly and your ability to succeed is compromised from the beginning. In this scenario everyone loses: the client — who loses significant time and expense; the candidate — whose loss is obvious; and the consultant — who is undoubtedly associated with the failure, deservedly or otherwise.
So rather than selling candidates on an organization and the role in question, we believe it is our responsibility to paint as accurate a picture as possible of the organization, including its weaknesses and potential challenges, just as clearly and openly as we portray its strengths and potential opportunities. If the organization is in turmoil, you want someone with the skills to help fix and build. Someone with these skills and that orientation is likely to see the problems as “low-hanging fruit” in their “first 100 days” deliverable impact plan. Paint a picture of perfection and you’ll lose the very person you need. Worse, you will probably attract someone precisely wrong for the role.
The opposite is true of course. If your organization is running like a Swiss watch, the last thing you need is someone whose skills are rooted in disassembling, reorganizing and rebuilding. What you need is the executive equivalent of a relay runner who can accept the baton smoothly, with a minimum of disruption and, if possible, even improve the situation. But not at the risk of undoing all that has been accomplished before they entered the picture.
So our responsibility is to ensure everyone knows what they’re buying — and like a good Best Man, ensure the wedding takes place, despite the understandable nervousness inherent in making any big decision and commitment. But only if the marriage SHOULD take place!
Gary McCracken
Why Leading Organizations Continue to Invest in Executive Search Services
In this uncertain “slow growth” economy, why is it that organizations, both large and small, in all sectors continue to invest in executive search services?
Well, first and foremost, they understand that there is no more important decision any organization can make than hiring the right leaders. Make the right choice and your organization can grow and excel to a whole new level. Make the wrong choice and it will not only be costly, the fallout can set you back for years.
While it may be true that there is a larger pool of people actively “looking” and therefore available than in boom times, your recruitment options should not be limited to active candidates. Passive candidates, being those who are engaged, busy and largely happy where they are, vastly outnumber active candidates and should always be canvassed, confidentially, for their own interest or their referral suggestions.
In our view, placing an ad and working your own network, is the equivalent of fishing: you throw your line in the water and hope you get a bite. For sure, there’s a chance you may ultimately recruit a very good person. But you’ll never know if you hired the best person...for you.
The only way to ensure you identify, attract, and ultimately hire, not only the best talent, but the right talent, is through a rigorous and disciplined process of research and networking. The hard fact is that you cannot possibly match the breadth and penetration capabilities of a full-time professional, retained executive search firm. Besides, passive candidates will often admit potential interest in an opportunity to us, as a trusted, confidential third party, where they wouldn’t initially and directly to you — or your staff. From a governance perspective, you may also need to consider issues around transparency, objectivity and diversity.
When you partner with a great executive search firm like McCracken Executive Search, you benefit from the experience of senior business people who see the big picture, can provide strategic advice and will uncover excellent candidacies you would never otherwise identify, let alone successfully recruit. In addition to going beyond your direct network to attract quality candidates from a much broader field, as an objective third party — acting for you — we’re able to engage in delicate conversations and gain the confidence of candidates while objectively presenting a potentially compelling career opportunity and offering credible advice, to both parties, throughout the recruitment.
When the full cost of a key recruitment is considered, including the enormous cost of making a mistake, partnering with an experienced and committed executive search firm continues to be a smart investment.
Paul Bruner, Partner
The Road Ahead — Hope and Optimism
For the last dozen years I have “penned” a New Year’s message, largely focused on the events of the previous year. This year I would like to do the opposite and concentrate on the road ahead of us in 2013.
Nietzsche famously said: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Taken literally this is obviously ridiculous. Many people are permanently weakened by disease or injury. But it makes a good point figuratively. We (can) learn from our mistakes and we (can) develop both avoidance and coping mechanisms for repeat occurrences. In this spirit, it is my belief that 2013 will eventually be viewed as the beginning of a post-financial crisis era of gradual but inevitable improvement.
So, this is a message of hope and optimism.
Why optimism? There are many reasons, but I will highlight three, looked at geo-politically and economically: Europe, Asia and America. So while I am neither a professional economist nor a forecaster, here goes:
Take Europe: Clearly there is a long road ahead for the many debt laden, economically weak EU members, particularly the southern countries of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. But in my view there is reason to be hopeful. Against enormous odds, they have collectively and individually muddled through. This real world stress test is encouraging and speaks, I believe, to a steely resilience and determination that will hold the shaky economic and currency union in good stead as they tiptoe forward through the remaining economic, financial and political minefield they’ve planted for themselves. Mistakes were made for sure. But lessons are being learned and both coping and avoidance mechanisms are being adopted.
