A Worthy On-Line Job Search Resource

We have surely come a long way in the realm of advice to job seekers.  I wish I had access to the myriad of tools currently available when I was in a job transition back in 1988.  I was fortunate to be provided a comprehensive outplacement program with a major firm.  That was the good news.  The bad news was that I had nine weeks of severance pay...well, not actually...I had five weeks of severance, two weeks notice and two weeks of vacation to cash in.  That abundance of cash came at a good time.  I only had two in college, a new mortgage and two car payments.

I recall being interviewed by the firm's psychologist, an individual who has remained a good friend for over two decades.  He had a series of assessments for me to do, some of which I had taken in a previous career.  I thanked him for his concern and efforts and then said I didn't have time for all of that because I had nine weeks to find a job.  He laughed.  I didn't.  But I can say this for the situation I was in:  I did not lack focus.

The facilities were decent and there was a library (yes...a library) of reference material.  There were several copies of leading newspapers available to us, as well.  We each had a cubicle with a phone. That was it.  Laptops with wireless communications networks were unheard of then.  We had yellow legal pads on which to write our resumes and cover letters.  We handed these drafts to one of two perpetually stressed out administrative folks whose job it was to do the impossible, fast.  There were many executives in need of letters and resumes.  We were not accustomed to having to wait for things.

There is a happy ending.  I had a job within nine weeks.  Someday I will write a book about it (not).

So now we are in 2011 and once again, there is an abundance of executives in transition.  I feel for these people, but there is one significant difference between their situation and mine back in 1988--technology, and lots of it.  The Internet and social networking in general are godsends to executives who know how to find the right resources and use them (and trust them).  I am always on the lookout for good resources to share.

My latest find is a website at http://jobsearch.about.com .  It ranks up there with the very best career transition advice sites.  They cover a wide array of job search tips and the quality of their advice is pretty good.  I judge everything of this nature on how much I would have benefited from it in 1988.  This would have been a jewel of a resource to me back then and it is today. If you're in a career transition, check it out.

Wasted Interview Questions: The Hypothetical 90-Day Action Plan

There is an abundance of advice for executive job seekers these days that is driven in part by the large numbers of people in the hunt for new positions.  The value of this advice is in the eye of the beholder.  As one of those "beholders," and a veteran executive recruiter, I have some insights and opinions as to what works and does not work for me in interview situations.  One technique being touted lately involves urging candidates to come to the interview with a "90-day plan" that would be implemented if they were to be hired. Proponents of this approach acknowledge that a candidate has to stretch a bit due to a lack of information. Yet, somehow, this is deemed appropriate. I place this question in the same vein as the ubiquitous "Tell me about yourself."

There is another school of thought in the art of interviewing that goes by such names as behavior-based interviewing, targeted selection, etc.  This school of thought is based on the premise that one's past behavior and actions are the best indicators of future behaviors and actions.  One cardinal rule in this approach is that the interviewer is never to ask a candidate what he or she would do in a given situation.  Those types of answers can be rehearsed in such a way as to give the "school solution" to the question.

There are several ways to ask a behavior based question.  The scenario goes something like this:  "Tell me about a time when you were faced with ___circumstances requiring you to act.  What was the situation?  What did you do to solve the problem?  What was the outcome?  (And my favorite and most enlightening addition...) What did you learn from the experience?   It is easy to see that the trendy prospective, ill-informed 90-day action plan question can be turned instead to a request to hear about a past example of what a candidate did in the first 90 days with a previous employer.(and follow the above flow of  follow-on questions). Interviewers will learn much more about the viability of the candidates being interviewed if they take this historical approach.

I learned early in my career as an executive recruiter that a powerful tool to give to my client is a questionnaire that the candidate completes on-line that addresses several required competencies and experiences.  Most questions are asked from this historical perspective.  My clients' testimonials attest to the value of this questionnaire. Whether asked these questions in person, via a questionnaire, or both, there is much value to be gained from this historical, experiential approach.

If you are unfortunate to be asked  this "What would you do in the first 90 days?" question in a future interview, turn the question around and instead share what you have done in the past to ensure that you made the most out of your first three months in a previous job.  Use the flow outlined above and also share what you learned from the experience.

That said, there are ways you can give thought to your first 90 days that are prospective versus retrospective.  In my new book, Before Onboarding:  How to Integrate New Leaders for Quick and Sustained Results, I provide a framework for action in the first 90 days.  There are other books that are more self-directed.  Two that come to mind are The First 90 Days, by Michael Watkins, and The New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan, by Bradt, Check and Pedraza.  None of these three books suggests the appropriateness of a hypothetical action plan.  Be prepared to tell what you have done versus what you would do.  Smart employers will appreciate self-reflective responses and be able to project your past into a future that could involve them.  Executive recruiters will too.

