Ying, Yang and Yahoo!

This week, Jerry Yang the CEO of Yahoo! must be ruing his decision to turn down the £29bn offer made for his company by Microsoft in May of this year. As recessionary warnings abound, Yahoo! has suffered more than most and earlier. Since May its share price has more than halved while the current $12.65 per share value is a mere 10th of the peak achieved in 2000.

Worse still, Yahoo! this week announced 1,500 jobs are to be cut as it struggles to battle a global downturn; it simultaneously announced a 64% drop in quarterly profits. It seems the Internet companies will suffer just as badly as the rest of us in a recession.

Business Models Based on Advertising

Some companies will fare worse than others. This is the contention of Wikipedia Founder, Jimmy Wales. He highlights Yahoo! as a particular concern as global advertising revenues will inevitably drop in a recession and those whose model is based on the marginal returns on advertising are particularly vulnerable. It leaves Yahoo! right in the firing line.

It is estimated that the global advertising market may drop by 10% or more and while it is expected that digital online advertising will not dip as far, those companies who rely on Internet advertising as their core revenue model are very exposed.

LinkedIn & Monetisation

This week I saw a debate on LinkedIn about some new applications that are being beta tested for members. There was some disquiet about the ability to add slide shows to your profile or blog links but some applications like your 'Amazon Book List' was pretty blatant links for book sales which it was assumed LinkedIn would get a cut of. I remember also a discussion about Facebook's attempt to 'follow' it's members to attempt to gain money from their buying habits using Facebook as the launch platform - as Google has also looked at in its grand plans.

LinkedIn, with over 28 million members, is a classic example of a company that has 'land grabbed' members and consumed a great deal of money to do so and gained a valuation based on the potential to monetise the membership - and that valuation was pretty impressive. But as it attempts to do so, there are more than a few getting a little uncomfortable.

LinkedIn is a an advertiser and recruiters dream - lots of juicy names and titles in all sorts of companies in lots of countries. Unlocking their potential is now a priority. Recently, as a member of the IOD (Institute of Directors), I have been questioning the value of my membership and I wanted to get more than nice meeting places and not just be the butt of glossy adverts for 'Member Privileged Products'. I wanted to leverage contacts, gain referrals and even do business with fellow members. Lo and behold LinkedIn suggested to the IOD that a LinkedIn Club was the answer and one was created with a discussion forum where the IOD have asked no one to blatantly advertise their wares - nice idea.

Sadly, the first blatant advert came from the IOD itself offering inducements if Linked In IOD Group Members would introduce their other LinkedIn network connections to the IOD. I complained and duly it was removed.

Conclusion

Business models which rely on advertising to its membership is a game model in the good times. In the bad, value is critical and my point here is that LinkedIn, the IOD, Facebook, Yahoo! et al need to find a patch of value to show members beyond bombarding people with adverts. True, these sites are what you make of them and I have written on tips and methods to make such networks work to build business but in reality the vast majority of members are just passive receptors of spam and adverts. As advertisers rein in the spend, these business models become exposed and I would suggest Yahoo! is not the only company in the next year or so who will suffer.

Maybe it calls for these sorts of companies, beyond the faddy, clever facilities they gave for free, to think long and hard about what value they are going to bring to the table to charge for in the future. The days of freebie business models are perhaps over - can these companies actually make any real money?

New Employee Background Checks - Good Practice or Breach of Privacy?

'Criminal records on sale for just £37', was the headline on Page 7 of this week's Sunday Times.

The article referred to the growing practice by employers and corporate investigators (numbering 50 between them so far)buying access to files at the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to do background checks on new employees. The CRB was set up 6 years ago to carry out checks on prospective employees whose work would bring them into contact with children and vulnerable adults - i.e. to find out if the prospective employee was unsuitable for that kind of work.

However, certain recruiters and employers are now getting access to CRB files to check the background of employees who are applying for jobs which do not involve access to children or vulnerable adults.

These agencies are now offering these unlawful checks to cover potential business partners and staff ranging from clerical staff to web designers.

Is Enhanced Disclosure Good Practice or Unlawful Prying?

One firm mentioned in the article offered to carry out 'Enhanced Background Checks' of administrative staff for companies claiming they were justified, caveatting this with the employee's consent should be sought although the firm's director admitted that they had not 'thoroughly checked' whether such permissions were given.

