My Final Blog Post to the Recruiting Industry.


A short time ago, I received a notification from WordPress that my recruiting blog that has been largely neglected has reached 10,000 views. I’m not sure what to think about that since I’ve moved away from blogging about the recruitment industry and began serving my niche within recruiting instead.  Some time ago, I began the process of attempting to help people, who like me, were tired and frustrated with recruiting. I set out on a mission to show them how I went from a self-loathing contingency recruiter to a self-respecting Retained Search Consultant. I truly believed that there would be many people eager to learn how to move from frustration and failure to fulfillment and success. What I learned through this well-meaning yet naive endeavor is that many of the people in the industry are perfectly content with this way of working and defend it with venom and malice.

Far be it from me to tell someone that there is a more rewarding and effective way to earn a living than what they’re doing now. The irony is that they vehemently defend the very practices that undermine their own professional existence. Much to my surprise after running a few blog pieces extolling the virtues of Retained Search and highlighting some of the many pitfalls and failures of contingency search, I received aggressive ad hominem attacks against me. I haven’t been called some of these pearls since I was in middle school. Classy bunch these folks are!  Apparently, a handful people were deeply offended by some of my assertions and rather than prove me wrong, they resorted to all sorts of slurs and slanders. I welcome criticism as long as it is coming from a place of honesty and its intent is constructive. That wasn’t the case. It became a “mob mentality” of heaping insults and ridiculous assumptions. It became clear to me that most of the people were not trying to learn or grow, but to defend a practice that I was calling out as deeply flawed and needing be abandoned. These people seem to have convinced themselves that contingency recruiting is good for them and their clients. They have drunk the Kool-aid and have been drawn down a self destructive path where neither they nor their clients gain what is truly in everyone’s best interests. Either I failed to make my point, or they weren’t ready for the truth.

You can read some of my posts and determine for yourself. Some of what I said was intended to get people to think critically. I spoke about the only metric that matters being the ongoing value the “placed” professional has on the company you place them and some were very adamant that this is outside of their control and therefore they are not to be held responsible for what happens after the check is cashed and their 30 day guarantee expired. I wrote on the pitfalls of contingency search carrying very negative “unintended consequences,” and was told that I must have been an abject failure if I was drawing such conclusions. It became obvious to me that my time was being wasted on the likes of these.

The only conclusion that I am left to draw is that many tenured recruiters simply don’t care or aren’t willing to take any responsibility for their actions. In their minds, they did their job and were done as soon as the candidate was hired and that’s all that matters. All else happened apart from their influence and they are not culpable for any mis-hire. However, if you are a true partner with your clients, you cannot hold yourself harmless from your client’s bad hire. Shall we use the “But For” clause to demonstrate this? But for the actions of the recruiter, the company never would have made the bad hire. You see it can work for or against you. I guess no matter how much I may try to elevate our industry, well known for its questionable ethical standards, change requires one’s admission that they are doing something wrong. We all know that this is impossible for some to actualize.

I heard from some angry people via Recruiting Blogs who claimed to fill 20% – 70% of their searches. While that might impress some, it still means that around 50% of their activity ends without any reward or fulfillment. That still means that the majority of your work ends up on the “cutting room floor.”

My advice to younger recruiters is to learn the art of retained search and leave the garbage for those dinosaurs who need it to survive.

So this will be my last Recruiting Blog Post. I have begun another blog focusing on the industry that I serve and in a very short time, the feedback from people has been very positive. You see, I am passionate about helping others. Yet the recruiting industry is not a very nice place to offer to help. Perhaps some people just are defensive and fight back rather than look for ways to grow. Maybe they don’t want to work as hard as it takes to move over to Retained Search. Or maybe they can’t imagine anything could be better than the scraps from the dumpster. Whatever the reason, it is time to put my writing efforts toward a more receptive arena.

I’ll continue blogging on more interesting topics at http://www.tdg-llc.com/our-blog

I leave you with a compelling piece on the subject by Marcus Cauchi entitled “Contingency Recruitment is Dead. Long Live Retainers!”   http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141125183655-1301861-contingency-recruitment-is-dead-long-live-retainers

God bless!