Global Reach for Leading Edge Memo's

Since launching Leading Edge Memo's in January, 2011, readers from all over the world have accessed this blog.  I encourage my readers to send me comments or specific questions you would like for me to address on this blog.  I will take your career-oriented questions and convert them to blog entries (anonymous) so that others can benefit from both your questions and my responses.

As of January 20, 2012, Leading Edge Memos' readers have come from these countries:

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bangladesh
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Canada
Chile
China
Costa Rica
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Estonia
Ethiopia
France
Gambia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Kenya
Latvia
Lesotho
Malaysia
Maldives
Monaco
Moldova
Netherlands
New Zealand
Panama
Philippines
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela
Vietnam

Thank you for your growing support and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Recent Stats on the Best Job Search Strategy

As I give presentations to groups of executives in the midst if career transitions, many believe that their best path to a new job is through gaining the good graces of a recruiter.  Even those who are actively participating in outplacement programs often believe that their first strategy should be via executive search firms. I routinely counsel them away from this often preferred path through discussions of how recruiters work and what the statistics show.

A recent study by Right Management, perhaps the largest outplacement firm in business, supports the advice I give.  During 2010 they kept track of the almost 60,000 of their clients who found new jobs.  Once again the studies clearly show that getting that next job will more often occur through networking.  The exact statistics were as follows:

Networking:                  41%
Internet Job Boards:      25%
Search Firms:                11%
Direct Approach:            8%
Online Network:             4%
Advertisements:              2%
Other:                           10%

According to Carly McVey, Right Management's VP of Career Management, "...technology plays a role. But online social networking may not always be separate from traditional networking since one often leads to the other  A job seeker uses the Internet to track down former associates or acquaintances and then reaches out to them in person." She went on to say that "...successful candidates use a mix of approaches..."  The direct approach (i.e., cold calling) still plays a role in a successful job search strategy, and on-line job boards are also gaining ground.

While executive recruiters should be a part of your job search strategy, the numbers continue to support that networking, in its various forms, and reaching out directly to potential employers carries the day (49% combined).  As the folks at Right Management say, "People still land most jobs person to person."

Before Onboarding: How to Integrate New Leaders for Quick and Sustained Results

My new book, Before Onboarding: How to Integrate New Leaders to Quick and Sustained Results, was recently published.  It is available on Amazon (with a growing body of reviews) and can now be ordered directly from the publisher via this link:  https://www.createspace.com/3578473.  Contact me at mburroughs@dhrinternational.com if you are interested in an organizational discount code for bulk purchases from the publisher (e.g., companies, graduate schools, governmental agencies, healthcare organizations, etc.).

The book provides a detailed template for how organizations can ensure new leaders at all levels arrive fully prepared to achieve early wins; avoid costly, preventable mistakes; and sustain their early successes over the long term.  The process is as applicable to outside hires as it is to internal promotions.

Attrition rates for new senior leaders are high.  Studies range from 30 to 50%.  Many are gone within two years.  What occurs in the first 90 days often determines the ultimate success or failure of new leaders. The emphasis in organizations is on selection and hiring new leaders, but little is done to ensure their new investment is successful either in the short or long term.  That is most often left to hope and chance.  There are solutions to this problem.  This book is one of them and is a proven practice. "Before Onboarding" helps organizations ensure the right things are accomplished in the right order during those first three months, and also compresses the time it takes for new leaders to return value to their organizations. New leaders arrive with a "Blueprint for Success" in hand that was developed through a series of interviews with key stakeholders by a process consultant.  It begins when an offer is accepted and culminates 90 days after the start date with a series of follow-up conversations involving the hiring manager, the new leader and the consultant.

It's a short book--120 pages, and is a succinct, informative read.  See the reviews at Amazon.com.

When to Part Company with a Poor Performer

In the current economy, many are thinking twice about letting marginal or poor performers go.  The main comments we hear pertain to the difficulty in finding a job these days.  That is a noble concept, but there are times when it is best for the organization if leaders make the difficult decision.  The question becomes:  How long do we wait?  There are certain employees who have great talent and their performance does not match their capabilities.  There are others who have great talent and are solid performers but who "break glass" around the organization, keeping everyone on edge.

One way to evaluate how to deal with these situations comes from Kansas City Chiefs coach, Herm Edwards.  It is the mental process he puts himself through when evaluating his players.  He has a simple formula:  T + P > D. T is talent, P is production, and D is the drama associated with an employee's presence.  It Talent + Production are greater than the Drama associated with an individual's presence in the organization, the coach advises working to improve the individual's performance.  If the math ceases to work, and the calculation changes, it is time to part company with that individual.

