Where's Our Boy Donny Q. When We Need Him?

I need some help! Probably not the best way to start this post as it begs the question of "so tell me something I don't know."

Anyone who knows me would probably say this isn't a question of Dave needing help, we have known him long enough to know that he is well beyond that at this stage!

As true as I know that is, at least at this point, that’s not the kind of help I had in mind.

My need comes from something that has been bothering me for a long time, indeed it was something I had thought about even well before ExecuNet's founding some 23 years ago, but for now, I'll just stick to recent history.

If you follow ExecuNet at all, then you might be aware that around this time every year for the past 19 we have published the results of a survey we do called The Executive Job Market Intelligence Report (EJMIR). 

This year's report is, as they say, coming off the presses as we speak, and if there is any "perk" that comes with being the founder of something it is that you get a "sneak peek" at stuff before it goes public.

So I had my "sneak peek" and there is some really interesting stuff as there always is, and given that we are coming out of a very tough couple of years, the data for 2011 will be gone over with a fine tooth comb for sure, so stay tuned.

I am under penalty of being cut off from my latte lite for a month if I reveal anything before our members get their copies next week, but when I read the report, I felt I could raise this issue since it is something that has been part of EJMIR every year and has bugged me for so long.

So, here's the deal: One of the questions that the survey has posed every year to both the recruiting as well as the HR communities is for them to rank what they feel are the most sought-after executive characteristics.

Each year three things have always topped the list: industry specific experience; functional expertise, and leadership skills, and while there were a number of other things on the list, these three were always way ahead of everything else.

So, when you have 19 straight years of the same result it is kind of hard to argue with the notion that obviously companies think these are pretty important, and if the employers thought these important, then it’s no surprise that the recruiters followed suit. It all seemed to make reasonable sense.

If I was going to hire someone for sure I would want them to be competent in their functional area, understand the industry segment and to have "leadership skills."

But here's what bothers me and where I need someone, as Rachel Maddow says, to "talk me down."

Functional expertise I get, and leadership skills are a whole other ballgame.

My hang up is on industry specific experience. If it is so damn important then why do we keep trying to back fill openings that become vacant because the last incumbent was carried out on his shield with another person who "must have" industry specific experience?

Point being, if this characteristic was so critical to success, then one would think that we should not experience the turnover that we do.

All of which leads me to the feeling that while the survey data show the three characteristics I have mentioned here as being so closely aligned that there is no statistical difference between them - in other words they are essentially equally important in the eyes of the more than 3,100+ who responded - that the real "make or break" characteristic is leadership skills or as many respondents put it this year "...the ability to build and lead high performance teams."

So my convoluted logic says I really don't think that functional expertise or industry specific experience are the "show stoppers" - sure they play a role, but they don't hold the proverbial candle to leadership skills, and I just don't understand how the three can be seen as equally important.

So, if the real deal is around leadership skills, then through the wonders of modern technology we’ve got it made. All we have to do is ID "leadership skills" and we’re golden on the hiring front, right?

With that in mind and as a public service to my fellow travellers on the leadership quest, you’ll be relieved to know the answer lies somewhere in the 37,500,000 hits I got on Bing when I asked for "leadership skills" or to make it less time intensive since we all have other things to do as well, the same ask on Google narrowed things down to only 17,200,000.

Now that we have that "solved" we can move on to the next problem - once we have found the leaders, how do we keep 'em because as this year's EJMIR will show, if this an issue that you think has gone away, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn that's on sale and that you are going to have a hard time passing up!

Oxymoron of the Week: Working With Recruiters

So just for the heck of it, I googled working with recruiters and back came nearly 5.2 million hits give or take.

That was almost enough to make me think that writing about what was wrong with the Mets and Red Sox might serve a more useful purpose. But before cashing in my chips, I took out my Google user's manual and tried "working with recruiters" in quotes and felt a bit better when only 11,600 hits showed up.

Of course, even with that I knew I was only kidding myself that whatever my thoughts were on this subject it was hardly going to break new ground and more importantly probably wasn't going to change anyone's mind on the subject be they on the candidate side or the recruiter side.

Idealist that I am however, I thought what the hell, at least I can share an opinion because even with all that has been written about this subject, the sheer volume suggests that there continue to be lots of folks remaining who still go into a career change thinking that one of their prime strategies is going to one of "working with recruiters."