How about Asia, particularly China? Rapid urbanization has fuelled unprecedented demand and economic growth in recent years. Has this growth slowed recently? Yes. But it’s still growth and explosive growth followed by slower, more sustainable growth, beats contraction any day. The Asian phenomenon may have slowed but it will not end anytime soon.
Finally, what about America? Without pointing fingers, much of the financial crisis of 2008 can be traced to the US and a number of attitudes and practices that in hindsight seem preposterous. They collectively triggered a crisis of global proportion from which we’re still recovering. But recovering we are and just as a serious illness usually requires a lengthy rehabilitation, the recovery we’re in is not like recent post-recession recoveries.
This recovery is slower. There is a simple reason for this. This was not a “traditional” recession brought on by inflation or normal cyclical economic contraction. These garden variety recessions can be addressed and recovered from fairly rapidly. This is a so-called ‘balance sheet’ recession, fuelled by debt-financed consumption and triggered by a musical chairs-like seizing of the global financial system. The latter continues to be lubricated and freed up by massive injections of liquidity. The former will only be remedied slowly as American (and to a lesser extent Canadian) household finances are strengthened. How? By reducing debt, relative to income and assets. In other words, reining in consumption and paying down debt for a while.
So what does that mean for 2013? Well I am bullish in that regard.
Americans are now saving and paying down debt at a pace almost equal to the rate at which they borrowed, pre-crisis. Discretionary spending is slowly increasing, as personal debt levels are reduced and housing prices have begun to stabilize and even rise. The recovery will remain slow, but saving and debt reduction are both cumulative and compounding and the pace of recovery should slowly accelerate.
So on all three counts, there is reason to believe that 2013 will come to be seen as the beginning of a brighter future. A future we will all enjoy--hopefully more intelligently than perhaps we were used to.
Please note I haven’t even touched on the fact that unlike consumers and governments, companies are sitting on record amounts of cash, waiting for the investment “outlook” to improve. In other words, waiting for things to generally feel better. Remember, at the end of the day (quite literally), corporate executives and managers are individuals and consumers too. More on this another time.
From all of us at McCracken & Partners, please accept our very best wishes for an outstanding 2013. It’s due, and we deserve it!
Happy New Year!
Gary McCracken
"Good to Great" Revisited
Clients that invest in our services tend to be organizations that embrace the principles of “Good to Great”.
Having caught myself using this expression the other day, I decided I should revisit Jim Collins’ 2001 book "Good to Great" to see if its principles still apply more than a decade later.
If you haven’t read it, Collins and his team analyzed decades of business history, looking to understand why eleven companies beat the market over 15-year periods by an average of seven-to-one.
In a nut shell, they found that “those who built great companies understand that the ultimate throttle on growth is not markets, or technology, or competition, or products. It is one thing above all others: the ability to get and keep enough of the right people.”
According to Collins, “The old adage 'people are your most important asset’ is wrong. The right people are.”
Here are a few quotes and comments about some of the key principles the team found were consistent across each of the eleven great companies.
First Who, Then What
“Executives who transformed these companies from good to great did not figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there. Instead, Good to Great leaders began the transformation by first getting the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it.”
“A key part of the get the right people on the bus approach is not selling a set vision to potential candidates. It's getting people to join because of the other people who are on the bus — and getting them to solve the challenges on the road ahead.” As former Wells Fargo CEO Dick Cooley stated, "That's how you build the future. If I'm not smart enough to see the changes coming, they will. And they'll be flexible enough to deal with them."
Level 5 Leadership
“We were surprised, shocked really . . . compared to high-profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders are self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy — these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar.”
Collins describes five levels of leadership in which the top level (Level 5 Leadership) drives the greatest long-term results. “When things go poorly, they look in the mirror and blame themselves, taking full responsibility. They attribute much of their success to great teams and good luck, rather than personal greatness.”
Importantly, they also do a much better job of “surrounding themselves with future leaders, whereas good or mediocre companies often followed a ‘genius with a thousand helpers’ model — a genius leader who sets a vision and then enlists a crew of highly capable helpers to make it happen.”
By preparing their organizations for continued success after they leave, Level 5 CEOs mitigate the risk associated with the loss of a dominant or defining personality.
