Why Job Ads Attract The Bottom Third Of Candidates – Audio Recording

Traditional job advertising attracts the bottom third of the candidate pool by using traditional techniques of job advertising. Learn how to improve your job advertisements so that you can begin to attract top talent for every role in your organization. Discover the power of a Compelling Marketing Statement  to bring outstanding candidates to your doorstep the next time you have an opening. Replace your outdated and ineffective job descriptions masquerading as classified job advertising. In this radio program, Brad and Barry walk you through the key elements of replacing your traditional job ads with a Compelling Marketing Statement.

To listen to or download this recording from our audio library CLICK HERE. Then scroll down to the recording.

Losing a Top Candidate – Perception is The Only Reality. Lessons learned from 20 years on the front lines of the talent wars.

You rarely lose a top candidate at the end of the hiring process. It’s usually in steps taken along the way. In this case the client made a series of seemingly small mistakes that resulted in the candidate declining to go forward. It started simply by the hiring manager keeping the candidate waiting 30 minutes, then, he compounded the problem by not being prepared for the interview. “He didn’t seem to remember much about my background”, the candidate later confided in me. Despite the rocky start, the candidate returned for a series of additional interviews with other members of the management team. All went well, but the last interview was to be with a senior manager who was on a sales trip in Europe. No problem, we would arrange a phone interview. Week one resulted in no interview being arranged. It wasn’t until week two that the senior executive could “make room on his calendar” to call the candidate. The executive was 30 minutes late making the call and it lasted only 30 minutes. (Eight or nine time zones difference and he couldn’t find 30 minutes on his calendar for two weeks?) Finally, the client told me that all of the executives were very excited about the candidate and they wanted to move forward with an offer. I was told to inform the candidate that an offer would be sent to him “in a week or so”, as soon as the hiring manager could get all of the required approvals. At this point the candidate declined to continue. “To me, a hiring process is a reflection of how a company operates and makes decisions. I didn’t like what I saw.” The candidate took a job with a much larger company which had moved faster and more efficiently than this client.

Lesson learned: The best window any candidate has into the culture of an organization is the way it goes about the hiring process. If your process isn’t tight, professional, organized and strategic, top quartile candidates will go elsewhere, and they may tell their friends about their experience. One bad hiring process can equal two problems, the loss of a top candidate and a bad public relations moment.

Check your culture by downloading our Cultural Assessment. CLICK HERE to download a free assessment.

Is your hiring process effective at attracting top talent? Our 8-Point Hiring Methodology Assessment Scorecard will help you identify the strengths and weaknesses of your hiring process. CLICK HERE to download a free scorecard.

Mike is the founder of Hagerthy & Co, an executive search, training and consulting firm. For information on how to arrange for their complimentary Hiring Process Assessment go to: www.hagnco.com/page13.html#HiringProcess.

Cost Per Hire Versus Value Per Hire Which Is Most Important

The cost of a bad hire rarely impacts an organization, however, the value of a great hire can often transform an organization.

As executive recruiters, we hear about the “cost per hire” regularly. It seems like every time HR calls, this topic comes up. However, I would suggest that a far better discussion for HR to have is on the “value per hire.” Having this discussion not with recruiters, but with the CEO is a far more meaningful and beneficial discussion. It not only helps justify that HR contributes revenue and value to the organization, but it also brings HR in as a strategic partner.

This also goes for the CFO of the organization, who should work with HR to help determine a way to calculate the value of a hire.

A few years back I was sitting in the office of the VP HR when the CFO came by and stuck his head in to say hi. During the conversation he commented, “You know, over the last x years we have paid you over $300,000 for your services.” I think he was expecting me to be apologetic. I replied, “That is all? I completely agree with you that I have been grossly underpaid.” I don’t think this was the answer he was looking for. I continued, “Considering that you are now a millionaire, and the rest of the executive team I have placed here are also millionaires, and that the company went from $50 million in revenue to $250 million in revenue with a valuation close to $1 billion, I believe the fees I have been paid are justified by the value these people contributed to the company. Wouldn’t you agree?”