Another firm specialising in the same practice operated out of Essex but was headquartered in New Zealand claiming its Essex office was 'registered' with the CRB to have access to such records, although it confirmed it was not 'accredited' by the CRB.

The question may be arising - is this such a bad thing? After all, it is very important to follow up references given by employees rigorously and I would always recommend employers do this diligently and, if possible, cross reference the information. In this I mean, if possible, test whether a claim in a candidate's CV is spurious or not such as attending Chairman's Club or winning a specific deal etc when asking the referee. Of course, the referee may exercise the right of no reply which should not be taken as a denial but most referees will usually corroborate true facts.

So would getting access to the CRB files be further good practice or diligence? To give an example of the downside, the article claims that one such background check found that a complaint made to the information commissioner revealed a CRB check on an individual had shown the person had stolen a packet of meat worth 99p in 1984 when the person was just 16.

Where Does The Law Stand?

The article cites the landmark case of a gardener who was fired from their job after an 'Enhanced Background Check' had revealed two spent offences. He claims the checks were unlawful and unwarranted. The information commissioner has supported his claim which goes to court seeking compensation.

The CRB helpline was found to aggravate the situation as when one complainant called the person was told it would be prudent to comply to have the check done or face not being employed.

The fact is that the law is cloudy rather than clear. Such checks are specifically designed to stop sex offenders having jobs which involve children or vulnerable adults. If there is no suggestion of either being involved, then such checks are not justified.

What Ifs?

So if an employer suggested that a gardener may come into contact with children whilst carrying out their duties, would that be justified even they 'stretched the truth'? And what if a sales manager were to be in contact with unmarried young ladies, would that be justified on the grounds that the employer might want to know if the prospective manager had a history of sex offences, and in doing such checks just happened to find out the person's misdemeanour 20 years ago involving persistent apple scrumping?

What the report did reveal is that detailed financial checks can be made for as little as £20, police files for about £40, driving for £20 and identity at around £20.

Where Do You Stand On This?

As a person making decisions on behalf of a company that will cost significant money in terms of recruiting fees, compensation but also opportunity cost for making a wrong decision would it not be good, if not, even best practice to do as thorough as possible background check to minimise risk?

I remember a famous incident of a quasi-government Agency (Note how vague I am being) who employed a Finance Director with apparent impeccable credentials and background. He subsequently allegedly hired a hotel room to 'interview candidates in bikinis' for the post of Assistant. The person subsequently flew to Chicago via Concorde to New York, checked into an expensive hotel and found that his meeting had not been confirmed and so flew back again. It was later revealed the person was bogus.

Closer to home, when I worked at a computer reseller, we employed a Scottish salesman who shared a name with a rather famous Spaceship Captain. He was larger than life in many respects including the fact it was not his real name and he had no fixed abode - we only found out when police popped by asking questions about him for various other reasons. There was also the recent case of the chap who passed himself off as a Forensic Scientist for many years and participated in many trials as an expert witness only to find he was just the local lad from a pub.

The fact of the matter is that employers should be able to mitigate risk as much as possible and protect themselves from potential 'rotten employees'. However, you have to also to temper this with the fact that a minor misdemeanour involving alcohol and some clumsily broken glasses in an Indian restaurant 23 years ago really was just a one off piece of high jinks that should have been settled with a cheque for a few quid, a dustpan and brush.

Information in the 'Information Era'

We do live in an era of unprecedented amounts of stored data. Much of this can be more easily accessible than we think even if we use the most sophisticated firewalls as more and more data is actively lawfully and not sold by agencies holding the data or even lost by daft employees getting their laptops or memory sticks stolen or even archive agencies flogging their old PCs on eBay. Our information is freely surrendered to all and sundry and can be accessed far too easily. And the embarrassing misdemeanours of the past can be more easily brought to light.

But is it fair for your employer to know you might have had a telly repossessed 15 years ago when times were hard or that you served a driving ban 10 years ago even though you don't have a company car in the job? Or is it sound information to have at hand when deciding on candidates to know one was arrested outside the House of Commons in a gay Rights march and the other was not?

I would be really be interested to hear your views.

Who Tracks Quality of Recruitment in Your Company?

According to research by US firm Manchester Partners, 40% of executive hires fail in the first 18 months.