Advertisements

Why I Don’t “Prep” My Candidates for Interviews


Image

I had an interesting experience recently that reminded me why I don’t “prep” my candidates prior to them having an interview with my clients. I’ve been doing senior level searches over the past several years, but as I have recently been working on some Sales Consultant searches for a dear friend, I am once again reminded of the incredible power of a Candidate Prep Call. Vice President and CEO level people generally don’t need to be coached or prepped for an interview. In most cases,  I prep my clients on what they must do to capture the imagination of the senior level candidate.  However, in lower level searches the Prep Call before an interview can seem a lot more like “insider trading” than simple prep call.

As part of the standard Recruiter training protocol, “Prepping a Candidate for a client interview” is as routine an aspect of the recruiting process as the “Candidate Debrief Call.” So, then why do I say that I don’t prep my candidates before an interview? I have long-held the view that by preparing a candidate for an interview with your client, you introduce bias into the process and make the job of vetting the candidates by your client far more difficult. In fact, by doing so, you introduce a profound conundrum which enhances the candidates’ ability to tailor their approach and directly address precisely what your clients are looking for. Why is this bad? It actually undermines the process by giving your candidates an unreasonable advantage in the interview process enabling them to misrepresent their actual abilities with their “super human intelligence” provided by an insider. With preparation from an insider, they can become a better version of themselves. You may think that if you prep “all” of your candidates the same way, then you have “evened the score” making it equal, but while that may be true as it relates to your candidates having equal access to the information, it fails to recognize that what your client needs most from you is an accurate representation of the candidates’ real and natural talent. And this directly undermines this exposure.  In another blog, entitled, “Why Contingency Recruiters’ Candidates So Stinking Good?” I point out that recruiters greatly bias the interview process toward their own candidates when they prepare their candidates prior to an interview by telling them all of the nuances and details that the hiring manager is looking for. For example: “display fire in the belly passion” “make sure you ask for the job” “demonstrate your ability to ____________,” and other such things. It is as if the Recruiter gives a script to the candidates to perform in a play. The very things that the hiring manager told the recruiter he/she was looking for in a candidate gets spelled out in vivid detail. Irrespective of their actual talent, behaviors, and communication, they will follow the lead of the Recruiter who gave them the “insider’s view” of what the manager is actually looking for in explicit detail.  It’s as if an insider in a prospective target sales account gave your Sales Rep the exact road map to the hidden motivations and desires of the decision-maker. What Sales Rep wouldn’t be effective in selling to a prospect whom they have been carefully and meticulously informed of all their hot-buttons, likes and dislikes?  Any Sales Rep worth their salt would give a compelling presentation given such “insider” information. Why then is this bad? Because this is not a “real life” scenario. A competent Sales professional needs to qualify their prospect and elegantly ascertain the wants and needs that are most important to them in assessing a product or service. The Sales Rep must then present their product or service offering to the prospect and ensure that there is adequate disclosure and that any questions or concerns are appropriately overcome with information or demonstrations to dispel doubt and bring about a positive agreement that their products/services meet their prospect’s needs effectively. Then they must close the sale. However if a Recruiter carefully crafts all the objections and concerns for the prospective candidate in advance of the interview, how is that really giving the hiring manager an accurate representation of their true sales abilities? This is what I mean by saying that Prepping Candidates always biases the hiring process and actually undermines the objective of finding the best possible talent and fit.

So let’s consider why “Prepping Candidates” is such a widely accepted behavior of Recruiters everywhere.  First, this makes YOU look good!  When all your candidates perform well in their first interview, it reflects upon you as each of your candidates is well prepared in advance and their polish is a testament to your thoroughness. At the surface, this is true. However, what is the true objective of the search in the first place?  Is it to make you look good or earn a fee quickly?  Maybe it is for you. If you are a recruiter and you know that the only way you will be compensated for all your time and effort, you must take advantage of every means necessary to ensure that your candidate gets hired. If you’re like me, you notice that there is a subtle, yet profound conflict of interests if the Recruiter ever does anything that is not in the best interests of the client. Why is this conflict of interest present you may ask? It is my belief that in part it is due to the prevalence of Contingency Search. Contingency Search has several unintended consequences that elevate the risk of a company making a bad hire. By removing the Contingency terms, recruiters are able to operate as an extension of the company and not out of fear of being “stiffed” out of their fee.  Contingency Search has many potential pitfalls that recruiters must attempt to avoid. (backdoor hire, candidates who circumvent them, resume timing, active candidates etc.) But I also believe that recruiters tend to be transient and not terribly interested in the long-term success of their clients. One of the most bizarre ironies in recruiting industry is the incredibly high turnover and short tenure. I know of no other industry with such difficulty keeping people in the industry. The failure rate of rookie recruiters is over 90% by most accounts. So one might assume that if someone makes it past their first year, they do it right. Right? Wrong!