For sure it's a logical thought; unfortunately it just isn't reality. While it is true that recruiters whether they are internal to a company or hired by a company do, in fact, "recruit" it does not follow at all, however, that a person who would like to be hired simply decides to contact the recruiter and "work with them" in order to achieve the candidate's objective of being hired.

On the remote chance that you are not aware of this already, here's news:

Recruiters work for clients not candidates. Why? Simple: They get paid by the clients. Indeed, and to further rain on the parade, a fair amount of what they are being paid for is to screen candidates OUT, not screen them IN.

I know, maybe that sounds harsh, but most people I know who have been in the business world for more than a few years really do know this and probably have hired a recruiter to do exactly this, but somehow when all of a sudden they find themselves on the candidate side of the job changing desk their memory disk gets erased and they become incensed when they reach out to recruiters and hear nothing.

Too boot, if that outreach is made by responding to a posting somewhere (as is often the case) and silence is all they hear it just makes people even more ticked off. No surprise there either.

Unhappily and from my own personal experience along with being a part of ExecuNet for the past 22 years, it doesn't look like that experience is going to change any time soon.

So, why bring all this up yet again?

Answer: Because even though I thought everyone on the planet knows all this already, I keep getting reminded daily, if not hourly, that just because I thought that to be the case, the fact of the matter is that there are still thousands if not tens of thousands of poeple in an executive job searche who either don't know it or at least, don't want to believe it.

For sure I can understand their frustration. I've been there.

Both by phone and email (and sometimes in person) I talk with ExecuNet members who are PO'd beyond belief both at what they feel is an outrageous lack of professional courtesy not to mention the anxiety that comes from not knowing where to else turn.

Aside from trying to help them understand what's going on from the recruiter's perspective (and I emphasize "understand" as opposed to "condone") I offer up statistics in terms of the percentage of openings filled by the search world (maybe 12-15% tops) vs. networking where the numbers are more like 70%+ vs. the inordinate amount of time invested in "working with recruiters."

Of course building and effective network is a lot harder than "clicking and praying" or firing off emails and/or resumes to recruiters, stats notwithstanding.

So, if you still think "working with recruiters" is the most critical piece to the puzzle, then at least you owe it to yourself to get the best information and insights available on the subject.

If you are a member of ExecuNet then hopefully you already know that we have a special section of the site dedicated solely to this area. We call in Recruiter Connections.

If you want more info (along with additonal answers and ideas) then I know of no better resource to point you toward than checking out Nick Corcodilos and more specifically his book How To Work With Headhunters.

The book's tag line is 62 Myth-busting answers for fearless job hunters and believe me when I tell you he is not afraid to "break the myths."

Given his background as a recruiter coupled with his "tell it like it is" style, you will have no difficulty whatever in understanding his point-of-view and why he feels as he does.

All of which is to say, if you are going to invest precious time and energy in "working with recruiters" then arm yourself with information that can give you the best shot at a decent ROI but also which will help you channel some of that extra energy that comes from anger and frustration and apply it in directions that will shorten the "hunt" as well as lower your blood pressure.

So Many Questions - So Few Answers

While there are literally dozens of issues where job changers look for answers such as on: resumes (functional vs. chronological), interviewing (what are the best ways to deal with questions that feel like they have no good answers), networking (how do you build one, keep it, expand it?), salary negotiation (when asked about compensation, what's the right answer?), age discrimination (how do you fight it?), follow-up (what's too little or too much?), changing industries (how is it done?) And the list goes on.

Unhappily, ginning up the list is easy. Knowing what to do next, however, is definitely a different issue.

All you have to do is go to your local bookstore (remember those?) or cruise around Amazon and check out the number of books available on career management to see what I mean.

The mere fact that there are literally thousands of books and probably tens of thousands of articles is enough to provide a clue that while most of us want "answers" the fact is that in the real world you get "opinions" and in most cases that will have to do.

To be sure, this fact is a source of no little frustration for many, especially senior level executives whose DNA is almost always type "A" and whose attention spans are measured in nanoseconds.

As I talk with ExecuNet members I certainly hear the frustration and once past the rants irrespective of subject, the question I get asked a lot is what, if anything, can I do about this stuff?