I have to say my experience puts the figure closer to 50% but it is still a staggering proportion. Recruitment costs vary but if you took a rough average of 30% of the executive's first year salary you would not be far out. Then multiply it by the remuneration you have wasted on a poor recruitment decision over the 18 months and you will start to understand why bad recruitment is costly. Then add on the opportunity loss for not finding the right hire in terms of the profit not obtained because the hire failed to achieve finding it, suddenly you get an inkling of the true cost to the business in both cost and missed profit opportunity.

Accountability for Poor Hiring

Going back to my article on responsibility vs accountability, is there a person in your company or organisation who is specifically accountable for making poor hiring decisions? I am sure there is not. The last CFO at Lehmans took the blame for the company's massive losses - incredibly she had only been in the role for 6 months. Why was the person who made the appointment similarly not fired?

The fact is that there are few executives who are held accountable for poor hiring decisions - and therefore the same mistakes will be repeated, year after year. The same staggering costs will be associated with the poor decisions and the loss of opportunity will drag on the profit performance.

The cost of bad recruitment is one of the largest underlying drags on corporate profitability and it continues every year while executives are not held accountable for their poor hiring decisions.

I have written a free downloadable document on the subject, I hope it will illustrate the issue more clearly.

Where Does the Fault Lie?

It would be convenient to blame recruiters for the whole problem. After all, beyond a period of 3 months they usually have zero accountability for poor hires. Given most executives are on an initial guarantee and given it would be an amazingly poor hire that gets found out in 3 months or less, the recruiters are virtually guaranteed their money once the candidate starts work. They have zero incentive to help the client or candidate succeed - in fact it may pay to see the candidate fired after say 6-12 months as they more than likely will get engaged to replace the hire. That's 30% on average of the first year remuneration for a few actual days of work and a couple of meals maybe. Contingent or retained, neither have skin in the game to work long term with clients in a real sense, they see recruitment as filling slots in the main and pretty much easy money.

But recruiters are not all the problem. HR Depts are looking to drive down costs in the face of poor recruiting and so they exacerbate the problem. Larger companies even outsource the whole shebang, abdicating even the responsibility for recruitment let alone accountability - just to hit the cost line. Reverse auctions and outsourcing are becoming rife in the industry - I mean, how can an Eastern European based call centre add value to the recruitment process? Am I really missing something here?

Then there are the hiring executives. Under pressure to hit targets and manage their staff, they hardly have the bandwidth to do a good job on recruiting - they need to offload the issue as much as they can. Again they are happy to abdicate the accountability to some other area, yet the new hires will be crucial to their future performance - why would you take that chance?

So much of modern day recruiting is about vast quantities of cheap advertising and jon boards to generate quantities of CVs and then match as many words as possible to produce enough warm bodies to statistically satisfy the requirements. It is a numbers game - throw enough manure at the wall and at least some will stick.

In general, the quality of hiring is fast becoming a process-driven, box ticking exercise which no one is really accountable for in the true sense. It is small wonder why such a huge percentage of executives fail within 18 months in such an environment.

Turning The Tide

As we enter more uncertain and recessionary times, costs to the business come under the magnifying glass and the cost of bad recruitment becomes an even bigger issue in times of less profitability. Recruitment processes and techniques become far more important to companies in such times.

When you think about it, if an executive is recruited and lasts say 5 years in the role but cost 100% of the first year salary to recruit, then most CEOs would cough at the cost but take the equation given the extra time they had the executive performing to plan or better - with all that incremental profit gained over a poor executive lasting only 18 months. The actual cost of recruitment then is not really the issue - it is simply the quality.

Quality is derived from thought and planning. It is absolutely pointless starting a recruitment process after headcount is signed off as there is minimum lag of 3 months required to find a candidate, which means the impact on performance in any given 12 months is at best 9 months but more realistically 6 months given ramp up time. Recruitment planning should be done BEFORE the headcount is signed off.

Recruitment viewed as slot or headcount filling will inevitably lead to a high proportion of poor hires as managers hit time constraints to get people onboard and therefore take second best or worse still compromise too far on requirements vs candidates returned. Contingent recruiting where the recruiter is engaged only when the headcount is signed off offers little value to organisations in my opinion and certainly does not justify he very high fees associated with it. Fully retained recruiters have absolutely no incentive to find the right fit - there is little accountability on guaranteed, non-committal advice so expensively given.

In reality recruitment should be viewed as a constant process because it is the company's investment in the ability to attain its future goals.