This isn’t about me. It is to demonstrate that even CFO’s don’t step back and recognize that for some expenses there is often a lot of value created for the company. If you de-humanize this concept, an employee is just another asset. Many often say the most “valuable asset” in the company. So, if employees are assets then shouldn’t the CFO be capable of calculating an ROI just like any other asset?.

Would this concept benefit HR as they justify the costs to acquire these assets? Isn’t it fair to look at both sides of the equation?

Employees are often described as “human capital” so some sort of return on capital doesn’t seem unrealistic. I’m not suggesting that the calculation is an easy one. I’m sure whoever first figured out how to calculate ROI had to tweak the formula more than once before getting it right, but just because it is difficult to calculate doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.

Defining success in the role before you hire a person is a good start. Our Success Factor Methodology recommends developing a job description that defines what great success is in this role. Basically, by the end of the first year what would this person have to have accomplished so that the hiring manager would consider this person not just a good hire, but a great hire. In our book, You’re NOT The Person I Hired, we refer to these as,  “Success Factors” (for some free examples of Success Factors for different positions  CLICK HERE). I believe this is the starting point in determining the value an employee brings to the company. Top talent in your company will hit these. The average will hit these some of the time and below average will rarely hit the success factors. Obviously, for different levels within the company the value added will change.

At least now the company is starting to look at the value a hire brings to the company and can start to assess the ROI.

To learn more about the Success Factor Methodology to help you attract, hire and retain top talent, check out our best selling book, You’re NOT The Person I Hired.

You can also begin implementing the Success Factory Methodology with our comprehensive hiring system. CLICK HERE to review.

I welcome your thoughts, comments and feedback.

Brad Remillard

Choosing Recruiters: Mistake #2 – We Need an Expert

Some executives believe that the only way a recruiter can be successful is to have many years of recruiting in a particular functional category (finance, marketing, human resources, manufacturing), or in a specific industry (construction, bio-technology, education, non-profit, electronics, distribution).

Using the criteria of a functional or industry expertise is a classic mistake in choosing recruiters.

The best recruiters are not industry or functional experts. Their expertise is as world-class recruiters. They know how to play detective to find the very best talent, they understand human motivation and the key elements of why candidates are open to new opportunities, and they are master interviewers capable of extracting information from candidates – information they wouldn’t share with their closest friends or spouses.

Most functional or industry focused recruiters work the same old tired lists of candidates, move the same people from one company to the next and back again, and lack an in-depth understanding of how to nurture, excite, motivate, and create passion in candidates around new opportunities. Rarely do they actually “recruit”. They have no process for identifying new candidates other than a little light networking, running advertisements, and searching their “database” of candidates.

Two decades ago (B.I. – Before Internet – who can even remember this???), the only way to be successful as a recruiter was to specialize since the data you possessed in a 3×5 card system was your inventory or earning potential. Your success as a recruiter was a function of the strength of your network. Today, within 24-48 hours, any good recruiter can identify 80-90% of the key targets on an executive search using the Internet (Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, ZoomInfo, Jigsaw, industry lists and publications, and many times – simply visiting the competitor websites). There is NO longer any need to maintain a unique database of candidates in a particular functional discipline or industry specialization.

Recruiters who still hang onto the tribal methods of recruiting from 20 years ago will claim “I know all the key players in the industry”, “I am well connected”, “I have an extensive database”, “I once held the blank title for the same job you want to hire” or “I worked for years in the blank industry”. None of these claims translate into being a great recruiter. You might have once been a great CFO or Marketing Executive, but that doesn’t mean you’re a good recruiter. Just because you have a phone and a rolodex does not mean you can recruit top talent. The recruiters who claim they have the industry contacts and databases will typically throw a bunch of resumes at you while keeping their fingers crossed that you fall in love with one of them – consequently owing a recruiting fee.