My short answer is it depends on your approach to problem solving.

My longer answer (i.e. suggestion) is to ask people to put on their business problem solving hat and focus on dealing with a job search as a business challenge because in essence that's what it is.

You are the product and your job as GM is to overcome the market hurdles for the product. That said, however, no one is asking you to fight through all this alone (that's why you have staff) and in terms of their membership, we are their staff.

Looking at it in this light, as GM, what would you do? Answer: You would do an analysis of the situation including sorting out the things over which you have no control and focus on the things you can control.

In terms of looking for a job, among other things, this would mean market research, product development, sales training, a product launch plan, monitoring the results and adjusting as needed.

It also would mean setting the appropriate expectations so as to help manage the inevitable "foul balls" and inherent impatience referred to above.

Alan Lakein is often given credit for the "Failing to Plan is Planning to Fail" line. I am not sure who said it first, but whoever did they were, as the Brits say, spot on and if ever there was a situation to which this statement applies, it is job changing.

Yet, so much of the frustration that people feel is driven by the understandable pressure that comes from the product being themselves and the fact that the product's entry into the market place is self-funded.

Patience is a lot easier when it's not your money supporting the enterprise.

Understood, but my point is that if you succumb to the pressure to act before you really have a plan to manage (read: click and pray), you are going to find yourself even more frustrated when your customer is not responding because they really don't understand what you are selling, why they need it and certainly don't have the time to find out.

Executive jobs: It’s not you, it’s not me. It’s just not meant to be.

Just to show you how far being the times I am, the subject of this post was actually around since August of last year. Fortunately for readers, the content of Jose Ruiz's post was not time sensitive, indeed, in some respects it is timeless.

Jose, as you'll see if you check out his site, is a principal in Heidrick & Struggles Monterrey office where, as his bio indicates, he specializes in recruiting in Mexico for US companies with a strong focus on bilingual and bicultural candidates.

Since my Spanish is pretty much limited to "Amigo, Dos Equis por favor" and there isn't enough money in the world to move me from the shores of Narragansett Bay the fact that he is a recruiter was not the attraction.

What got my attention when I stumbled across this posting were two things:

1. He was an executive search consultant who had taken the time to try and dissect a process that remains a mystery to more folks than one would think, and

2. The way in which he takes the reader though his thought process in assessing candidates is clear, concise and very helpful to anyone who finds themselves on the candidate side of career change.

The reason I say this is because given the current economy, there are literally tens of thousands of executives who, while they may have been recruited by a search firm from time to time, nonetheless have discovered that being recruited is totally different from being a talented professional who doesn't happen to be employed at the moment, and finds him/herself at a loss to understand why if they were fortunate enough to get an interview, they were not selected.

For sure rejection on any level is no fun, and when it comes to a process that at the end of the day is subjective anyway, that doesn't help either.

What does help, however, is when someone at least makes an attempt to openly explain how they approach the process and why; and this I thought Jose did very well.

I really suggest you read the entire post, but as a teaser, what Jose has written about are the four key elements of what he calls "match and fit:"

- A broad cultural fit
- The "Must Haves"
- A "micro" cultural fit
- The task at hand

Furthermore, if you are one of those candidates, knowing the thought process as explained in Jose's posting ought be help you prepare for your next interview because no matter who you are interviewing with, while they may not use the same terminology, the "match and fit" items addressed in this post are what any interviewer worth his salt is really trying to figure out, and from this one can learn.

Recruiting & Technology In Today's Market

Bill Vick is a name that is known to almost anyone who is involved in the world of recruiting. He has been a pioneer in any number of ways with the creation of XtremeRecuiting.tv being the most recent.

One of his recent interviews was with our Vice President and Executive Editor Lauryn Franzoni. Knowing the degree to which ExecuNet is in the somewhat unique position as a resource to both executive leaders as well as recruiting firms, he wanted to talk with Lauryn about the impact of technology on both.

While I have a bias to be sure, I found it to be a very interesting dialogue. I hope you do too.

Generation A

It might seem a bit weird to be writing about hiring talent at a time when the numbers of announced job reductions seem to rise about as fast as the clock that tracks the national debt, but as bad as the employment landscape is likely to be for the next year or two, the fact of the matter is that organizations will still be looking for talent. Indeed in the current environment one could easily make the argument that the need for "A" level talent and leadership is more important than ever.