I’ve been accused of being heretical in my stance on Candidate Prepping. I guess I don’t get it.  All I ever want to do is what is truly in the best interests of my clients to mitigate as much risk of a bad hire that I possibly can. And what better way than to find the best people I possibly can attract given the company’s value proposition and introduce them to the company and later to the hiring manager. The rest is up to the candidate to conduct their own due diligence, research the company, its products and opportunity. It is up to them to manage their own performance in the way that comes to them naturally. Because that is exactly how they will perform on the job. So, whether it is prepping them by telling them to make sure they scour the client’s website and study the products to reading the last three or four press releases so that can be more prepared or advising them how to follow-up after the interview with an email to the hiring manager.  These are things that the Top Performers should do without the need of a recruiter coaching them.

Some Recruiters have laughed out-loud at me and told me that if I don’t prep my candidates, all my work is in vain and that I need to protect my investment of time. They’ve told me that I won’t be able to make a living and that they will run circles around me while I go out of business. Yet after 14 years in the business and the last 10 plus working on retainer this way, I remain convinced that what I am doing and more importantly NOT doing is in the best interests of my clients. And they keep calling me when they have new searches. In the last year, over 80% of our new searches have come from repeat customers. Keep in mind, we are not the “low-cost provider” in the market. While others settle for flat fees and lower percentages, we hold firmly to our rates, because  I believe that in the end, it isn’t about “Cost” but “Value.” The greatest value we can provide is helping our clients hire the absolute best person they possibly can. We believe the best way that they can make an educated decision and discern which candidate is best is through allowing our candidates to come as they are rather than how someone wants them to be. Unless you remove the contingency factor from this scenario, I don’t believe you can properly align your recruiter’s priorities with the company. At the same time, merely removing the contingency factor does not ensure you that your recruiter will not Prep their candidates and bias the process. Every hiring manager should work with someone who they trust to have their best interests at heart and be committed to their success beyond making a hire and earning their fee.

Back to my recent experience conducting the Sales Consultant searches; a few of the candidates came in less than armed to the T with all the preparation that one would hope for. My friend and client saw the shortcomings of a few of my candidates. While it would have made me look better to prep them, in the end he had an accurate representation of each candidate which equipped him to make the best informed decision relative to who best fit the role and had the talent to represent his company in the designated territories. However tempting it might have been to make myself look better by prepping the candidates, that isn’t the highest goal when retained by a client who trusts me to help them hire the best.

“Over-qualified” or Too Old?


old man

It seems to be a common assumption today that if someone says “You’re overqualified” for a job, it’s merely code for “you’re too old.” In my experience, this is a possibility, however, don’t assume that is their true motivation in rejecting you for the position you’ve applied for. There are legitimate reasons for deeming a person “overqualified” for a position regardless of age. Yet, too often, people make this assumption and it can negatively impact their future prospects as they attribute false motives to anyone who might be younger than them.

I learned this the hard way early in my search career. While doing a search for a Regional Manager for an orthopedic company, I happened to be contacted by a former colleague who had been at the national level in sales management. He was gainfully employed, yet he wanted to have a smaller area of responsibility. He had a young family and felt he was missing too much his children’s lives while traveling up to 80% of the time and often cross country.  All of his reasons for demoting himself seemed reasonable, even honorable for this father of two young boys. Like many professionals,he was in his early 40’s and had experienced significant success early in his career and believed that this season of his life was more about his kids than his career and he was taking the initiative and making the professional sacrifice for his family. 

This all made perfect sense to me as a father of four kids who made the similar decision to have a local job with minimal travel so I could be a dad first. Here is what happened in this scenario that informed me about the legitimate argument for someone being overqualified.

I presented this talented sales leader to my client company. During the interview process, it was obvious to all parties that this was a considerable step back in his career. Since his situation was self-imposed and everyone felt that they adequately vetted him to be as sure as you can be that he really felt strongly enough to keep himself there long term. However, it didn’t take more than six months for him to begin to see that he was in fact a much better leader than his boss who was about his same age. After all, he had excelled to the national stage before, and his boss hadn’t. Once he began to sense his bosses comparative weaknesses, he became more and more frustrated with the way his boss would manage him and his leadership role. He began to see every flaw in strategy and execution that his boss had and it began to undermine their relationship.  At first, he was able to shrug it off and remind himself that he was in this role for a higher purpose than his own career and that seemed to work, briefly. 

