It’s that time of year when everyone is talking (or writing) about making resolutions for the New Year. Year in and year out, the most popular resolutions are related to personal health (lose weight, workout, quit smoking/drinking) or money (save more, spend less, get out debt, find a new job). And year in and year out, most people fail to follow through on their New Year’s resolutions.
Why is that? Are we that undisciplined, that uncommitted to self-improvement? Well that may be part of it, but I think the major reason we fail is that we don’t really know what we want. Before you make your New Year’s resolutions, ask yourself:
“What do I really want and am I truly willing to sacrifice to get it?”
Very few ask this two part question and those of us who do rarely give honest answers. A lot of people “want” to lose weight and say they are willing to diet and exercise. But what they “really want” is to feel good and they want to feel good now. Diet and exercise are not “feel good now” activities, at least not in the beginning. Eating ice cream is a feel good now activity. People say they want to save money and they are willing to cut back on spending. But what they “really want” is to feel good and they want to feel good now. As long as buying stuff makes people feel better than not buying stuff and saving, people will keep on spending.
The truth is that the only resolution you are likely to keep is the one that hurts you more if you don’t keep it. When it comes to New Year’s resolutions…it’s more about the stick and less about the carrot. What do you really want in 2011 and are you willing to sacrifice to get it?
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Reason For The Season
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1oHJR2g7Tw
May You Have a Blessed and Merry Christmas
May You Have a Blessed and Merry Christmas
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Merry Koyaanisqatsi
Remember the early 80’s documentary Koyaanisqatsi? It is a superb film. It was the first in the Qatsi trilogy of films; and is followed by Powaqqatsi and Naqoyqatsi . The trilogy depicts different aspects of the relationship between humans, nature, and technology. In the Hopi language the word Koyaanisqatsi means "crazy life, life in turmoil, life out of balance, life disintegrating, a state of life that calls for another way of living".
This week I read something that, for me, captured the essence of “Koyaanisqatsi” in our time. Just after reading one more article about certain of our fellow citizens vehemently objecting to the use of Merry Christmas in public displays and greetings, I checked out Rolling Stone Magazine’s Top 50 Hits of 2010. It’s my way of determining just how far I’ve slipped out of the pop culture mainstream. Fortunately I still recognize about half of the artists. Rolling Stone gave me a break this year. I mean the top 10 included Kanye West, Katy Perry, Sade and Mavis Staples. It also helps that Rolling Stone includes pictures of the artists.
So what do objections to Merry Christmas have to do with the Rolling Stone Top 50?
The title of the Number 2 song of the year is “F**K You”. The artist is Cee Lo Green (real name Thomas DeCarlo Calloway). I recognized his picture as the guy who sang “Crazy” by Gnarls Barkley a few years back. "Crazy" is a terrific song and this guy has a great voice. You can go on-line and listen to “F**K You”. There’s even a video. I recommend the video version. Rolling Stone noted that “Cee Lo didn’t just say "F**k you" — he said it with humor and serious panache.”
Have you heard or read of any objections to this song? I haven’t. Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t there something wrong when more people are upset over “Merry Christmas” than “F**K You”? I don’t know, perhaps we need to learn how to say Merry Christmas with more humor and some serious “panache”.
Koyaanisqatsi: crazy life, life in turmoil, life out of balance, life disintegrating, a state of life that calls for another way of living. Let's start by saying Merry Christmas and say it like we mean it…with some serious panache.
This week I read something that, for me, captured the essence of “Koyaanisqatsi” in our time. Just after reading one more article about certain of our fellow citizens vehemently objecting to the use of Merry Christmas in public displays and greetings, I checked out Rolling Stone Magazine’s Top 50 Hits of 2010. It’s my way of determining just how far I’ve slipped out of the pop culture mainstream. Fortunately I still recognize about half of the artists. Rolling Stone gave me a break this year. I mean the top 10 included Kanye West, Katy Perry, Sade and Mavis Staples. It also helps that Rolling Stone includes pictures of the artists.
So what do objections to Merry Christmas have to do with the Rolling Stone Top 50?
The title of the Number 2 song of the year is “F**K You”. The artist is Cee Lo Green (real name Thomas DeCarlo Calloway). I recognized his picture as the guy who sang “Crazy” by Gnarls Barkley a few years back. "Crazy" is a terrific song and this guy has a great voice. You can go on-line and listen to “F**K You”. There’s even a video. I recommend the video version. Rolling Stone noted that “Cee Lo didn’t just say "F**k you" — he said it with humor and serious panache.”