If you are like me, the alphabet soup of X's, Y's, Millennials, Boomers, etc. about which we read almost daily can get fairly confusing in very short order, and when you couple the definitions of these generational cohorts with what turns one on and the other off, it often feels like you need to do a DNA analysis before you dare start an interview.

As is so often true with subjects that tend to take on a "flavor of the month" feel, it usually takes someone who not only is steeped in the industry but as importantly can translate his knowledge in a way that value adds to the discourse in order to make really telling points. Based on such a description, those who roam around the staffing space would immediately think of Pete Weddle.

A recent article in Pete's newsletter which he called Generation A got me to thinking yet once again about the challenges of hiring at any time irrespective of what the economy was doing. What is a Generation A you ask? Pete describes them as:

Gen As never, ever look for a job. In fact, they can't even conceive of themselves as job seekers. Why? Because every job change they've made in their career was initiated by someone else.

and the point he goes on to make in this piece is this:

So, here's the bottom line. If you want to win the War for Any Talent, tailor your recruiting to the age differences among generations. If you want to win the War for the Best Talent, focus, instead, on the talent differences within generations. Why? Because the best talent-Generation A-was born in 1947, 1976 and in 1990, as well.

As I finished reading his article, it reminded me of something that we at ExecuNet have found to be true during the twenty years that we have been roaming around the staffing world for senior level talent - the search for "A" players is never in a recession.

Work-Life Balance: Not Just a Phrase Anymore

Work-life balance has been getting a lot of ink in recent times, and a tough job market nothwithstanding, it looks like it is going to continue to get plenty more.

I saw some "early return" stats the other day that came from a survey (still in progress so far as I know) sponsored by the AESC (Association of Executive Search Consultants). For those who may not know, AESC is a well known and long established association made up retained executive search firms.

Essentially, the survey is gathering data that would compare preferences and priorities of senior executives in the context of initiatives being implemented by Corporate HR teams and line managers.

Some of the highlights they have reported thus far:

52% of senior executives feel that they have not achieved a satisfactory work-life balance.

84% say work-life balance considerations are critical in their decision to join or remain with an employer.

65% of executives find a flexible daily work schedule to be the most valuable aspect of a work-life balance program.

54% say work hours have increased during the past 5 years.

51% are less willing to take a job that involves heavy business travel as compared to 5 years ago.

Obviously they are interested in having as many participants as they can round up, so if you would like to contribute to the data being gathered, just click here and it only takes about 10 minutes or so to participate.

I also think that if you invest the time to take the survey, you also will get a copy of the full report once it is ready and which would provide the perspectives of both executives as well as the HR world.

I have to say, that in looking over these early headlines and looking back over our own data collected in this year's Executive Job Market Intelligence Report, our survey participants would seem to be in the same ballpark as AESC's.

When we asked such questions as: Why executives accept offers for new gig and/or stay where they are, items such as "improved work/life balance were certainly on the list as was travel/commute considerations, and the company providing flexible work arrangements.

On the flip side when we asked about dissatisfacation, we were not surprised to see people talking about the lack of work/life balance, length of commute, etc.

Coming or going, for sure this is no longer an issue or subject of conjecture by the John Naisbitt's of the world and executives and the organizations they work for along with the recruiters who place them are going to have to adapt, particularly in the tight talent market we are in and likely to rermain in for the next several years.

Deciding Who Leads

With all the kudos that I have seen surrounding my colleague Joe McCool's book Deciding Who Leads, I keep having the feeling that in a few years I'll be one of those guys who walks around at cocktail parties when they are discussing books that made a difference in specific industry segments and telling my friends that "I knew Joe when..."

I was reminded of this feeling just a day or two ago when I saw an email from the managing director of a UK based search firm you simply said:

"This morning I read through some of the key passages in Deciding Who Leads! superb book - should be on every hiring manager's desk and every recruiter's desk and perhaps every MBA course syllabus!"

The Brits, as we all know are not exactly known for going overboard when it comes to suggesting that something has real merit, so even though I had seen other comments on the book, this one made me feel a good deal of pride yet once again.

Way to go Joe!