Within nine months, he was no longer able to be gracious to his boss about his perceived “ineptness.” He had become aggressive and critical and it came down to which man would remain and which one would have to leave the company. My candidate didn’t go down without a fight, but he eventually lost the “war” and his job. As you might imagine, he realized that he was a much better leader than a follower, particularly of people who he felt more capable than and rightly so, perhaps.

I considered that placement as a missed opportunity to deliver the right solution to my client and through it I have learned that even when someone tells you that they want to take a “step back” with great passion and commitment, in a high percentage of the cases, they simply cannot sustain the transition. Their ego and high achievement drive cannot be constrained without great difficulty. To this day, I am reticent to ever place anyone in less a role than they previously enjoyed. There is great risk to the hiring company and managers.

In all reality, if you are applying for a job that is below your prior experience level, you ARE an increased flight risk. This doesn’t mean it you can’t do the job or that it never works, but search professionals are in the business of mitigating their client’s risk so if they won’t present you on a job that you really want, but is a step back, this is likely why. If this happens to you, you’ll likely hear that you’re “over qualified.”

The most common reason for calling someone “overqualified” is actually not based upon the candidate’s age in my experience. That is not to say that age is never a factor. I have had conversations with a hiring manager who essentially told me the approximate age of the “ideal candidate.” As an ethical search professional, you would dismiss that comment as it is irrelevant to one’s ability to execute the duties and it is “age discrimination,” which is frowned upon by certain people in the US Government. So, although age discrimination exists, don’t be too quick to assume this to be the case if you’re overlooked for a role. There are legitimate reasons one might be eliminated from consideration. Ultimately, those making the decision are going attempt to do what they think is in the best interests of their company. (Well, at least almost always.)

Why Can’t Your Company Hire Top Talent?


There have been many business books driving home the value of hiring top talent to create value and make companies successful. However, let’s face it, not every company CAN hire Top Talent. There are a variety of reasons for this, and sadly many companies struggle not knowing why they fail.  In over 26 years in business, both working in corporate America as well as consulting for corporations, I have distilled it down to three basic reasons that companies cannot hire an A Player. See if you agree with my assessment.

1. Value Proposition:  It is not always the fault of leadership as certain things are outside of their control. This may be a regulatory or reimbursement issue which undermines the potential of the opportunity and top talent may not see a “blue” enough sky for them to excel and do what they do best. It may also have to do with the company’s product line not being innovative enough. The best people want to be passionate about the projects they work on if your company has a lackluster product, that can certainly lack the power to draw the best people in. Lastly, the compensation in this company may be at a level that keeps A level talent away. There is a “bell curve” in the compensation range for a reason, and companies that recognize and reward high achievers will always have a greater chance of drawing the best people away from other companies.

2. Hiring Process: Some companies as they have gotten bigger have become overly process oriented and seem to have a policy for everything. These processes can be significant obstacles to bringing on the best talent.  The best people don’t want to treated like a number. One example would be HR’s policies on how a new candidate enters their “system.” It can also be something as seeminly benign as a screening call from an HR professional within the company. Too often  HR are conditioned to interview people as “applicants.” Applicants are people who have contacted the company in search of a job and as such are motivated to join the company for  myriad reasons.  “A players” are scarcely “applicants,” and if you treat them as one, you’ll decrease your chances of hiring them.  HR are conditioned to hire applicants and have built a process around this concept making it difficult for the best person for the job to get hired. Other policies or just big company process can also turn off the best people as the processes drone on and one and often become abiguous. To be successful,HR must treat A talent outside their organizations like customers! Unfortunately, HR isn’t used to interacting with customers and too often lack the soft skills to sell the opportunity and win the heart and mind of the most talented.

