Cricket In A Spin

The ECB has been in a right mess of late. Not least because the absurd situation that developed around the rift between former coach, Peter Moores, and his Captain, Kevin Pietersen, which resulted in both being dismissed which showed a lack of management skills, but they then followed it up with the piece de resistance when the saviour of English 20-20 cricket, Sir Allen Stanford, was arrested for a $9bn financial fraud.

So, the theory is, having bungled monumentally lately, they are taking no chances in appointing the new coach, ready for the vital Ashes Series this Summer.

The Next Cock Up

In doing so, the ECB has hired Executive Headhunting firm Odgers Ray & Berndtson to handle the recruitment process.

Clang!

Yes, for those of us in industry, ORB have a decent reputation in their field although many would argue most of these headhunting agencies are just glorified CV sifters who have zero experience in industry so would have difficulty spotting and motivating talent even if it came up and slapped them in the face with a damp kipper. So expecting them to have the ability to find a cricket coach is about as stupid as organising a pointless triangular tournament for $20m prize money in the Caribbean not even between two countries.

Besides I don't think anyone in ORB has any experience of Test cricket barring watching the odd game in a Corporate Box unless I'm mistaken - that has never stopped Headhunters talking a fine story in industry in the past but I would assert some knowledge of the sport would be pretty essential outside of reading Wisden.

Again, Giles Clarke, the CEO of the ECB, excels himself in his ability to waste money and time in producing an array of the usual suspects that he could have read the back pages of most newspapers and found out for himself. Quite why he thought that an Executive Headhunting firm could have read those pages better or quicker than he or his management is quite beyond belief.

The Suspects

So the Headhunters have drawn up a short list. Miraculously they all are something to do with cricket, although only two of them have really played any Test cricket, one of the others had a game or two and one only played just 7 games in first class cricket - perhaps they should have looked at some decent pub cricket coaches too. Listening to the likes of Geoff Boycott, Ian Botham, Nasser Hussein and Jonathan Agnew - and they are an assembly that have a good deal of experience at the highest level - you might be led to believe that having Test level experience is pretty fundamental. So it would be great to see what the ECB gave as criteria because this list really could have been put together one afternoon in Trap 1 reading the back pages of the Times and the Telegraph.

1) Andy Flowers - Formerly a fine Test cricketer from Zimbabwe who is now British. He averaged over 50 at Test level and that would enthuse the likes of Boycott. Sadly, as current Assistant Coach under the defunct Moores, he is perhaps tarred with the same brush. However, the man who received the toughest of treatment, former captain, KP, is one of Flowers' biggest supporters for the job and it could be fair to say he has done well as Acting Head Coach in the West Indies. After his batsmen have scored 8 centuries so far he could argue they are playing well, but at 1-0 down and yet to take 20 wickets in any of the Tests, it could argued he is one dimensional as a former batsman.

2) Ashley Giles - One of the heroes of Ashes 2005, England and Warwickshire's former left arm spinner and average late middle order batsman is ever popular in England. He is currently Director of Cricket at Warwickshire and has been their spin coach. He is a good lad in the dressing room and that could be one of his weaknesses. Strongly associated with former captain Michael Vaughan, he may be too close to the players to exert sufficient authority.

3) Graham Ford - Yes, who? A South African who is currently Director of Cricket at Kent, has the vast experience of playing just 7 first class matches and scored just 142 runs in the process. This puts him marginally ahead of me and a swathe of decent club and pub cricketers. Whilst some of his charges at Kent are supportive, it is prominent that he turned down one of the dream jobs in cricket which was to coach India while he is more of a media recluse than front man - and we thought Duncan Fletcher was bad. Frankly, how he made the list I don't know considering Kent haven't been exactly burning up the Championship - at least Fletcher proved himself by taking an unfancied team to the County Championship at Glamorgan.

4) Dav Whatmore - An Australian but we'll forgive him that although he may not be the ideal man to have around as coach when playing.....the Australians. Yes we have shades of Graham Henry coaching the Lions here. However, at least he did play a smidgen of Test cricket and in his 7 Tests he scored a mammoth 293 runs. He can certainly teach the likes of Strauss and Pietersen a thing or two then.