Have you heard or read of any objections to this song? I haven’t. Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t there something wrong when more people are upset over “Merry Christmas” than “F**K You”? I don’t know, perhaps we need to learn how to say Merry Christmas with more humor and some serious “panache”.
Koyaanisqatsi: crazy life, life in turmoil, life out of balance, life disintegrating, a state of life that calls for another way of living. Let's start by saying Merry Christmas and say it like we mean it…with some serious panache.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Crime and Punishment
Recently I was called for jury duty. I live in a county with a population of just over 100,000. It is on the outer fringe of the 19 county Dallas-Fort Worth Combined Statistical Area which has a population of over 6.8 million people. On the day I reported, over 200 other potential jury members had been called to sit 3 juries. I ended up in a pool of around 60 people from which 13 (twelve for the jury plus one alternate) would be selected. The trial was for a very serious criminal offense; I’ll leave it at that.
If you’ve ever been called for jury duty on something like this, you know that both the prosecuting and defense attorneys get to ask a lot of questions. We were sitting in a courtroom and each attorney had a seating chart with our names. I was praying not to be selected for the jury. And my prayers were answered.
I did come away from the jury screening session intrigued by the groups’ responses to two questions: Have you ever been the victim of a crime? Do you have any immediate family members who are in prison or who have served time in prison?
Now I admit that some folks, despite swearing to tell the truth, might have fudged on their answers. But for the most part, I think people were being truthful. I would say at least half of the 60 or so people in the group, including me, responded that they had been a crime victim. We also had to say what sort of crime had been committed. While the vast majority of crimes were burglaries and theft, there were a significant number of people who had been the victims of violent crimes. In response to the question regarding family members and prison time, at least a dozen people responded yes.
My first reaction was disbelief that over half the people sitting in that room would have been crime victims and one out of five had family members with a prison record. But when you consider the crime stats it makes sense. While crime rates have been dropping in recent years, the numbers are still high; especially when you consider them over a long window of time. Over the last 30 years annual property crime rates in the U.S. have been in the range of 3000-5000 per 100,000 (and they are even higher in Texas.) Violent crimes have ranged from around 425-750 per year per 100,000 (and again they are higher in Texas). So over a 30 year period anyone might well have become a crime victim. And considering the crime statistics, it also makes sense that in a room of 60 people, at least 20% of them would have a close family member serving time or having served time.
The good news as noted above is that crime rates have been going down in recent years. There are a lot of theories about the reasons for the decline, one being that legalized abortion has reduced the number of unwanted babies who grow up to commit crimes. I’m not buying that one, even if it’s true. Killing unwanted babies so a few of them won’t grow up to steal your SUV? I do believe that stronger law enforcement and the broad application of security technology have certainly been major factors in reducing crime. And there is probably some effect of the baby-boomer population aging beyond their most “productive” crime years. But when it’s all said and done, we still have a serious crime problem in this country.
My gut tells me that it’s about to get much worse. We have more people living on the margins of society. The “have-not” population is growing faster than the “haves”. 40% (yes forty percent) of all babies are now born out of wedlock and the numbers in certain demographics are almost double that rate. The institution of marriage is broken. How many happy families do you know? Which village is raising your child or your neighbor’s child? Think about it. What have we done to ourselves?
Do not hold against us the sins of past generations; may your mercy come quickly to meet us, for we are in desperate need. Psalms 79:8
If you’ve ever been called for jury duty on something like this, you know that both the prosecuting and defense attorneys get to ask a lot of questions. We were sitting in a courtroom and each attorney had a seating chart with our names. I was praying not to be selected for the jury. And my prayers were answered.
I did come away from the jury screening session intrigued by the groups’ responses to two questions: Have you ever been the victim of a crime? Do you have any immediate family members who are in prison or who have served time in prison?
Now I admit that some folks, despite swearing to tell the truth, might have fudged on their answers. But for the most part, I think people were being truthful. I would say at least half of the 60 or so people in the group, including me, responded that they had been a crime victim. We also had to say what sort of crime had been committed. While the vast majority of crimes were burglaries and theft, there were a significant number of people who had been the victims of violent crimes. In response to the question regarding family members and prison time, at least a dozen people responded yes.