3. Weak Leadership:  Building lasting results is ALL About Talented Leadership. The most insidious reason that companies fail to hire great people has to do with the existing leadership in the company. The main reason for this is that people tend to hire in their own image. Talented leaders hire talented people because they are focused on developing people and getting results. Thus the more talented the leadership in the company, the more they will hire talented people under them and equip them for success. Conversely, the more dysfunctional a leader is, the more likely they are to hire people who do not possess the necessary talent to perform well in their role. I’ve witnessed this countless times and the results suffer terribly. Weak leaders are often afraid to, and usually unable to hire A Players. When a weak executive micromanages his team, or uses fear and intimidation to motivate he or she frustrates them to the point that the best people will ultimately quit and these leaders know this by now. This is because those “A Players” have the confidence to leverage their talent and experience to find another company where they can excel free from oppressive leadership.  Talented people are far more likely to leave  to get out from under the oppressive leadership of a poor manager.  Weak leaders are also fearful of someone more talented than themselves unseating them from their job. Steve Jobs said this of Apple’s CEO, John Scully, “I underestimated Scully’s survival instinct.” Scully was threatened by Jobs and when he feared losing control, he undermined Steve Jobs, arguably the most talented guy at Apple and ran him out of the company.  That is perhaps an extreme example, but unless you hire truly great at the top, you cannot expect to be able to hire the best people throughout the organization.

Great people want to be empowered to do great things. Weak or oppressive leadership undermines trust and creates a culture of fear such that people are less likely to take the kinds of risks that generate great rewards and make companies and the cultures within them great. I have had the occasion to work with all kinds of leaders both in my career in medical devices as well as in my search consultant practice.  The rule of thumb for me in my search practice is that you can’t hire better than the hirer. Or if you do, there will most certainly be problems. This is true for a number of reasons.  First the hirer generally fears the potential of the A Player and they’re concern of themself being replaced by this newly hired talent can cause them to constrain their hiring to people whom they feel they can control. I watched this happen while I was still at Stryker after we acquired Howmedica in 1999. The local Howmedica leadership team was a prime example of a bad leader hiring low performers to maintain his power. Fear and intimidation were the norm for this VP who surrounded himself with cronies that were so mediocre that it was astounding to all of us in the local branch. These corporate cronies were so vastly under-skilled that their very livelihoods depended upon the goodwill of their magnanimous leader. This was a dysfunctional team if I ever saw one.  The politics and shenanigans that went on were legendary. Subsequently, there was a lot of disruption to the business and it was an unhealthy workplace where people undermined each other to get ahead and there was no trust to be found.

In this example, many abrupt changes were made until eventually the fear mongering leader was removed from his position of leadership and placed in a non-influential role where he couldn’t do too much damage.  You have to give credit to Stryker values strong leadership talent and they purged a weak and ineffective leader that was incapable of hiring talented people or even keep the ones he inherited through the merger.  The puzzling part is that this fear mongering leader was at Howmedica for over 20 years even though he had a reputation for being like this. This proves that in some companies, bad leaders can survive and even thrive. Fortunately for Stryker, their culture would not tolerate his type of leadership through fear and intimidation so he was weeded out and eventually retired.

I share this story because under this type of leader, who by all appearances did fine, the company was filled with sub-par players under him, none of whom were capable of being groomed nor could any be promoted to any significant position of leadership. This VP was not the least bit concerned about developing his people or building a succession plan. He was only concerned with protecting his own turf and holding onto power.

We all know that corporate America can be cut-throat, but no one wants to work in that kind of environment.  Why do I drag this old story into this blog?  Because it is a great example of how poor leaders sometimes get into leadership positions that they shouldn’t.  And if you have the wrong leader in a position of power and influence, that could be the reason you can’t seem to hire great people. Hiring the “Best” must start at the very top and cascade down to each subsequent department head and their team. If a compromise is made for political or other seemingly valid reasons, the entire organization will suffer.

Of all three of these hindrances to hiring “A level talent,” the third is the worst by far. Because if you are able to beat the odds and someone of talent makes it through the poorly engineered hiring process or is willing to see the “poor value proposition” as a challenge, you have a talented person engaged. However, if you are able to hire a talented person under a poor leader, the outcome won’t be good for long. Great people need to be able to do what they do best in an empowering environment. Weak leadership is the greatest threat to top talent and thus to the company.

Create a Culture of Greatness – by Jon Gordon


This is a great piece by Jon Gordon’s SOUP: A Recipe to Nourish Your Team and Culture, The Energy Bus and Training Camp.

To build a winning a team and a successful organization you must create a culture of greatness.

It’s the most important thing a leader can do because culture drives behavior, behavior drives habits and habits create the future. As the leaders at Apple say, “Culture beats strategy all day long.”