A Novel Approach

I am not a recruiter but as part of my engagement with clients expanding internationally I do find them exceptional talent to man their subsidiaries. Just like any other part of my business and services it is performance-related and is all about results - anything less is of no value to my clients. So while I may take retention fees for my time invested with my client, my upside is all earned on the performance of their international business. If I find and place a candidate for a client, I am paid my upside in direct proportion to that candidate's performance in the role against pre-agreed targets over a pre-agreed time. It is my skin in the game and it is all about results and accountability.

I think it is time executives were penalised for bad hiring decisions, I think HR should be incentivised not on fill rates and driving down fees but increasing quality while CEOs should have full visibility on the actual cost of bad hires and have it as a constantly reviewed metric in their business.

As we approach tougher times, there is an urgency to get this right. I do not have all the answers but I would stand accountable alongside any client if I had contributed to poor hiring decisions, so I challenge any hiring executive to try my services and I will help them put money straight back on their bottom line. I am really looking forward to your calls.

Tel: +44 207 193 2356
email: nigel.dunn@calxeurope.com
web: www.calxeurope.com

Does an MBA make a difference on a CV?

Hot on the heels of yesterday's blog post and my Linked In question, I got a great response from one person who indignantly and rightly pointed out that it was insulting to suggest a degree was not relevant after all that hard study. And particularly in his case as he had an MBA - and he was indignant that my post might further damage his job prospects.

What makes an MBA different?

Astute readers will notice that in yesterday's blog and LI question, I clearly excluded from the discussion 'vocational' degrees - those which were pretty fundamental to a chosen career path like medicine, law, engineering, dentistry, architecture etc. Having these degrees are in no way tying you to those particular professions, mind you. I once employed a dentist as a salesman because he was bored of looking into peoples' mouths. He didn't last long as a) he realised there was far more money to be made in private cosmetic dentistry and b) there was the small matter that he wasn't much good at selling. There are other examples like lawyers becoming politicians but the point being if you want to be a doctor or a lawyer you MUST have a degree in that subject as a prerequisite.

For those even more astute readers, you will have also noticed that I deliberately excluded MBAs from the discussion. And there was method in my madness as I wanted to dedicate a distinct discussion about MBAs.

There are a few reasons. An MBA degree is an advanced qualification which is specifically designed for business is the first. The second is that many take an MBA as a deliberate choice on top of a 'basic degree' and with business very much in mind - in other words it is 'vocational' to business. I don't know if there are many doctors that have MBAs but it isn't as applicable to that profession. Another reason, is that many either take time out in their career or, harder still, study in parallel to their career in order to better themselves. That shows a very high level of commitment and ambition as well as learning ability. Often these will be done with the blessing and commitment of their current employer which indicates the kind of worth employers put on MBAs as an advanced qualification. But there are those who entirely fund their MBAs themselves - that is like any entrepreneur investing in themselves for a better future and, to my mind, shows unique levels of ambition and determination.

So does an MBA make a difference?

Like having a medical degree doesn't mean that you are going to be a good doctor, having an MBA does not mean you are going to be particularly good in business. More so, at least a medical degree means that you have demonstrated you grasped the rudiments of the scope of knowledge required to be a doctor, an MBA does not mean you even remotely know all the things required to be successful in business. This was rather famously demonstrated in the excellent book http://www.amazon.com/What-Teach-Harvard-Business-School/dp/0553345834 by the late Mark McCormack. Some MBAs can be quite narrow in their focus and subject matter too.

It is my assertion that in the selection process an MBA does make a difference. For the reasons I stated above, generally it shows that someone has made a real commitment to further their ambitions and invested time, effort and money in doing so. An MBA is very often gotten through a fair degree of personal sacrifice and again this shows great determination. When you are looking at finding special qualities in people, who are prepared to dig that little deeper to get what they want or who do indeed 'enjoy a challenge', as interviewees glibly say, people with MBAs will often be those sorts of people.

Like many things in the selection process, it is only an indicator and something to explore. After all, you need to check where the MBA was gained from - there are hooky sources.

So what's special about an MBA?

I generalise here and would like to get further comments from people with MBAs and experiences from people who work with people who have MBAs, but here is my take.

MBAs take things like Business Studies to the next level. They often can be particularly helpful in understanding the dynamics of marketing, strength and importance of brand, they are very good at understanding organisation structures, corporate governance, contract law, internationalisation, global economics, geopolitics, enterprise resource management, corporate finance, capital management and raising capital, mergers and acquisitions and above all business planning and strategy. Many of those subject areas are particularly relevant to large enterprises and so MBAs are often less valued by SMEs because they see them as less relevant and there may be a fear that 'over qualified' people may affect the delicate balance of their company culture.