Actually he probably could. Having taken a second tier nation at Bangladesh to their first victories against top tier Test Nations, he has a good record of doing something with nothing - a strong qualifier for England. But there is a good deal more - he rebuilt Sri Lankan cricket and coached them to the thrilling World Cup win in 1996, he has coached Lancashire to double one-day cricket champions and is now Director of India's Cricketing Academy. This makes him sort of more of a one day specialist but what do I know?

He is widely respected and there is no doubt he has a superb track record working with lessor teams in international cricket which has earned him his plumb job now.

And that's it. No more candidates. Just because Headhunters are involved doesn't mean to say that we can poach other teams' coaches or find any up and coming talent who may be blazing a path to future glory. This is the sum of their diligent work.

Mistake After Mistake

Frankly, if the ECB are paying fees for that then they ought to be shot. Two blokes in a bar could have done the same in 30 minutes while they were more likely to come up with other, just as suitable, candidates. And why people like Tom Moody cannot be motivated to consider the position shows the Headhunters have just gone for fast track fees - the least path of resistance.

What do you expect? I suppose good on Odgers for diversifying from Finance and Hi Tech - no money in that any more.

Bring back Duncan Fletcher - all is forgiven, except that dreadful book you wrote!

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.

Crisis? What Crisis?

It is not quite the same parallel to the famous period in the 70s when the then Labour Prime Minister went on holiday as the country literally disintegrated around him with rubbish piling high and uncollected in the streets and blackouts started in the evening as energy strikes bit. However, I can't help raising an eyebrow when people insist we are in a 'Credit Crunch' or 'Economic Slowdown' and not a recession.

What does 'Economic Slowdown' mean?

The technical definitions by economists are a few quarters of successive lack of growth and recession is the same but with negative growth. That's a pretty simple definition but of course to the average person in the street, we see the signs of such monsters a little earlier.

Inflation is the first thing to hit us. I struggle with Government definitions but I only have to look at petrol prices, the average weekly shop and energy prices (it now costs me over £1,800 per year to power and heat my home - a semi-detached 4 bedder) to know that inflation is rising. House prices are coming down and the market is stagnating - I know people who have had their property on the market for over a year, yet it was the sort of house that would have sold very quickly before that.

And then there is business.

How are you feeling the Business Pinch?

At a recent event, a good friend of mine who runs his own Hi Tech Recruitment Business, said he had not experienced any slowdown. In some respects I agree. My business is dependent on outside companies wanting to expand and grow in the European Market and I have certainly seen greater reticence by US companies wanting to expand but equally I found Israeli and Indian companies to take up the slack.

However, his comments did intrigue me. We all know that one of the direct outcomes of a recession is lower corporate profitability, moves to cost cutting and inevitably, job losses and higher unemployment. I read recent newspaper articles which show that the number of new headcount positions across industry generally peaked some months ago and is now falling dramatically, while the same articles predict unemployment in the UK to rise to over 2 million.

It may be that some sectors, like Hi Tech, do not see such effects so rapidly. Much of their revenue comes from capital spend rather than operating costs and so maybe that is still healthy? It shouldn't be - as capital raising and availability is one of the major consequences of the credit crunch. In fact borrowing in general for overhead funding should be harder. So why is the Hi Tech market apparently bullet-proof as we experience marked slow down factors like rising fuel and energy prices which affect the cost of manufacturing and transportation of Hi Tech goods?

Head in the Sand Management

One of the prevailing factors that led us to the Credit Crunch was 'Head in the Sand' management at banks and finance companies. No Black Swans in the system were required, it was common sense that all the assets could not rise harmoniously and endlessly - there had to be a debit somewhere, and we certainly got it. The same management will survive and talk of new financial models as if they learnt a lesson but ultimately it will be people like us who pay the cost of it through mortgages, loans and general lending products.

And so in the Hi Tech sector. Perhaps the apparent buoyancy of the Hi Tech recruitment market suggests a 'Head in the Sand' syndrome within management of these firms - a belief that they have not yet experienced a slowdown in revenues and so they may believe they will be immune to its effects? It would be interesting to see what such managers think and understand their logic.