My first reaction was disbelief that over half the people sitting in that room would have been crime victims and one out of five had family members with a prison record. But when you consider the crime stats it makes sense. While crime rates have been dropping in recent years, the numbers are still high; especially when you consider them over a long window of time. Over the last 30 years annual property crime rates in the U.S. have been in the range of 3000-5000 per 100,000 (and they are even higher in Texas.) Violent crimes have ranged from around 425-750 per year per 100,000 (and again they are higher in Texas). So over a 30 year period anyone might well have become a crime victim. And considering the crime statistics, it also makes sense that in a room of 60 people, at least 20% of them would have a close family member serving time or having served time.
The good news as noted above is that crime rates have been going down in recent years. There are a lot of theories about the reasons for the decline, one being that legalized abortion has reduced the number of unwanted babies who grow up to commit crimes. I’m not buying that one, even if it’s true. Killing unwanted babies so a few of them won’t grow up to steal your SUV? I do believe that stronger law enforcement and the broad application of security technology have certainly been major factors in reducing crime. And there is probably some effect of the baby-boomer population aging beyond their most “productive” crime years. But when it’s all said and done, we still have a serious crime problem in this country.
My gut tells me that it’s about to get much worse. We have more people living on the margins of society. The “have-not” population is growing faster than the “haves”. 40% (yes forty percent) of all babies are now born out of wedlock and the numbers in certain demographics are almost double that rate. The institution of marriage is broken. How many happy families do you know? Which village is raising your child or your neighbor’s child? Think about it. What have we done to ourselves?
Do not hold against us the sins of past generations; may your mercy come quickly to meet us, for we are in desperate need. Psalms 79:8
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The Moment of Truth
If you care about this country, I recommend that you take time to read
“The Moment of Truth. Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.”
(http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdfChairman).
It’s worthwhile reading, even though I think it’s highly unlikely that we as a nation will suddenly become fiscally responsible. One line in the report’s preamble says it all: “America cannot be great if we go broke.” (I hear that the Chinese are already printing up the T-shirts.)
So where are we?
Discretionary spending (excluding war related) has grown 34% in last decade
Federal debt is now up to 62% of annual GDP
If we do nothing the debt will be up to 90% of GDP by 2020 and 185% of GDP by 2035
In 2010 federal spending is 24% of GDP…the highest since WWII and revenues will be only 15% of GDP…a 9% deficit gap in this year alone.
Read the report, there’s plenty to worry about. While I tend to be skeptical about economic projections, directionally I think the report is on point. We are headed toward financial Armageddon if we don’t change our ways. Interestingly, it is noted in the report that Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, has said that the most significant threat to our national security is our debt.
The Moment of Truth report recommends major reductions in spending and an overhaul of our tax policy. But it’s not going to happen. At least not any time soon. Before we can step up to the Moment of Truth, we must deal with the Truth of the Moment. And the Truth of the Moment is that we are not willing to make sacrifices. Certainly our political leaders are not going to sacrifice their careers by putting the lid on the cookie jar. Personally, I don’t want my taxes to go up and I don’t want to give up my tax deductions. Truth is that most of us do not trust “The System” and therefore we are not willing to sacrifice. Deep down inside we believe that our sacrifice will end up being someone else’s subsidy or entitlement.
I really believe that the first step toward turning this mess around is to impose strict term limits on the members of Congress. Pay them well and help them get real jobs when they leave Congress, but take away the option of being a lifetime politician. We should also offer financial incentives to congressional members, incentives that reward fiscal responsibility. Our current system rewards them for taking care of special interests and doing whatever it takes to get re-elected. As long as we reward that behavior, that’s the behavior we will get.
If you’ve read previous blog entries, you know that I tend to be pessimistic. In this case I am extremely pessimistic. “The System” has evolved to the point where it needs a major overhaul. But all of us are getting something out of “The System” and we don’t want an overhaul that takes away more than it gives. Sorry, but the day of reckoning is here. The Moment of Truth has arrived. Time to pick-up the check and pay for our lunch. And, I mean really pay for our lunch. Not with other people’s money and not with more paper. But as long as we have access to other people’s money and we don’t run out of paper and ink, I don’t see us paying for that lunch any time soon.
“The Moment of Truth. Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.”
(http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdfChairman).
It’s worthwhile reading, even though I think it’s highly unlikely that we as a nation will suddenly become fiscally responsible. One line in the report’s preamble says it all: “America cannot be great if we go broke.” (I hear that the Chinese are already printing up the T-shirts.)