One particular 'profession' I believe an MBA has less relevance for is the noble art of sales. Usually, people take MBAs to move away from sales into wider business management. I find many people who have MBAs who have not been in sales lack a good deal of understanding of the subject - but then again we sales-types would say that about anybody who hasn't 'carried a bag' as my American friends would say.

Does an MBA help you succeed?

This is where we need the input of real people - I don't have an MBA so I can only give my won view. I have seen some incredibly successful MBA people. Only yesterday, I researched a company based in Taiwan and found that the entire executive management team had MBAs - don't be surprised to find they are an amazingly successful company.

MBA people have a tremendous understanding of how to prepare a business venture. With understanding in how to research markets, how to make well thought out assumptions, how to construct a proper business plan, how to concoct a real strategy that can be tested, how to budget and forecast, how to forecast capital requirements and usage - MBA people have a good grasp of some of the areas that 'seat of the pants' business people get wrong that are very often at the heart of their failure or lack of performance in business. And I will hold my hand up to that - I have failed before through poor planning.

These MBA 'skills' have a real relevance not just for large enterprises but also SME and even start ups. It's no surprise that at the heart of many US Hi Tech start ups lie MBA qualified people. The more you know the greater the chance of success in business although, particularly in sales, it is what you don't know that will often lead to failure.

The final word

As with anything in life, it often is not about what you know. It is very much about how you apply that knowledge. A great MBA student may not be the best at executing plans. But what if you teamed an MBA with a person good at execution? The US and other countries particularly in Asia have really understood how to apply MBAs in organisations. The degree is highly valued and it is certain that MBA graduates in those countries enjoy greater rewards than they would have done without the qualification - the qualification is valued. These countries have learnt how to apply the knowledge and that may not actually have the MBA person executing plans on their own but be part of teams.

This is where I think the UK is missing a trick. The MBA qualification is often seen as some kind of 'better than you'-stigma qualification and not valued. In the process of talent acquisition, I think many managers ignore it and sometimes consciously screen it out because they fear anyone more qualified or better able than themselves. It comes back to my views on the cost of bad recruitment - I think recruitment in the UK is not taken seriously enough nor are people made accountable for poor recruitment decisions that are the biggest hidden cost to any business and they are repeatable year after year.

I have lately met a lot of people who have MBAs that are struggling to find jobs and certainly not those that are willing to value the advanced qualification they have. Recruiters and recruiting managers in companies should take a long hard look at themselves because an MBA qualification will often indicate a person who has made the greatest sacrifices to better themselves in interrupting their career and investing their time, effort and money to bet on themselves. For those who haven't done that, you won't understand what I'm talking about. It's called 'Entrepreneurism'. That's something when mentioned by interviewees I am quick jump on and demand 'Show me'.

I would love to hear your views - does an MBA make a difference? From employers, to those with MBAs and those without them. Has it made you more successful? What makes it special? Is it just a show off degree and has no relevance on business?

Is a degree essential on a CV?

"I have a degree from the University of Life" - a common phrase in interviews or the front bar. But how important is it to have a degree these days?

The UK Government has spent around £800m to target 50% of all 6th formers to go on to University - despite the noble target, the drop out rate when they get to university has increased. There are various theories (as voiced on BBC Radio Five Live's phone in this morning) that modern undergraduates are less prepared academically due to easier exams, to the youth of today being more sensitive to leaving home, to fear of long term debt and costs, to poor career advice leading to the wrong course selection and therefore disillusionment. However, I wanted to look at the issue from the point of view of whether a degree actually gets you a better job, enhances your credentials over those that haven't got one, makes you more money, or does it not matter - it's your experience that counts? From an employer's point of view - what level of importance do you put on a degree being on a CV? Do you actively use it to screen out candidates or differentiate those at interview?

Degree on the CV

As a manager who recruits and finds talent for growing companies, I actually think a CV is not that important. More often than not they are 'floral' to say the least, used as marketing objects and have so many varieties of structures and inclusions as to be hard to compare. They have become documents to enter the CV repositories to be key word searched by recruiters along with Linked In Profiles. If you are one of those managers who thinks having enough CVs thrown at you until one sticks is a good way of recruiting then this article won't appeal to you.