Rigour and Discipline
It’s not about speed or expense — getting the right people on the bus takes rigour and discipline, two words Collins uses frequently to describe the practices of Good to Great companies.
In stark contrast to the cost-per-hire and time-to-fill focus that drives many organizations today to fill positions as quickly as possible, Collins says, "When in doubt, don't hire. Keep looking. No company can grow revenues consistently faster than its ability to get enough of the right people to implement that growth and still become a great company."
According to Collins, “the right person has more to do with character traits and innate capabilities than with specific knowledge, background, and skills." We agree. We often identify great people who don't meet such common qualifications as “10 plus years sector experience". Collins cites several examples of star employees with no previous experience in a specific area that significantly outperform people with much more direct experience.
So while the goal of great companies is to “search for great people, not just great résumés”, the question becomes how to do it given that most recruiting departments simply don’t have the resources or skills to apply the necessary rigour and discipline to identify and attract the right people.
We recognize that not every company can be great. And frankly, given the uncertain and competitive world we live in today, along with the never-ending challenge to balance short-term reality with long-term goals, it’s not easy to stay true to these principles. That said, we believe it’s worth striving for because it really is the right path for long-term success.
I’m glad I took the time to revisit Collins’ landmark book. It’s as relevant today as it was 12 years ago. For me and my colleagues at McCracken & Partners, it reinforces our own values and mission, and reminds us why we got into the executive search business in the first place. We’re proud to help our clients strive for greatness.
Paul Bruner, Partner
Confidence . . . and the Illusion of Certainty
In describing the world’s precarious state these days, people routinely reference the U.S. "fiscal cliff", sovereign bankruptcies and bailouts, impending real estate collapses, the tsunami-like implications of slowing growth in BRIC economies and more. We collectively fear an uncertain future where most or all “surprises” are dreaded as probable negatives, not hopefully anticipated as potential positives. Now there is no doubt we live in relatively uncertain times. Equally, there is no doubt this affects us all in the decisions we make, both personally and professionally. I believe this pervading sense of uncertainty is overdone however and needs to be put into context.
Renowned value (therefore, contrarian) investor Warren Buffett famously prescribed: “Be fearful when everyone is greedy. Be greedy when everyone is fearful." To most of us, this is a bit like the advice: “Buy low, sell high.” It sounds simple enough, but in practice it isn’t easy. Another oft quoted notion is that the future is unknowable. Which is true, but only partially. Much about the future is actually quite known. Two months from now, it will be colder here in Toronto, the days will be shorter, there will be a newly elected U.S. President and most of us will have turned some of our attention to the holiday season and winter vacation plans.
The reality is that, at any given point in time, our sense of certainty (or uncertainty) about the future is partially illusion and very much wrapped up in both recent events and our emotional state at that moment.
Pre-2008/2009, if you asked someone “So how's business?” you would commonly hear variations of: “Well, we’ve just had an outstanding quarter and have no reason to expect anything much different over the balance of the year. So we’re pretty bullish about our prospects for the year.” Since the global melt-down over that period, despite many positive quarters in capital markets, for example, where most of the losses previously incurred have since been recovered, one often hears something more like: “Well the good news is we've just finished a strong quarter and we have a pretty good idea what the next two to three months look like. The bad news is that beyond that it’s really anyone’s guess what the future holds. So we're just going to keep our powder dry for now and see what develops.” The same facts, in both cases, seen through very different lenses, producing very different perspectives.
The reality is that back then, pre-crisis, we had no better idea what the future held than we do now. We just felt like we did.
Some readers of this piece may well remember the old adage “Bull markets climb a wall of worry.” Which, in part, recognizes that bull markets are rarely recognized as such at their beginning. But just because you are worried the future is going to be bleak, doesn’t guarantee it will be. In fact, when most everyone is convinced the future is darkest, it often proves to be the precise opposite.
As Steven Jobs said in the commencement address he gave at Stanford in 2005: “You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.”
The two fundamental points of this piece are: 1) relative uncertainty and pessimism leads to our deferring (read: avoiding) important decisions that simply need to be made, and 2) refusing to make a decision now is a decision itself and can be just as potentially damaging as making a decision and possibly getting it wrong.
We will never know the future completely. So we must learn to make decisions in the face of uncertainty, knowing that some of those decisions, with the benefit of hindsight, will prove less than perfect. We simply cannot wait for full and complete knowledge. It just doesn’t exist.
Gary McCracken