So where are we?
Discretionary spending (excluding war related) has grown 34% in last decade
Federal debt is now up to 62% of annual GDP
If we do nothing the debt will be up to 90% of GDP by 2020 and 185% of GDP by 2035
In 2010 federal spending is 24% of GDP…the highest since WWII and revenues will be only 15% of GDP…a 9% deficit gap in this year alone.
Read the report, there’s plenty to worry about. While I tend to be skeptical about economic projections, directionally I think the report is on point. We are headed toward financial Armageddon if we don’t change our ways. Interestingly, it is noted in the report that Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, has said that the most significant threat to our national security is our debt.
The Moment of Truth report recommends major reductions in spending and an overhaul of our tax policy. But it’s not going to happen. At least not any time soon. Before we can step up to the Moment of Truth, we must deal with the Truth of the Moment. And the Truth of the Moment is that we are not willing to make sacrifices. Certainly our political leaders are not going to sacrifice their careers by putting the lid on the cookie jar. Personally, I don’t want my taxes to go up and I don’t want to give up my tax deductions. Truth is that most of us do not trust “The System” and therefore we are not willing to sacrifice. Deep down inside we believe that our sacrifice will end up being someone else’s subsidy or entitlement.
I really believe that the first step toward turning this mess around is to impose strict term limits on the members of Congress. Pay them well and help them get real jobs when they leave Congress, but take away the option of being a lifetime politician. We should also offer financial incentives to congressional members, incentives that reward fiscal responsibility. Our current system rewards them for taking care of special interests and doing whatever it takes to get re-elected. As long as we reward that behavior, that’s the behavior we will get.
If you’ve read previous blog entries, you know that I tend to be pessimistic. In this case I am extremely pessimistic. “The System” has evolved to the point where it needs a major overhaul. But all of us are getting something out of “The System” and we don’t want an overhaul that takes away more than it gives. Sorry, but the day of reckoning is here. The Moment of Truth has arrived. Time to pick-up the check and pay for our lunch. And, I mean really pay for our lunch. Not with other people’s money and not with more paper. But as long as we have access to other people’s money and we don’t run out of paper and ink, I don’t see us paying for that lunch any time soon.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Headhunters
If you read my last blog, you know that we are now ready to apply all that we’ve learned about evaluating search assignments. Jerry Jones, Owner/GM and Puppet Master of the Dallas Cowboys has asked me to find him a Head Coach. Should I take the search?
First, we have The Client. What can I say? I only know what I read in the papers and see on TV. The Client is not much inclined to listen to others unless they agree with him; and in the end he will do whatever he wants to do.
So on a scale of 1-10, the Client is a 0.
Second, The Company. Well, the Cowboy organization isn’t what it used to be. In this case the Client has virtually redefined the Company and not in a good way. However, there is still some shine left on “the Star”, and they do have those cheerleaders, and Jerry does have all that money. I’ll rate it a 5.
The Job has pluses and minuses. It is big money and a big spotlight. A great opportunity to succeed or fail magnificently. On a “comparative value” basis it’s not a totally bad job. However, the requirements and qualifications are tough. The candidate must be willing to work for a high-control owner/general manager whose kids are heavily involved in the business. The Head Coach will have lots of responsibility but limited authority. Compared to other head coaching opportunities, this one really is below average. I’ll give it a 3.
Lastly, The Search. It’s ugly. It’s certainly not confidential. There’s plenty of competition, solicited and otherwise. The need is there for sure, but the urgency is moderate. Nothing is likely to happen until after the season is over. He has a strong internal candidate, Jason Garrett. He is also considering the list of unemployed and available head coaches who have successful track records. But Uncle Jerry likes to show people how clever he is and may go in an entirely different direction. The interview process will be goofy. It just will be. Trust me on that. Who knows how the hiring decision will really be made? The best thing the search has going for it is a GINORMOUS FEE. But even that’s not enough to rate it more than a 2.
So should I take on this type of search? None of the four key areas are positive. The answer to “should I” take on the search is obviously NO. But, it is tempting. Sometimes it’s just fun to take on something out of the ordinary, especially if it’s difficult and no one else would attempt it. I call it a Mickelson (you golfers know what that means). That said, taking on a Mickelson like this deserves to be filmed for one of those Jack Ass movies. It definitely has a “Hold my beer and watch this” feel to it.