Certainly, as the dollar-pound-euro exchange rates ease, US companies are going to feel a little more bullish about Europe and its possibilities. There has been a strange logic prevailing for the last year that says while the dollar rate is high, such companies did not want to employ local European staff as their salaries in dollar terms were often far in excess of equivalent jobs in the US or even of the hiring managers. Yet the same firms seem to be equally happy to pay agencies fairly huge sums to do some 'Market Testing', which usually involves a short term project at quite a substantial premium to the market rates. It has certainly been a curious time.

If you judge the general market for jobs as shrinking due to the almost non-existent Recruitment Supplements in the quality papers, the Hi Tech market seems to be getting stronger and stronger as new adverts appear on Linked In and Job Boards by the minute, new email alerts and now even text alerts. It seems business is not slowing down in the Hi Tech market - on the contrary, it appears to be booming. And recruitment is at the forefront as only a week or so ago Michael Page rejected a £1.3bn bid for its business, clearly reasoning its price will rise in the current market rather than shrink.

So is this a 'Credit Crunch', 'Economic Slowdown' or 'Recession'?

Between all the doom-mongering, reactionary talk, and alarmist commentary then laissez-faire management, Black Swan random event theories and economic cycles there must lie the answers to the questions of what is it we are experiencing, how far will affect us and for how long? It would be helpful to business planning for most of us although I would advocate a policy of Prudence. Some questions on LinkedIn recently have asked what should you do in slowdowns or recessions - gear up or cut cost? Knowing what we are in would help answer that question because the two schools of thought have merit but I would suggest the art of execution is all in the timing.

For those companies who cut their cloth, pull in the reins or chop out unprofitable business to focus on core, may well be in the middle of these activities when the upturn arrives and so they actually magnify the effect of the slowdown and often irreparably damage some of their future earnings by missing opportunities. While those companies who carry on gearing up suddenly find a massive whole in their finances and jeopardise the entire business - rather like the banks have done.

Common Sense Prevails

The most sensible route is to try and gauge the market. If you are going to gear up - think about what areas of product, service or expertise are actually more needed in recessionary times and put more effort in those areas. If you are going to cost cut, be sensible about which areas you damage and try to do it one action rather than instigating a 'death by a thousand cuts' which you see so often as management misread the situation and thought a few cuts here and there suffice. It ends up in demotivating those who stay and that produces inertia and inefficiency of its own accord.

For those companies wishing to expand into Europe from outside, I would definitely avoid talking to recruiters - they do not care whether your business survives or not. Ultimately, in my business my aim is to work with my clients so as to make my services redundant to them at the earliest opportunity. This means testing the market is not about putting a toe in the water it's about achieving results against which you can make sound investment decisions for the future. So define those milestones carefully so that achieving them will tell you what you want to know and above all, work with a professional company that has a track record of understanding what emerging businesses need in order to be successful in Europe. It isn't about just getting a few sales, it's about selling in the professional image of the parent, attracting good business, representing the company in the press, at events, seminars, workshops and driving the KPIs to achieve the results. You want it exactly as if you were doing it yourself and that requires the most important element - trust.

If this appeals - we should be talking.

Do you prefer a stimulating job or more money?

Now I'm going to say something that may surprise you.

Boo!

No, it's not that. I was mildly surprised to read in The IOD Director Magazine this month that the fifth annual Happiness Index in a survey compiled by The City & Guilds revealed that workers from over 20 different occupations had ranked money as being only fourth on their list of criteria for judging happiness in the workplace. I know, you're asking, so why were Tanker Drivers missed off the list?

Highest rated was that their job must be stimulating and interesting. Second, was job security, pretty sensible in the current climate, and third was work-life balance.

Why is this of great importance?

Larger employers offer wide ranges of incentive and employee benefit options these days - some in quite complex systems which allow employees to 'trade' benefits like extra holiday for less pension contribution or similar things. These options are innovative and sensible when compared to the Happiness Index results because work-life balance is high on employee agendas.

However, small to medium (SM) sized businesses have a real difficulty keeping up. Not only are such benefit options tough to implement as the impact is not easy to quantify not just in terms of cost but impact to the business (e.g. if more staff opt for flexible hours or more holidays, how does this impact the company's ability to take orders or keep customers happy etc), but with the demands of things like maternity/paternity, keeping up with Employment and Equalities Law, taxation and many of the new costs to businesses, it becomes increasingly more difficult to tackle employee benefits and well-being as well.