I had a great boss years ago who was a tough lady when necessary.  We were discussing whether to keep or fire a particular professional on our staff.  He was a recurring problem to the organization and ate up a lot of her time.  I had suggested we wait for a while longer (for no valid reason, really) and her remark has stayed with me to this day.  She said, "Mike. Better and end with terror than a terror without end."

So if T + P is > D, stay the course. Invest the time and effort to help that individual improve. If not?  Don't.

How Should Hiring Organizations View Third Party Management Assessments?

Recently, I have been engaged in a LinkedIn group discussion on the topic of management assessment tools such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and DISC in the realm of executive coaching.   I have used MBTI to some extent and DISC with literally hundreds of people who have participated in my leadership development programs and coaching engagements over the past two decades.  This is a global discussion group, and it is the general consensus from around the world that these tools are indeed very useful.  One person in the discussion sent an Ezine article to all of us stressing the importance of using the tools but not labeling people who take these profiling instruments.  This hit home with me.

I was very instrumental in implementing DISC throughout a three division company years ago and we were most concerned that certain managers would use the behavioral profiles of DISC to determine who should be in which jobs.   I recall one group of middle and senior managers were mostly "High D's (Dominant)" with one "High I (Influencer) and one "High S (Steady)."   It was not long after this group became aware of their collective profiles that the High S asked to step down from management and to go back into a more functional role.  He determined from his profile why he felt he did not fit in with the other managers.  He labeled himself right out of a job.  I should point out that he was a successful manager.  What was more troublesome to me were the High D's who took that designation as a badge of honor, as though their profile validated their positions of control.  It took a lot of work to shift this way of thinking, but we eventually made some significant headway.

This discussion reminded me of another assessment process that I occasionally encounter as an executive recruiter, and that is the insistence by some of my clients that any candidate they want to hire must first go through a day long battery of tests and psychological interviews prior to being extended an offer.  I have seen  a few solid candidates make it to the finish line but not be able to cross it due to the results of their assessment.  What bothers me about this is that the client is rejecting a candidate who had made it to the top of a very tall pyramid.  It is not unusual for the top candidate to have risen above 100+ others in the search process to reach the offer stage.  Many clients interview five or more top candidates to get to the one they want to hire. These candidates would have been thoroughly vetted by me and my team and would have interviewed more than once with a group of their potential employers.  Also, by that point, references would have been conducted.

If the assessment organization gives the candidate a "thumbs down," it is a similar situation to me of organizations labeling managers due to their behavioral profile.  My feeling in these situations is: Why don't you just test these people first and then let the test tell you whom to hire?  Of course I don't really mean that, but my point is that it bothers me that so much effort goes into the hiring process and yet a single organizational psychologist in these situations can sometimes torpedo an executive hire with ease.  Granted, there are times when something significant will surface from these assessments.  I'm not suggesting that these assessments are a waste of time and money; far from it. They clearly have value as another set of eyes so to speak. The really good assessors make it clear to their clients that their findings are merely a data point to consider, yet many of my clients take their input as gospel and will reject a candidate outright sometimes based on a marginal assessment result.

So what am I suggesting?  When assessment results send up a red flag or two, savvy organizations should take that as a cue to probe deeper rather than a cue to drop the candidate like a hot potato.  On several occasions when this has happened, I have suggested to my clients that we revisit the references we had contacted earlier in the process and target the issue(s) that arose during the assessment. For example, it may be that the position requires a high degree of conflict management competency and the assessment discloses that the individual shirks from confrontations.  A simple matter would be to go back to the references (and even get a few more) and ask them direct questions about, in this case, demonstrated conflict management skills.  It may very well be that the assessment uncovered a real problem, but it is worth the effort to have former bosses, colleagues and direct reports address the potential problem and give actual examples to support their comments--one way or the other.  The client can then take ALL of this information into consideration prior to extending or declining to extend an offer.  Moreover, an organization committed to executive development could take that information and begin immediately to fold it into a developmental strategy for the new executive once hired. Why wait a year or more for a talent mapping exercise to determine what developmental needs the individual has?  We ALL have developmental needs.  I have found that when a newly hired executive knows there is a clearly identified developmental need regarding a particular behavioral tendency (or aptitude deficit), he or she will work very hard to resolve this deficiency.  That is a proper use of leadership developers and executive coaches to me.  It is also a common executive coaching practice to help really talented people with great track records get better.