But sometimes it’s not all about the facts or the fundamentals. Sometimes it’s about fun and foolishness. Would I take on the search to find the next head coach of the Dallas Cowboys? Hold my beer…
First, we have The Client. What can I say? I only know what I read in the papers and see on TV. The Client is not much inclined to listen to others unless they agree with him; and in the end he will do whatever he wants to do.
So on a scale of 1-10, the Client is a 0.
Second, The Company. Well, the Cowboy organization isn’t what it used to be. In this case the Client has virtually redefined the Company and not in a good way. However, there is still some shine left on “the Star”, and they do have those cheerleaders, and Jerry does have all that money. I’ll rate it a 5.
The Job has pluses and minuses. It is big money and a big spotlight. A great opportunity to succeed or fail magnificently. On a “comparative value” basis it’s not a totally bad job. However, the requirements and qualifications are tough. The candidate must be willing to work for a high-control owner/general manager whose kids are heavily involved in the business. The Head Coach will have lots of responsibility but limited authority. Compared to other head coaching opportunities, this one really is below average. I’ll give it a 3.
Lastly, The Search. It’s ugly. It’s certainly not confidential. There’s plenty of competition, solicited and otherwise. The need is there for sure, but the urgency is moderate. Nothing is likely to happen until after the season is over. He has a strong internal candidate, Jason Garrett. He is also considering the list of unemployed and available head coaches who have successful track records. But Uncle Jerry likes to show people how clever he is and may go in an entirely different direction. The interview process will be goofy. It just will be. Trust me on that. Who knows how the hiring decision will really be made? The best thing the search has going for it is a GINORMOUS FEE. But even that’s not enough to rate it more than a 2.
So should I take on this type of search? None of the four key areas are positive. The answer to “should I” take on the search is obviously NO. But, it is tempting. Sometimes it’s just fun to take on something out of the ordinary, especially if it’s difficult and no one else would attempt it. I call it a Mickelson (you golfers know what that means). That said, taking on a Mickelson like this deserves to be filmed for one of those Jack Ass movies. It definitely has a “Hold my beer and watch this” feel to it.
But sometimes it’s not all about the facts or the fundamentals. Sometimes it’s about fun and foolishness. Would I take on the search to find the next head coach of the Dallas Cowboys? Hold my beer…
Saturday, November 20, 2010
How 'Bout Them Cowboys...Contingency Search (Part 4)
OK, I closed last week’s blog entry with a “How ‘Bout Them Cowboys?” teaser. I had no idea they would show up Sunday afternoon and beat the Giants. Now I’m confused and will postpone further discussion of the Cowboys until next week.
Over the past three weeks you’ve read about my process for evaluating contingency search assignments. First, I consider my relationship with the Client. Second, what is the Company’s reputation? Third, is it a good Job? Now we are down to the Search itself.
I think there are 8 key factors which impact the actual search process:
1) confidentiality
2) competition
3) need
4) urgency
5) other options
6) interview process
7) hiring decision
8) the fee
Let’s briefly discuss each of these factors and why they are important.
Confidentiality. I like confidential searches. Usually there is less competition (other search firms, advertising, networking, etc). It can be a little tougher to recruit certain candidates who insist on knowing “the company”, but overall confidentiality is a plus.
Competition. The more competition on the search, the less likely I am to be successful. When a client tells me that they are using multiple search firms, running ads, have the job posted on multiple websites and social networks, etc etc.; I am not inclined to put much effort into the search. If the search has been underway for some time and now they are asking me to join in, I have to question why they have been unable to fill the job. Too much competition or a search that has gone on too long are major red flags.
Need. We get a lot of “tire kickers” in the contingency search business. Clients know that it doesn’t cost them anything to have me search. If the client is not truly motivated to fill the position, then my odds of success go way down.
Urgency. Sometimes we have clients who sincerely have a need, but always move slowly. In this business we say “time kills deals”. I’ve had searches that drag on for months even after the client has interviewed and targeted two or three candidates for the shortlist of finalists. I have even made placements on such slow-moving searches. But generally speaking, the longer things drag on, the less likely we are to have a successful outcome.
Other Options. This is really just another form of competition and it bites recruiters more often than most would like to admit. The most common “other option” is an internal promotion or transfer. I always ask something like: “Have you considered internal candidates?” or “Is there no one within you organization who can step into this role?”