This is not recruiting – it doesn’t even remotely resemble executive search. Instead, it’s nothing more than brokerage – flinging resumes by email with the hope that something will stick. The best recruiters understand which ponds to fish in and how deeply to fish in each pond. The best recruiters EARN their fees by uncovering the very best talent – not candidates who are convenient from their database.  Brokerage (or a referral fee for flinging a resume) shouldn’t be worth more than 5-10% of the candidates first year compensation. Real search fees in the 30% range can only be justified if the recruiter does the following:

Identification of target candidates

A major campaign to convince those candidates to interview and leave their current jobs

Helping you to screen, interview, validate, and vet candidates instead of box-checking job descriptions and then “flinging resumes” (more on why most recruiters don’t see their job as helping you to interview and evaluate candidates in a future posting).

Let me share a personal example: My specialty as an executive recruiter is recruiting – and Brad and I are two of the top recruiters in the United States – how many recruiters can claim they are great recruiters as opposed to “I understand what it’s like to be a CFO or I understand the industrial fastener market”.

If you are a company executive, which would you rather have:

A recruiter who claims to understand the functional role and industry and suggests they have a great database,

OR

A recruiter who has a proven track record of ferreting out the best talent, motivating that talent to get excited about your opportunity, and helping you to validate they can deliver the results you desire.

You obviously want the recruiter who can deliver the results you desire – why then do most companies use the wrong criteria to pick recruiters.

Brad and I talk have spoken a number of times in our weekly radio show about choosing recruiters. You can download our radio shows in our FREE audio archive. We are also preparing a recruiter best practice scorecard which you can use to benchmark recruiters before choosing a firm to help you fill a critical role.

Barry Deutsch

Don’t forget to join our LinkedIn Discussion Group on Hiring and Retaining Top Talent for a more in-depth discussion on choosing recruiters.

Choosing Recruiters: Mistake #1 – No Systematic Process

CEOs and Senior Executives in our survey assumed that all retained executive recruiters must have a rigorous process to help clients hire key executives that will deliver expected results.

How many times have you crossed your fingers in the hope that the recruiter you hired will hit the bullseye? Conversely, how many times have you felt like you’ve thrown good money down a dark hole – never to see an appropriate outcome?

After all, if you visit the recruiter’s website, doesn’t it always identify that the recruiter has a “process” to do search. This assumption represents the number one mistake that is made in working with recruiters. Falling victim to this mistake results in searches that do not get filled in a timely manner, do not get filled with a top caliber candidate, or do not get filled at all.

Industry statistics show that less than 65% of all executive searches are completed by the search firm. The Success Factor Methodology is a process which overcomes the #1 mistake when it is used both by the recruiter and by the company.The vast majority of recruiters have no process. If you go to their website, they claim they have a process – but there is no real process. There is no application of best practices in sourcing, interviewing, assessing, and recruiting top talent.

It’s random, willy-nilly, and seat of the pants. Most recruiters approach is superficial and lacking in substance.

The next time you interview recruiters to select one to help you fill an important position – ask what their process is? Probe for their specific methodology on sourcing or interviewing. Ask what specific questions they use, the research it’s based upon, and what the uncover through those questions. Discover how they build sourcing plans, where they fish, the precise techniques they use to fish in deep waters for the best candidates.

Most of the time, you’ll hear fluff instead of substance. Having a phone and asking interview questions does not make for a great recruiter. Understanding the best practices in sourcing, assessing, recruiting, and interviewing – then applying these on a consistent basis – does make for a great recruiter.

Like the failure behind hiring in many companies, the vast majority of recruiters fail because they have no process.

