THE RECRUITMENT GAMBLE – TIME FOR SOMETHING WITH BETTER ODDS
Non-Executive Directors (NED) more commonly find their positions in the companies they work for via Head-hunters, or Executive Search firms. Many search firms specialise purely in finding suitable NED’s, for the open posts that companies have at this level. It is a specialist area and you may appreciate, its often regarded as the top of the tree for many companies. They put a lot of rigor into the selection process, lots of hurdles for candidates to jump over, psychrometric testing, multiple face to face and/or video interviews, it’s a tough old game and only the best survive.
These are not always ex CEO’s but “can be” individuals that have reached the top of their own specialism, HR directors, global transformation leads, senior leadership or even divisional leader types from large companies and very often from different industries. It is often a way for a smaller company to get the experience, gain a view of the bigger picture or for larger companies to gain an understanding from across other industries or verticals without the need for the man management responsibilities in a post. These are experience based positions, a wealth of knowledge and skill, that is then available to the company, for guidance as much as anything else. However, they put a lot of emphasis on behaviour throughout the hiring process. These days we have a growing number of boutique head-hunters, and executive search firms working across a whole range of specialist areas.
Most NED’s get placed via a head-hunter, or executive search firm. What amazes me is that more of the NED’s do not then champion the use of head-hunters, or executive search firms in filling some of the other less senior roles but often more strategic positions in the companies. Instead of the company spending weeks or months searching or engaging with dozens of contingent recruitment firms in lets “pin the tail on the donkey” while wearing a blindfold’ acquisition game.
In a post COVID-19 environment this is one of the ‘quick wins’ that any NED or another senior leadership person can address or at least get the ball rolling on. Clients often quote three things to me; they say the issue with the recruitment process is the
- time it takes to fill a role,
- the money lost or wasted during the hiring process and
- the lost and wasted effort in either filling a role or not filling it with the right person.
Contingency recruiters will typically take on 10 roles and only fill 2 (that’s a good ratio) because they are competing with other contingency recruitment firms to get people over to the client as fast as possible and move onto the next open role on their desk. The people that you get are typically people who need a job and are available because of redundancy etc. All the contingency recruitment firms are fishing in the same pond and its down to who closes out the candidate fastest and gets them over to the client that potentially wins. If you are working with 10 contingency recruitment firms and each gives you the best three people from that pond you will end up with 30 CV’s/resumes on your desk PDQ.
The issue for the hiring manager then is he now has 30 CV’s/resumes on his desk that he has to spend hours filtering and going through. It’s not surprising that hiring managers hate recruiting in this way. On top of everything else it’s only a representation of the market, it is only those people that need a job or are available because they may have been made redundant etc. I know it is hard, but it is the people that the other companies did not value highly enough to keep. That is not strictly true, as many companies have had to downsize or withdraw from different sectors or changed their business model.
But it is still only a representation of the market and let’s face it you may actually, be lucky in finding a ‘jackpot hire’ out of all the people the contingency recruitment firms send you. But it would be more sensible to also include all the people in the sector as well as those passive candidates that are not currently looking for a role but may be ideal or even a better fit for your company.
The other element to consider is that the contingency recruitment firms are slapping people over the fence, purely based on skills and experience alone. When to get a good hire for the long term it has to include candidates with the right behaviour as well, but because the contingency recruitment firms don’t put the rigor in, you run the risk in ‘hiring only on skills and experience and firing on behaviour’, not good for your attrition targets. No one wants a ‘bum on a seat’ for the sake of filling the role, if they are not right on so many levels then its not right for the company or the candidate.
We are now firmly in a ‘client lead market’ in a post COVID-19 environment therefore clients themselves should be stipulating the process that they want to see, the rigor that candidates need to go through to better assess skills, experience and behaviour, because they should be hiring for retention. Hiring people that have the right behaviour, culture, personality, the same core beliefs, the same attitudes to learning and the same general motivation as the rest of the team, not just on skills and experience alone.
The cost of a ‘bad hire’ or ‘wrong hire’ can be huge to the business, it is not just about the salary cost or the recruitment fee, it is all of the other costs, the impact to the business for getting the wrong person in the post. In some cases you can end up losing other people in the team that you really don’t want to lose or even the whole team as a result of a ‘bad hire’ or ‘wrong hire’ I ‘ve seen it happen multiple times.
So, what is the answer?
Well we have ‘Best Practice’ when we engage and hire an NED, but I am not suggesting you go through the same level of rigor or process, or number of interviews to hire every person in the company this way, but some companies do.
What I would advocate is getting a better process in place, use head-hunters, or executive search firms, they are more or less the same cost as contingency recruitment firms but they will and are able to put more rigor in than a contingency recruitment firms. They will fish in some of the same ponds as the contingency recruitment firm but will include other ponds as well, they will target candidates including passive candidates. They will typically provide you with a smaller number of already qualified candidates based on ‘skills and experience and behaviour’, more in-depth understanding and motivation on each potential hire. Let us face it, does it really matter when you pay the fee? The fee will still be paid, but the risk reward has a far better outcome, less of a gamble.
Sometimes the recruitment process needs an overhaul and just because we have been doing it this way forever, does not mean that we cannot change it now, for something better. Something with better outcomes, something that will provide better process, more rigor and ultimately better retention moving forward. Sometimes it just needs an NED or another person in the senior leadership team to tell people to change it. Your Resource, or HR Manager may kick back a little bit because it is their ‘little empire’ but you will save time, you will save money, and save effort and end up with a better fit for process model for long term retention, I guarantee it.
About the Author
Howard Longstaff has over 25 years of experience delivering people within the talent acquisition arena.
He has worked extensively across the UK, Europe, USA, Canada as well as in South America, Australia, and New Zealand.
Over the last 20 years he has specialised in two fundamental areas, although he often covers a wider remit due to his thirst and understanding of technology. The first area which he has a real passion for, building ‘Sales Teams’, pulling together the very best ‘A Players’ and creating something very special for his clients.
To do that, he needs to have a clear understanding of what his client wants, so establishing clear communication with the client is paramount, understanding the nuances of what they are looking for and documenting this. Understanding the technology, the opportunity, and the growth potential all help to find the ‘right fit, first time’. He is one of the few head-hunters that is willing to guarantee his work, offering 12 months free replacement.
The second area he loves getting involved in, is the leadership team, the C-Suite, helping to get the balance right, cover the gaps in knowledge, skills and experience, working on the assumption that ‘No one is perfect but a team can be’?
Howard is someone who thinks outside the box, has an eye for detail, but is perceptive, looking beyond the surface of just skills and experience. He wants to know and understand the candidate behaviour as well as the emotional intelligence, the motives that drive the candidates he interviews. He is looking for the best fit for his client but also looking to ensure it is a fit for the candidate as well.
In the last 25 years he has also built his own companies and opened offices in New Zealand, Los Angeles, New York and most recently several companies in London. Specialising in technology companies, he has delivered permanent resources across practically every department. This has predominantly been for technology start-ups (Enterprise Software Co’s) but also for many leading management consulting and enterprise clients.
Howard is someone that uses technology to enhance the hiring process, to save time, money and effort and take the pain out of the process, but to find those ‘Exceptional People, who are so hard to find’. He operates a ‘Private Client Video Portal’ keeping everything together, the video, as well as psychometric behavioural assessments on candidates and interviewing on an emotional intelligence level. He has repeatedly built teams across three continents, so has a good breadth of knowledge across the talent acquisition arena.