In short, rejecting excellent candidates outright who showed up weak in an area or two of a third party assessment, should not happen until other more direct verification steps have been taken.

www.MichaelKBurroughs.com

Announcement to My Readers

I am pleased to announce that I have re-joined the "top five" retained executive recruiting firm, DHR International, and will be based in the firm's St. Louis, Missouri office.  Previously, I had spent 10 years with the firm and served as managing director in St. Louis. My new position at DHR is Global Practice Leader for Executive Integration and Development.  We are now offering as a value added service my proven New Leader Integration ("Pre-boarding") process at the conclusion of a senior executive search.  We will also provide executive coaching to senior executives.  I will be the primary leader integrator and coach for the firm and will be recruiting internally and externally for search consultants with a talent for, and interest in, providing this innovative leader integration process, as well as executive coaching to DHR's search clients.  We will be providing these services on a global basis.  As before, I will continue to serve as an executive recruiter for senior executives and focus my search work in these areas:

• Healthcare
• Nonprofit
• Aerospace & Defense
• Manufacturing and Other Industrial
• Life Sciences
• Universities

My contact information at DHR is mburroughs@dhrinternational.com and 314-727-2000 ext. 3002.

You can follow my developments at DHR via my personal website, http://www.michaelkburroughs.com.  DHR's website is at http://www.dhrinternational.com. 

The Four Functions of Leadership

In the early 1980s the Army was investing much time and attention to the development and teaching of a new leadership doctrine.  It was a blend of the best that the private sector had to offer along with tried and true military leadership principles.  I was fortunate then to be a leadership instructor at a school for mid-career officers and had previously been a company commander on two occasions.

The curriculum separated "management" from "leadership" while emphasizing that both were critical for military officers to understand and practice.  There were two private sector leadership guru's at the time who were freely quoted and taught.  They were, Blake and Mouton (The Managerial Grid) and Hersey and Blanchard (Situational Leadership).  Warren Bennis was also mentioned, especially his tome that "managers focus on doing things right; leaders focus on doing the right things."  That principle hit home with Army officers, as it was clear that to succeed as an officer one had to balance both, equally.  In other words, management and leadership were of equal importance.  That said, it was also the opinion of most students in our program that leadership was the skill that was most important to commanding troops.

We blended some purely military leadership principles with the best the private sector had to offer.  We taught that a military leader must exhibit four traits:  Courage, Competence, Candor and Commitment.  Courage was clearly aimed at behavior under fire, but it also pertained to moral courage, i.e., being willing to say what needed to be said, regardless of personal consequences.  Then there were the four functions of leadership.  They were that a leader is a Teacher, Counselor, Manager and Coach.  These functions were real eye openers for our students.  Until introduced to this concept, most military leaders focused on management. We taught that an officer manages resources and leads people; that leadership is an influencing process and management is a control process.  They understood the "control" principle, and appreciated the "influence" principle, but it was clear from their experience that the teaching points needed to focus on those other leadership principles.  The addition of teaching, counseling and coaching to the leadership equation drove home the teaching point that leadership is an influencing process.  Teachers, counselors and coaches are all about influencing.   The best of our students "got it."  They knew that the secret to their success to that point in their careers had been their leadership strengths.  Most had already served as unit commanders at the platoon and company level prior to attending our six-month course and understood that commanders do not inspire their soldiers through management; they inspire them through leadership.

When I left the military to join the private sector as a director of staff and organization development for a division of a Fortune 100 company, I brought these principles with me.  It came as a complete surprise to me that these values were not reinforced in the corporate world.  Management was (and remains) by far the greater emphasized function of leadership.  Yet when we examine what motivates and demotivates people, it often zeros in on workers' relationships with their bosses.  The majority of those being managed and led today look for authenticity and transparency in their bosses.  In short, most people want to be led; few people relish being managed. This has a bearing on employee retention and productivity (among other things).

I am encouraged that the better MBA programs are putting a renewed emphasis on leadership.  Its about time.

http:www.michaelkburroughs.com

Writing a Book on Leader Transitions

I have a friend and colleague who once said to me: "Mike. There is a book in every man.  What's yours?"  It was a very simple statement and question and I was never the same afterwards.  The fact is, that I did indeed have a book in me.  It drove me to act.  If you have read some of my earlier postings or read some of my articles at EzineArticles.com, or seen my personal website lately (http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/), you are aware that I have developed a niche in the past two decades of transitioning new leaders into their positions.   My book addresses in detail how to do a leader transition process.

The process is called, New Leader Integration.  I call it "pre-boarding" in order to distinguish it from a common practice in organizations called, "on-boarding."  On-boarding ensures minimal downtime when a new employ starts work.  All administrative tasks are done quickly and efficiently and every effort is made to orient the new employee to the organization as well.  Pre-boarding is all about results.  Why is that important?