The most obvious and simple way in which SM companies try to compete with larger companies is to offer similar all round salary and bonus benefits. For the more progressive, stock options are sometimes offered although they are not ranked as a 'here and now' benefit. But, the survey is saying that isn't going to compete with larger companies as money is only fourth on the agenda.

A Practical Example

I have recently been advising a lady who was offered a job by a small company - nice salary package and exactly her industry. However, after being contacted recently by a household name in media and datanetworks, the lady stopped in her tracks not because the salary and bonus was better, in fact it wasn't, but because there were a clear set of other benefits like car allowance, comprehensive private health car, a substantial contribution to a pension plan by the employer, discounts off their own brand products but most importantly was the fact it was a large firm and therefore offered greater job security.

Recessionary Times

In tougher times, larger firms offer a safer haven for many workers as the theory is that they have the capability to ride out the storm better as they are larger, offer better employee benefits and the chances are the jobs will be similar.

However, I would not necessarily agree with this assessment. We are seeing several large companies recently who have enjoyed significant success starting to hit, quite literally, brick walls. Northern Rock and the banking community don't look quite as a safe as before, Persimmons and the building sector is particularly vulnerable, while the fall out from the credit crunch will hit larger firms who are highly geared harder than profitable smaller ones who do not have massive borrowing.

For the bold, small companies who can adapt to change more nimbly and seek out opportunities faster, a recession can be a good thing as the larger firms try to shore up their positions and go back to their core competencies in the hope of weathering the storm.

Smaller companies are not a bad option but it may mean we have to break our reliance on the Happiness Index as there is an element of risk involved.

So how do smaller companies compete for talent?

Recruiters take their money where they can get it and larger firms not only pay the bills but offer greater opportunities. Smaller firms need professional recruiters who really know how to seek out talented individuals who are more likely to take a risk in their career in return for the benefits of success at smaller companies, who can 'sell the dream' of success at a smaller firm and above all help you compete against the morass of cheap adverts and database tracking systems to find candidates dominated by larger firms and help your company stand out and find real talent.

Recently, I helped Theorem Inc start up in the UK/Europe and find their first employee to drive their exciting business into Europe. Amongst the sea of adverts and agencies recruiting for large agencies and media firms, in just 6 weeks I had found, motivated and wrenched away from the might of the AOL Corporation, a superb, dynamic and highly capable Business Development Manager much to the delight of Theorem's CEO, Jay Kulkarni.

It wasn't about the pay necessarily, certainly not job security, it will be an interesting job if you call four walls and telephone that, work-life balance will be interesting as the boss is 5 hours behind, nor was it about the stock options as this company hadn't any at the time and had thrived without a penny borrowed from VCs.

It was about selling the dream.

That is tough for any recruiter as they have never experienced what it takes to do that so it is tough to know what to look for. Besides, in a world where transactions count, there is no point in wasting time worrying about making small companies successful when the big ones have vacancies.

Step this way

If you are a small to medium hi-tech business either entering the market from the US or are building your UK/European operation and finding it tough to attract exceptional talent in these times, then step this way. It takes a special approach to find and attract real talent and that's what I do.

Please call on +44 (0)207 193 2356 or mail me at nigel.dunn@calxeurope.com for an intial discussion.

What is the difference between cost and value?

When preaching to salespeople I often use an example holding up a small plastic trophy with a salesperson's name on it which is awarded on a regular basis to the most improved salesperson or for best performance. The actual cost of the item was a few pounds but I posed the question, 'What is the value of the object?'.

I argued, in the hands of a canny individual, such a prominent award could feature heavily in a CV, citing that as a result of outstanding performance, the recipient had risen above his/her peers and been awarded the most prestigious prize in the company. I further argued, that such an award, sold in that way to prospective employers, could add at minimum £5,000 onto their next job's salary. This would in turn compound in their earnings in years to come and thus be worth potentially tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds. The value of the item, far exceeded the cost.