I must admit I am interested to see if a degree is on a CV and it does have some influence although in the final analysis it has little bearing on differentiating between shortlisted candidates for a job and none whatsoever in the interviews. I am much more interested in what makes them the person they are and whether they could add value to my company or my client's.

So does having a degree matter?

My strongest advice for anyone at school is to continue learning. I did a degree in Physics & Chemistry and became a computer salesperson - I would put hand on heart and say that I have used only small parts of the academic stuff I learnt about the subjects at any point in my career. However, what I did learn was how to express what I knew in words and speech, and that has served me in great stead in my career. I also learnt how interaction with people can have positive effects on your life and most importantly I gained ambition (not that I couldn't have learnt that elsewhere but it was at a time of great industrial unrest and poor job prospects - I became a very determined person). Most all it got me on a rung in the ladder of my career; it got me a job with Hewlett Packard via their annual graduate intake.

But, has it had any further bearing on my career? I can honestly say it hasn't. Now I'm talking from the position of going through sales, marketing, general management to senior executive positions - we like to call ourselves 'professionals' but I do not mean it in the same way an engineer or lawyer or accountant or microbiologist or architect or doctor may need the necessary learning to do their jobs. Let's draw that distinction - I mean general purpose business jobs.

One last point on this - so if there is a degree on the CV and it is important to have one, then surely there must relevance in the subject taken? That's where most of this falls flat and so does my own ideas on relevance. If a degree is in Air Guitaring or Klingon (trust me you can get them).......well, I think you get my point.

But what if there were no degree on a CV?

That's an interesting point - if I look for one then there must be a reason. Some think it is a certain marque of approval, like seeing if the person has driving licence only it has more Kudos, I think I would agree with that. Some say that it means the person has the capability to learn - but I would say that I think that wanes with time, though I greatly admire people who study in parallel with their career. Very often you will see job adverts mandating a degree (or sometimes 'equivalent experience' - I am not sure how that works) and I wonder what value these organisations are placing on the degree itself. Are they seriously saying that they want to filter our budding Alan Sugars? Or are they just filling in the boxes because the process is becoming more regimented?

And what of experience in place of a degree? Is spending the missing three years canoing down the Amazon or sweeping floors in a bakery or starting as office boy at a computer store more valuable than university? The jobs are merely examples, there is a terrific You Tube video of Steve Jobs' address to Stanford University students in which he outlines why dropping out of his course at Stanford prepared him for his amazing career - it's worth listening to.

I think my point would be that experience of any sort is worth nothing unless you learn from it. In the same way, valuable experience from which you learn in place of a degree course could well be a good alternative. I think you have to read beyond the CV.

Here's a controversial point

I think recruiting and finding talent is devalued in the modern business world. I recently talked to a very experienced businessman who went for a job interview to find the interviewer was a young HR person barely out of university who was doing a first interview for a Vice President position. After 15 minutes worth of 'what are your strengths?' followed by 'what are your weaknesses?' the businessman got up to leave. When asked why he was ending the interview he replied, 'I'm being interviewed for the second most senior job in the company by a person who has no idea of what is required and who doesn't even work at the company. How do you think that makes me feel about the Company?' While he may have felt good at the time, I can't help feeling he was lopping off his nose to spite his face but I really understand the point - the point being the young HR person worked for the outsourcer for the particular company and would you ask a monkey to find a new organ-grinder?

From the mass of commoditised Contingent Recruiters to HR people to Recruitment Outsourcers there is a common theme, for the kinds of sales and executive jobs they are recruiting for they have zero or little experience of actually doing them. So they tree-hug the 'official requirements' - the boxes to tick. A degree is required and if it ain't on the CV you don't get interviewed. How many talented people get automatically screened at that point and would the recruiting managers be concerned if they knew? The fact is most recruitment or Talent Acquisition is executed as 'slot-filling' and it's expensive at that.

A final thought

I recently worked with Theorem Inc to help establish their business in the UK and I researched and found a superb new UK Business Development Manager as their first employee. When the CEO, Jay Kulkarni, and I were brainstorming the Ideal Candidate Profile I asked him would a degree be required. He replied no. When I asked why, he replied 'It doesn't prove a person is intelligent, it just proves they can learn to pass exams.'

With that, I would like to hear your views. Is a degree really that important today or is experience the more important?