The statistics surrounding the transition of new leaders are dire.  There are several recent studies that suggest anywhere from 30 to 50% of outside hired new leaders will fail within two years.  The statistics are a bit better for inside promotions, but not by much.  Another finding is that the first 90 days a new leader is on the job will more often than not determine ultimate success or failure. I have seen this happen, repeatedly.  So the logical conclusion is that everything must be done as quickly as possible to ensure that new leaders arrive with a blueprint in hand for what needs to be accomplished and avoided.  That is what my process does.  It begins when an offer is accepted (for outside hires) or when the decision has been made to promote an individual from within the organization, and reaches critical mass the morning of the first day when I facilitate a kick-off meeting with the new leader and direct reports.  It tapers off over the first 90 days with a series of meetings I facilitate with the new leader and his/her boss.

I developed this process while an organization development executive and introduced it into the executive recruiting field while at DHR International, a "top five" search firm.  On April 1, 2011, I will be returning to DHR to serve as Global Practice Leader for Executive Integration and Development.  We will be offering pre-boarding as an optional feature for clients to consider as searches are conducted around the world.

The book is called, Before On-boarding:  How to Integrate New Leaders for Quick and Sustained Results. It is a step-by-step process for how organizations can implement New Leader Integration into the way they do business.  It requires an experienced Organization Development consultant (internal or external) or an equally experienced executive recruiter to conduct this process.  It is my hope that by providing the world with this book, savvy change management specialists will put it to good use.  It is my goal to significantly minimize failure on the part of new leaders.  The potential cost savings to organizations, which I will outline in a future posting, would be substantial.

We are still working on its release date, and I am told that it will be sometime in May. You will be able to order the book through Amazon.  It will also be available as an e-book for downloading to Kindle.  I would welcome your feedback once you have read it.

What Do Executive Recruiters Look For In a Client Relationship?

Much is said by clients about executive recruiters.  A common topic is, how to select and manage them.  There is a flip side of that coin.  There is an assumption that recruiters are circling around potential clients like hungry fish.  Perhaps in our current economic crisis, that may appear to be accurate.  I suggest in this posting that the best executive recruiters choose their clients wisely.  What may appear to be a win in gaining a new client, may turn into a catastrophe down the road, if all the recruiter was thinking about was quick access to a fee.  Those of us who wear the hats of executive recruiters all have our stories to tell.

If you are a senior manager who occasionally retains executive recruiters, here is what we are looking for in our relationship with you.

• An open line of communication at all times
• Access to all stakeholders in the specification development stage
• Read and be thoroughly familiar with the contract
• Pay a reasonable fee for our services (and in a timely manner)
• Look for value in the process.  Don't treat your recruiters as a commodity.
• Maintain a collaborative relationship throughout the process
• Keep in mind that half of the search is selling your organization. It's not all about sourcing.
• Know that we have to believe in your organization and culture to sell you accurately and honestly
• Avoid putting recruiters in a position where they begin to doubt the value of the opportunity
• Have a realistic attitude as to how long a good executive search project will last
• Keep in mind that the timeliness of project completion is more often tied to client responsiveness
• Demonstrate a sense of urgency when candidates have been presented
• Timely scheduling of interviews and in short succession once candidates have been presented
• Timely and detailed feedback to the recruiter regarding the candidates interviewed
• Honesty at all times with candidates (don't keep candidates in the dark)
• Don't put the recruiter in a tough spot with candidates 
• Provide details regarding extra selection process criteria such as management assessments
• Commit not to drag out the process (good candidates don't get better with age)
• Prompt payment of candidate and recruiter expenses
• Keep a realistic view that there is no such thing as the perfect candidate
• A collaborative relationship with the recruiter (listen to our advice)
• Involve the recruiter in closing the deal (e.g., negotiations).  We have a relationship with the candidate.
• Invest in a viable new leader integration process for all hired executives (not just on-boarding)
• Encourage the recruiter to stay in touch with the hired executive for at least three months
• Be willing to listen and respond positively to feedback from the recruiter "post hire"

We value our relationships with our clients and strive to do a good job for you.  While it is you who are paying us, we do have an obligation with our candidates to be open and honest with them at all times. Don't put us in a position with our candidates that can compromise our integrity.

Advice for the Executive Recruiter Interview: What to Bring

When recruiters meet face-to-face with potential candidates for the first time, we have an agenda: to determine whether to continue with this candidate or part friends and move on.   It is a get to know you meeting where we have already had the benefit of reviewing your resume and in most cases,  having benefited from a telephone conversation with you prior to our first meeting.  We will already have reviewed your resume and made notes, to include notes from our phone conversation.  In general, we will have an hour in which to accomplish much.  The first few minutes are spent getting acquainted.  Next we will briefly recap the search and what we are looking for and why.  We will then dive in to your resume and our notes from our phone conversation and probe areas pertinent to the job.