In a more spectacular example, was the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986 when the failure of a comparatively minor part called an O-ring caused a flare to ignite flammable gases just 73 seconds after lift off. The cost of this small item was minuscule compared to the cost of the shuttle itself and it caused the loss of 7 lives and billions of dollars. The tragedy was magnified after a 32 month investigation which highlighted that NASA managers had known since 1977 that the design had a catastrophic flaw and that flying in such cold weather was strongly advised against by its own engineers. The cost of the small item was virtually nothing compared to its value for safe flying.

Assessing Cost vs Value

In a modern era where business looks to drive down costs in purchasing we have seen innovations such as 'Reverse Auctions' and Outsourcing which have strangled out the ability for suppliers to show value. Tick box point scoring system sometimes augment the processes but in the main it is a lowest cost wins scenario, even when it involves high human content such as recruitment.

Each new recruit has an intrinsic value to the company that bears little relation to their cost. Listening to James Caan's recent talk at the Executive Recruitment Show in London he talked of the 'cost of bad recruitment' being far greater than the cost of the fee. He was talking of value. So as companies look to reverse auction the cost of their recruitment and/or outsource it, particularly to foreign countries, they are focusing on the cost rather than the value of new recruits to an organisation.

Summary

Recruiting is all about investing in the future. Each new recruit has to be part of that future and will have some contribution to the future value of the organisation which will affect its profits. Driving down the cost and pushing away the screening process to a third party who has zero skin the game other than the unit cost of the recruit, no real feel for the culture and no experience of the concept of working for their client will contribute no more value than its cost to the company.

I would support James Caan's view that the cost of the recruitment fee is nothing compared to the value of the right candidate and that should be the priority.

Top Tips For Job Seekers

Following on from the last blog article, it is worth highlighting the tips I gave. Please also note Calx Europe has eBooks and courses designed to help you create your own strategy for your career move, how to 'Ace The Interview', 'Sex up your CV' (no not by Alistair Campbell) and create your 'Personal Value Proposition' and 'Personal Elevator Pitch' to differentiate yourself above all other candidates.

Please call +44 (0)207 193 2356 or email info@calxeurope.com for more details.

20 Top Tips

1)Make your CV look professional - well laid out, everything spelt correctly, chronologically correct and your best achievements highlighted

2) Make sure you can corroborate all you put in your CV - do not 'ham it up' but 'sex it up'

3) Have references ready and briefed

4) Be punctual for interviews

5) Dress 'business ready' as if you want the job - first impressions and appearance count

6) Do your research - make sure you know about the employer's business and read news about them

7) Have your personal 'Value Proposition' rehearsed - make sure you are clear about what you can do for the Company

8) Make impact - have your personal 'Value Statement or Elevator Pitch' ready and stated early

9) Be confident and clear - don't mince your words, say them with confidence

10) Attitude - walk into each interview as if a) you want the job and b) you can get it

11) Reference your past - draw upon your knowledge and skills you have learnt at other jobs, courses or qualifications that directly augment your suitability for the job and help illustrate your answers to questions

12) Don't waffle or tell stories - make any anecdotes short and keep to answering the question

13) Ask questions - when you are invited to ask questions, have some well-thought ones prepared and even if they have been partly answered already, ask them again and for clarification

14) If asked questions about your age, sex, sexuality, marital status, childcare arrangements, race, religion, political views politely decline to answer the question - if pushed simply state under law you do not have to answer such questions

15) If you are at all worried that discrimination in the selection process has occurred ask for written clarification as to why you were not selected and you may also ask to have access to any and all interview notes taken. If you suspect discrimination has occurred from the answers and notes, seek professional guidance

16) If you have independent assessments such as psychometric test results or a Professional Profile, make sure you take copies to leave with the interviewer

17) Always ask 'How have I done?' and 'What are the next steps?' at the end of the interview

18) If at the end of the interview you still want the job, tell them you do and why. Say how you 'feel' about the company and the job and re-state your 'Personal Value Proposition'

19) Tell the interviewer what you thought of them - compliment them if you can

20) Follow up the interview quickly with either a call or better still an email summarising your feelings, re-stating your enthusiasm and 'Personal Value Proposition' and again ask for next steps.

The list is not exhaustive - call or write for more information.

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