This is a critical issue. Some companies use the search firm just to “see what else is out there” or to validate their decision to promote internally. If a company is seriously considering an internal candidate, be careful about investing too much time in the search.
Interview Process. Just knowing the interview process is a big plus. I can prepare the candidate for almost anything if I know what’s coming. Some recruiters don’t like companies who make candidates go through multiple interviews with different people throughout the company. My experience is that a lot of great organizations do this, so I’m all for it IF it’s done properly AND IF I know it’s coming. A lot of not so great organizations just sort of “wing it” through the interview process. Not good.
Hiring Decision. Closely related to the interview process, I need to know how the hiring decision will be made. The more people involved, the tougher it gets to make the placement. For example, I’ve had candidates left “standing at the alter” because the primary hiring authority finds out at the last minute that his boss or some other senior executive has a bias against people from the candidate’s current or former employer. Always beware of too many decision makers and/or the hidden decision maker.
The Fee. Size matters. Would I rather have a 40% chance of earning a $50,000 fee or an 80% chance of earning a $20,000 fee? You do the math.
So we have the model for evaluating contingency search assignments:
The Client
The Company
The Job
The Search.
Next week I’ll apply this model to an actual search assignment. What if you got a call from Jerry Jones and he asked you to find the next Head Coach of the Dallas Cowboys?
Over the past three weeks you’ve read about my process for evaluating contingency search assignments. First, I consider my relationship with the Client. Second, what is the Company’s reputation? Third, is it a good Job? Now we are down to the Search itself.
I think there are 8 key factors which impact the actual search process:
1) confidentiality
2) competition
3) need
4) urgency
5) other options
6) interview process
7) hiring decision
8) the fee
Let’s briefly discuss each of these factors and why they are important.
Confidentiality. I like confidential searches. Usually there is less competition (other search firms, advertising, networking, etc). It can be a little tougher to recruit certain candidates who insist on knowing “the company”, but overall confidentiality is a plus.
Competition. The more competition on the search, the less likely I am to be successful. When a client tells me that they are using multiple search firms, running ads, have the job posted on multiple websites and social networks, etc etc.; I am not inclined to put much effort into the search. If the search has been underway for some time and now they are asking me to join in, I have to question why they have been unable to fill the job. Too much competition or a search that has gone on too long are major red flags.
Need. We get a lot of “tire kickers” in the contingency search business. Clients know that it doesn’t cost them anything to have me search. If the client is not truly motivated to fill the position, then my odds of success go way down.
Urgency. Sometimes we have clients who sincerely have a need, but always move slowly. In this business we say “time kills deals”. I’ve had searches that drag on for months even after the client has interviewed and targeted two or three candidates for the shortlist of finalists. I have even made placements on such slow-moving searches. But generally speaking, the longer things drag on, the less likely we are to have a successful outcome.
Other Options. This is really just another form of competition and it bites recruiters more often than most would like to admit. The most common “other option” is an internal promotion or transfer. I always ask something like: “Have you considered internal candidates?” or “Is there no one within you organization who can step into this role?”
This is a critical issue. Some companies use the search firm just to “see what else is out there” or to validate their decision to promote internally. If a company is seriously considering an internal candidate, be careful about investing too much time in the search.
Interview Process. Just knowing the interview process is a big plus. I can prepare the candidate for almost anything if I know what’s coming. Some recruiters don’t like companies who make candidates go through multiple interviews with different people throughout the company. My experience is that a lot of great organizations do this, so I’m all for it IF it’s done properly AND IF I know it’s coming. A lot of not so great organizations just sort of “wing it” through the interview process. Not good.
Hiring Decision. Closely related to the interview process, I need to know how the hiring decision will be made. The more people involved, the tougher it gets to make the placement. For example, I’ve had candidates left “standing at the alter” because the primary hiring authority finds out at the last minute that his boss or some other senior executive has a bias against people from the candidate’s current or former employer. Always beware of too many decision makers and/or the hidden decision maker.
The Fee. Size matters. Would I rather have a 40% chance of earning a $50,000 fee or an 80% chance of earning a $20,000 fee? You do the math.
So we have the model for evaluating contingency search assignments:
The Client
The Company
The Job
The Search.
Next week I’ll apply this model to an actual search assignment. What if you got a call from Jerry Jones and he asked you to find the next Head Coach of the Dallas Cowboys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)