Honestly, in a face-to-face interview we are also assessing your "executive presence."  That is really the number one objective of that meeting.  Most savvy candidates fully understand this.  We then take full advantage of the time to take our phone interview to the next level and will be probing deeply on certain topics.

What would we like for you to do during that initial meeting?  For me it is simply to be yourself, be candid, and participate in a discussion.  An interview should never be an interrogation, but sometimes it can seem like one, I know.  I've been on both sides of that table.  You will have been presented a detailed position specification and if you are a candidate for one of my searches, you will have completed an in-depth questionnaire asking for specific examples of your accomplishments.  So for this meeting it is critical for me to ask you about the areas that are the "must have's" for my client.  That is why it can seem like an interrogation at times, but it is really that I have less time to interview you than I would like (in most cases). 

Given that we do not have a great deal of time, during this meeting I simply want to have this discussion.  The only prop I need is your resume (and in my case your questionnaire).  If you have a more current version of your resume please have one handy to give me (and email me that latest version after our meeting).

What I am NOT looking for in this initial meeting is a sample of your work.   I have had candidates bring large three-ring binders to these meetings that they want to flip through with me page by page.  I have to admit that candidates who do that drop several notches.  In fact, if they enter the room with their samples in hand I put up barriers.  Don't get me wrong.  There are times when it might be very appropriate to share this information with a recruiter.   Keep in mind, though, that time is not on our side and that this meeting is our initial face-to-face meeting.  If there is a need for me to see some material you could provide, and if it is possible for you to share some of it later via email, I may ask you to do that.

There is the rare occasion when our clients may want us to actually review some such sample material.  I have had clients want to see some "balanced score card" information in order for me to verify that the candidate has implemented such a program.   Other clients have suggested that I review portfolios of samples for searches pertaining to marketing or promotions.  In those situations where it is requested that I do some sort of a verification, I will ask the candidate to bring some samples along to that initial interview.

For your initial interview with an executive recruiter, bring yourself and an updated copy of your resume (if there is one) and prepare to have a discussion, an in-depth one, yes, but not an interrogation.  Leave everything else behind unless we have requested in advance that you bring extra information along.  If we need it, rest assured, we will ask.  

Status Report for Leading Edge Memos

If you are a regular reader of this blog, or a newcomer, I thought you would like to know what the response has been to the variety of postings I have written so far on Leading Edge Memo's and where throughout the world LEM readers are distributed.

I opened the blog on January 13, 2011.  While the majority of my readers are in the United States, here is the composite list of where the hundreds of Leading Edge Memo's readers live and work:

United States
Germany
United Kingdom
India
Canada
New Zealand
Singapore
Spain
Iraq
Netherlands

Thank you to all readers who have joined me to date.  If there are topics you would like for me to cover, email me at mike@michaelkburroughs.com or respond via a comment to this posting and I will honor your request quickly. 

I also encourage you to review the list of articles found on the widget attached to this blog.  Topics are in some cases are expansions of my blog postings. 

I also encourage you to visit my website is at http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/ .

The Importance of Executive Networking and Branding

I have seen this look in the eyes of  many executives who have found themselves for the first time in their lives, "in between jobs."  I say, "for the first time" because once an individual has been in this situation, the advice in this posting is generally moot.  This is hard-won knowledge that you won't want to learn and practice from the start a second time.

What is that look?   Deer in the headlights is a good description. 

Throughout my years as an executive recruiter I have been asked (and honored requests) to speak with with executives who are in transition.   While it is not a common practice for executive recruiters to do that,  the main reason I do it is that I have walked a mile or two in their shoes.  I have had two executive positions disappear due to reasons beyond my control, and had another position relocate with the company headquarters to another state and I opted not to follow my job. These are character building experiences that change the way you look at the world.

It took me a long time to get the message that executives should be networking at all times.  Consider it the cornerstone of your personal career management strategy.  Always be reaching out to other executives and lending support and advice to them in any way possible.  With the advent of social networking, namely, LinkedIn, there is no longer an excuse for not staying connected with other executives.  Building your list of connections should be part of your week, every week.  Do it on your own time at home, but do it.

It is a sad thing for me to see that look on the faces of executives in transition when they have to admit that they have been, "...too busy over the past ten years to network."  They almost always follow this comment with a statement of regret.  One thing is for sure: this realization is life altering.  It is emotionally charged.  Psychologists say that our values do not change until we experience a "significant emotional event." An executive job loss for most is, indeed, a significant emotional event. They begin in earnest to reach out to everyone they know.  Often that is a short list.