When you create a culture of greatness you create a collective mindset in your organization that expects great things to happen—even during challenging times. You expect your people to be their best, you make it a priority to coach them to be their best and most of all you create a work environment that fuels them to be their best.

A culture of greatness creates an expectation that everyone in the organization be committed to excellence. It requires leaders and managers to put the right people in the right positions where they are humble and hungry and willing to work harder than everyone else. A culture of greatness dictates that each person use their gifts and strengths to serve the purpose and mission of the organization. And it means that you don’t just bring in the best people, but you also bring out the best in your people.

If you are thinking that this sounds like common sense, it is. But unfortunately far too many organizations expect their people to be their best but they don’t invest their time and energy to help them be their best nor do they create an environment that is conducive to success. They want great results but they are not willing to do what it takes to create a culture of greatness.
A culture of greatness requires that you find the right people that fit your culture. Then you coach them, develop them, mentor them, train them and empower them to do what they do best. As part of this process you develop positive leaders who share positive energy throughout the organization because positive energy flows from the top down. You also don’t allow negativity to sabotage the moral, performance and success or your organization. You deal with negativity at the cultural level so your people can spend their time focusing on their work instead of fighting energy vampires. And you find countless ways to enhance communication, build trust and create engaged relationships that are the foundation upon which winning teams are built.
If creating a culture of greatness sounds like a lot of work, it is, but not as much work as dealing with the crises, problems and challenges associated with negative, dysfunctional and sub-par cultures. While most organizations waste a lot of time putting out fires you can spend your time building a great organization that rises above the competition.”

Visit Jon’s blog by clicking here.  http://www.jongordon.com/blog/

Employee Loyalty… A thing of the past?


There is a lot of online chatter today about employee loyalty as if it is something employees should have toward their employer, and frankly, I find it rather amusing.  The companies who expect blind loyalty from their employees are often the same ones who callously exercise layoffs to reduce overhead in a tough market. So, what kind of loyalty should employers expect.?  The kind of loyalty that will stick with them through the tough times?  When things aren’t going so well?  Should they stay loyal even after several quarters where no bonuses are paid out?  What about when they have had to endure the instability of having multiple managers in a relatively short time span?  Should they do this as a “good soldier” and be thankful that they have a job?

What exactly is the appropriate amount of loyalty in our economy?  Are we talking about loyalty to a company? Is it loyalty to a Brand or Person?  As a search professional, I am often faced with a scenario where a prospective candidate is emotionally processing the reality of resigning from their current company to start a new job. This is often a very stressful time as they contemplate delivering the terrible news to an unsuspecting boss.  Usually, they miscalculated the response they will get.  Recently, while recruiting for a VP US Sales for a $4B medical device company, the chosen candidate and I discussed his resignation process and the expected counter-offer.  He assured me that he and his boss were such “good friends,” and the opportunity was so great for him, that his boss would be happy for him and wish him well on his new journey.  What he met with was far from the warm sentiment that he expected. His boss paid “lip service” to that idea, yet followed up with a very aggressive lawsuit and an attempt to obtain an injunction keeping him from working for his new company.  With situations like this, it begs the question, “where is loyalty appropriate when it comes to “Business?”

Obviously, this “High Ranking Official” according to the plaintiff had an opportunity in a bigger and better role in the new company that he would not have had in his current company.  Believing that his boss and “friend” ultimately wanted what was best for him, he naively agonized over his impending resignation believing that he was going to “really let his boss down personally.” When he witnessed a very different response than what he had expected, he doubtless had one of those “Aha Moments” that can leave a person jaded.  What he thought his boss felt for him, was only an illusion. His boss was only “for him” as long as it benefited himself.  When it was no longer in his boss’s interest to be a friend, he quickly turned into a much different person, even an adversary with a lawsuit naming this individual, putting his family at risk.

So when I read articles about companies wanting to engender more loyalty in their employees, and seeing it as a failure of the individual that there isn’t more of it, I have to laugh. Yes, perhaps I am jaded as well. Since I have personally witnessed so many people’s disillusionment after meeting with unexpected hostility from the people they trust, I have a pragmatic view of these things.