For over two decades we’ve been using a highly structured process in our Retained Executive Search Practice called the Success Factor Methodology. Using this process has resulted in a success track record over 95% of helping clients hire key executives. We’ve taken this process, and modified it so that you too can implement a rigorous hiring process to find, interview, and select Top Talent. A few years ago we wrote a book, “You’re NOT the Person I Hired”, detailing the steps to implement the Success Factor Methodology in your company. We’ve built an ecommerce site around video, audio, templates, and tools to help you implement the process. Finally, our website contains a wealth of free products, downloads, audio archives, and examples to reinforce improving your hiring process.

STOP relying on recruiters who have no systematic and rigorous process to help you hire top talent. Take back your searches by implementing a simple and effective process field-tested in thousands of companies.

Barry Deutsch

The Top Ten Mistakes Executives Make in Choosing Recruiters

How do you pick the right recruiter?

How do avoid making a mistake in selecting such an important trusted advisor?

In a survey project conducted over 3 years with 425 CEOs and Senior Executives we identified the Top Ten Mistakes that are made in choosing executive recruiters. We took on this survey project after hearing over 25 years horror story after horror story from companies who had retained recruiters to help fill critical positions.

We began to wonder why so many CEOs and Senior Executives were frustrated by the process of choosing and working with executive recruiters.

In my following ten blog postings I’ll identify the Top Ten Mistakes of Choosing Recruiters. You’ll probably want to LOLROFL as my daughter is fond of texting – you’ll first want to Laugh Out Loud while Rolling on the Floor when you read the Top Ten Mistakes. Then laughter will give way to anger and frustration as you realize how your company has made multiple mistakes in choosing and working with recruiters over the years – the bad hires, the painful experiences, and searches not completed – all the result  of mistakes in choosing recruiters – and which could have been easily avoided.

Do you have a pet peeve about choosing or working with recruiters?

What’s your horror story that you could share with our blog readers?

If there was one mistake you’ve made in the past in choosing a recruiter, how would you avoid making that same mistake in the future?

Listen to our recent Radio Show Broadcast in our FREE Audio Library on this subject of the classic mistakes companies make in choosing recruiters.

Join us in our LinkedIn Discussion Group on Hiring Top Talent for a conversation about choosing and working with recruiters.

Barry Deutsch

What Are The Total Costs Of A Bad Hire?

Business guru Peter Drucker has said, “Of all the decisions an executive makes, none are as important as the decision about people because they ultimately determine the performance capacity of the organization.” Warren Bennis, professor of business at the University of Southern California and author of Managing the Dream, calls the search for top talent “the most significant problem facing all organizations.”

According to a study by the Corporate Leadership Council, hiring the wrong executive can cost an organization as much as three times their annual salary. The Gallup Organization has noted that the cost of poor hiring decisions may even be much higher than previously estimated. Some researchers have calculated the cost of a bad hire can be as high as twenty four times the position’s base salary.

Presidents, CEOs, Boards of Directors, and Hiring Managers should never underestimate the ramifications of a bad hire. The fallout can affect an entire organization, doing far more damage than leaving the position empty would have.

While reasonable experts may disagree about specific salary-to-cost ratios, the fact remains that the cost of new executive failure is much higher than merely search costs and salary. Those are just two of the direct costs.

Indirect costs typically add up to much more.

Some of the direct and indirect costs noted in various studies we reviewed include:

• wasted salary, benefits, and severance
• lost recruitment fees and training costs
• lower personal productivity among dissatisfied employees
• disruptions caused by dissatisfied employees
• higher turnover rates among productive employees
• damages to reputation and market share
• lost management time
• increased stress and anxiety from people problems

The person hurt most just might be the executive who was set up for failure. This person accepted a position based generally on a vague job description, and then found reality did not match up to their or the hiring manager’s perceptions.

Having a structured, formal, and sophisticated hiring process, with well trained people in the process will ensure that these bad hires are significantly reduced and often eliminated.

Calculate the total cost of a bad hire using our “Cost Of Bad Hire” worksheet. CLICK HERE.