There are a variety of ways to build a solid network.  Joining associations and attending meetings are among them.  Offer to give presentations covering areas that are in your area of specialization.  Open a LinkedIn account if you haven't already.  Ask everyone who would be a good business contact to join you on LinkedIn.  Keep your LinkedIn account current. Post your activities and thought pieces there. Increasingly, recruiters find you via LinkedIn.  Join LinkedIn groups that pertain to your area of expertise and interests and participate.  Become a "thought leader."  Post your thought pieces and activities on LinkedIn.  You can also attach PowerPoint presentations on LinkedIn. 

You can become a thought leader in several ways.  Writing for publication is one approach. You can get the hang of it quickly through Ezine Articles (http://www.ezinearticles.com/) which is the most recognized Internet publishing platform in existence.   In this day and age of Internet marketing, social networking, shopping, etc., there are many interested readers who will seek out your work through search engines.  Start a blog that showcases your expertise. Give your best advice away.  Write your postings in such a way that people will return to your blog for more.  Two of the most common blogging tools are WordPress and Blogspot.  Blogspot is the easier of the two to use but in my opinion is not as feature rich.  Offer to make presentations at association meetings.  Build a personal website. Mine is http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/ . I built and maintain this simple website myself through Network Solutions.   Trust me, if I can do it, anybody can do it.  You can tailor a personal website for any purpose, even using it as your blog if you prefer that route.  You can put a widget on your website that lists your most recent articles and also links your readers to your Ezine Articles profile and body of work.  You can see this widget and link on this blog as well as on my personal website.

If you are in between jobs, now is the perfect time to establish your personal brand and start building a robust network.  Do it even if you are not in between jobs.  If you are gainfully employed you will likely have to do your blogging, article writing, website maintenance and LinkedIn updates,etc, during evening hours and on weekends.  That should not be a problem.  You have already most likely grown accustomed to burning the midnight oil.  Just be sure to burn some of that oil for yourself this time around.

Do some "backward planning."  Look into the future a year from now.  Mark that date on your calendar.  Commit to yourself and others that by that date you will be well-established as a networker and that your personal brand will be recognized.  Make time to do this (rather than finding time to do it).  If you wait until you find time you never will.

And once you have established yourself in this way, keep it alive.   Encourage others to do the same.  That's what this blog posting is all about. 

If you would like for me to post blog entries or write articles on topics that support your networking and branding initiatives, contact me by email through my website or write a comment on this blog posting with your request and I will do this as soon as possible.

Status Reports from an Executive Recruiter: What to Expect

If there is any single point that irritates candidates when working with executive recruiters, it is the issue of getting updates or status reports on their candidacy.  It ranks high in the literature as a major issue.  How best should you deal with this as a candidate?  What is acceptable and what is not?

To begin, you are clearly entitled to be made aware of your status following your initial interview, even phone interviews.  The reason you are not called back in many situations is one of volume of calls more than inherent rudeness.   A typical executive search involves over a hundred potential candidates.  In both large firms and boutiques the initial contacts are being made by a research associate or principal (the titles vary).  It is that person's job to do several things: build the potential list of candidates (called "sourcing"); call in to that list to begin presenting the opportunity and gaining interest; follow-up with individuals on this list after having received a resume; communicate with the partner as to who is emerging from this list as viable candidates to move to the next stage; and present candidates to the partner who then takes these candidates to the next level of the process.   Researchers can be working on as many as ten searches in varying stages of completion.  Six is the norm.  Sometimes they are communicating with clients and candidates to arrange interviews.  It is easy to understand at this point just how much time that individual is on the phone and doing back-up administrative work such as database management. 

Given this workload, it is unlikely that you will be contacted again after an initial discussion if you are not considered a viable candidate at that time.  Sometimes the research associate will be able to tell you that during the call.  At other times that will not be apparent until a review of  your resume.  At that stage, and depending upon the workload of the research associate, a call will be made to you with an update.  More often than not, it is in your best interest to make the follow-up call yourself.  If you get through (and most of the time you will not) you can have that brief discussion.  If you don't get through, leave a voice mail message and generally your call will be returned.  Communicating by email is also acceptable (and often preferred).  It is generally faster, as well, and easier for the research associate to do given the time constraints.