Here is my advice for anyone in this situation: 

Employers:  If you’re not loyal to your employees, don’t expect them to be loyal to you.  Take a sincere interest in the people who have been entrusted to you. Make sure that you know what their hopes and dreams are.  If their hopes can’t be realized under your leadership, encourage them to find it elsewhere and work with them to find that place where they can be challenged to achieve their dreams.  I realize that most managers are not capable of this kind of commitment, but the key is that a leader should not expect greater loyalty from their employees than they have for their employees.

If you are in HR, quit using this “Employee Loyalty” rouse to make people feel obligated to stay in a job when a better, more fulfilling opportunity may await them elsewhere.  If you really want to keep the best of the best, make it hard to leave by how generous you are to them.  Earn their loyalty by showing them yours.

Talent is king! The war for talent demands that the best people be taken very good care of in order to keep them engaged and yes, even “loyal.”

Employees: Don’t be loyal to a company. A company is nothing more than a P&L, logo or brand identity undeserving of such emotional commitment. Remember that it is your own responsibility to provide for your family so be proactive and pursue mastery of your career until you are compelled either by your boss or by your own drive to find a place to grow, be challenged and develop new skills and talents.

Image

Realize that you will be with your current company only for as long as it makes sense to THEM for you to be there.  When it ceases to be so, you will be like so many who are on your own to find a solution to your new, unwelcome reality of being jobless.

This is business, and if you don’t look out for yourself, no one else will.  I know, this ranks right up there with the fatherly advice many of us received that “Life isn’t fair.”  Get over it and move on. Yet, you would be amazed to know how many people I tell this to who seem to have a rude awakening after realizing it’s over.

Everyone needs to manage their own career. You cannot wait around to be called up, or the call may never come.  Ultimately it is up to you to make positive things happen.  I often say that it is better to be the one calling the audible for change than being the one hearing them without being prepared.

It’s still TRUE whether you accept it or not!


In recent months, I challenged the value of measuring recruiting metrics. I declared that the only metric that really mattered was how successful the person was that you placed in your client’s company. I received a staggering amount of criticism from recruiters and HR people in cyberspace.  I have to admit, I knew it was a little bit edgy, but not quite blasphemous. I wrote it in respond to the prevailing views on recruiting blogs discussing which metrics are best for recruiters to measure in their business. I realize that these measurements can be useful when managing recruiters, but I was interested in challenging the conventional wisdom and making people think bigger. You might say, that I was trying to get people to think about the outcome of their work and the impact on their clients rather than their own efficiencies. My assertion that only one metric truly mattered, and if we aren’t measuring how successful the people we placed were, and the impact they have in the companies we place them in, we are missing the whole point of our profession.  What is so scandalous about that? Isn’t that the whole point? Are we not placing people to do a job? Are they not hired to effect change or growth or both? Or are we only accountable for helping companies fill open requisitions, with no connection to the results? Because if that is the case, and you’re one of those recruiters, you are guilty of malpractice.  I am not a “Career Recruiter,” so perhaps my view is tainted by actual “real world experience” where sustained results really matter. When I was working for Stryker, I occasionally hired through recruiters.  I kept track of the results of the people who I hired through recruiters and compared the results in order to validate the expense and effectiveness of hiring recruiters.  At that time, I can say that the results I obtained through recruiters was far less valuable than those I hired on my own. Subsequently, I stopped using recruiters.

People who don’t understand why companies engage recruiters  beyond simply filling vacant positions lack a fundamental  understanding the real value that companies expect of them.  Several comments that I received after my bold blog said that I had “too lofty a view” of my role, and that “it isn’t the job of the recruiter to worry about what happened after the hire occurred.”  “we don’t have any control after the hire is done!” REALLY?

No control? FALSE!  You are the “procuring cause.” You cannot distance yourself from it.  During your recruitment process, you perform due diligence to discern who, to the best of your ability, will best execute  in your client’s company and have the greatest impact on their business.  If you don’t get that granular, then you aren’t thorough enough to earn a full fee. , (this may be why so many recruiters are forced to discount their fees to levels more commensurate with the quality of their work.)  You see, I don’t think my view of the role I play in the acquisition of talent for my clients is too high; but if you think I’m wrong,  your view of this business is too low!

As a Search Consultant, you have the opportunity to be a tremendous strategic asset to a company and enjoy the many rewards that come with this type of consultative relationship with your clients and industry.

You also have the right to feed on the bottom with the majority of recruiters who see their only responsibility as “filling openings.”  The choice is yours, but the implications are huge!  Choose wisely!