Assuming you have made it to the partner interview stage, you can expect more communication.  At that point you have made the "long list" which is about 10 to 12 viable candidates.  The partner will arrange to have a substantive conversation with you by phone (normally) and will have closely reviewed your resume prior to that conversation.  The partner is in a better position to close the process during that call or continue to move it forward.  If it is obvious there is not a good fit, the partner will usually say so.  Often, however, it is too soon to reach that conclusion.  The partner's aim is to reduce the field to a "short list."  At that point, if not sooner, the partner will meet you personally.  There is an emerging practice of doing the "meeting" by video conference, but the point here is that your candidacy is viable and requires this extra level of communication.  On occasion, the partner will be able to leave that meeting with your knowing where you stand.  A short list may range from five to eight candidates.  From it there will be a "slate" of three to five candidates who are presented to the client.  You absolutely should know from the interview or video conference where you stand in the process.  Those updates will be provided to you by the research associate or the partner--more often the partner will be the one updating you.

If you have progressed to the slate presentation, the next thing you can expect to hear from the partner is how the client has reacted to the candidates presented and how they wish to proceed.  Regardless of whether you will move to the next stage, you can expect to be notified one way or the other.  Calling or emailing the partner is perfectly acceptable if you have not heard something in a week or so.  The same situation applies if you have actually been interviewed by the client.  Once that has occurred, the partner will know in a few days how the client wishes to proceed and you will be contacted immediately following that feedback from the client.  If you are passed over, in most cases the partner will be able to give you some feedback as to why.  But this is not always the case as clients sometimes are vague about this point.  If you are a finalist or a back-up candidate you can expect to be in regular communication with the partner, but if that communication is not speedy enough for you, make a call (or send a short email).  It should go without saying (but I will do so nonetheless) that you should never call the client directly for any reason.  They are paying the recruiter to do all of the communicating.

The bottom line is this:  If you have been contacted by a recruiter (regardless of the title) you have every right to want to know what is happening next, if anything.  This right carries through to the end of the search.  If you have not heard anything within a respectable time frame, call or email the individual(s) who called you.  The farther along you are in the process the more communication you can expect.  

The Candidate Questionnaire

If you are reading this and you are in the business of retaining search firms on occasion to recruit high-impact individuals, I have a suggestion for you that will pay big dividends during your next search, in ways you least expect.  The suggestion involves the preparation of a job-specific electronic narrative questionnaire.  I have been using this valuable tool for many years.  If you want to verify its value, when you are finished reading this posting, link to my website, http://www.ESIassoc.com , and open the page called, "Client Testimonials."  I'll let my clients speak for me as to its value.

The number of questions typically ranges from 10 to 12.  Several of them are experiential in nature and designed to surface past actions and outcomes.  For example:  "Tell us about a time when you were required to do X,  What was the situation leading up to it?  What did you personally do?  How did it turn out?  What did you learn from the experience?"  This line of questioning is nothing new, but for search firms to have their candidates document the answers to these questions, and provide their clients with completed questionnaires for every candidate submitted, it is not a common practice.

Here are the advantages to using such a tool:  Everyone gets asked the same questions. Nothing is edited in their responses  The recruiter and staff are able to use them to better qualify their candidates. The candidates take the opportunity much more seriously when they know that all of their competitors are doing this. The clients have a tool that helps very busy people better sort through a slate of candidates and prepare for their interviews.  Recruiters and clients alike can see how effectively  the candidates write and how they focus on what is really important in various scenarios.

It is my practice never to alter a word of this document.  In the past that has provided my clients with some very unexpected and telling information about a candidate.  It is not uncommon for a client to steer away from an otherwise sterling candidate on the basis of a less than adequate questionnaire.

The questionnaire demonstrates one's writing ability. Senior executives have to communicate in writing a great deal.  If they are poor writers they must rely on help from their staffs. I often see in a position specification that one of the essential qualifications is, "Excellent writing and speaking skills."  Yet few employers verify this skill.  The use of an on-line candidate questionnaire will demonstrate the writing component of this skill or lack thereof.  This is why it is essential in our firm that we do not edit the document. Clients need to see what they are getting.  I have seen them wince at poor writing skills and hire the person anyway for his/her otherwise sterling capabilities.  But at least they get to see the problem in advance of the hire rather than find out after the fact that their otherwise excellent candidate is a poor writer.

If the recruiters you retain do not use such a tool (few if any do) then insist that they do so.  Develop a dozen good questions that you know your decision makers would like to see answered in advance of an interview and provide them to the recruiter with instructions that every candidate will need to have completed one or they will not be considered.  Insist that the questionnaires remain unaltered. To the recruiter this new questionnaire requirement is extra work.  So be it.  I venture that many of them will see the value of this tool after you insist they use it and will make it an everyday practice thereafter.

If you would like a sample of a candidate questionnaire, email me at mburroughs@esiassoc.com and I will send you one.

I would never do a search without it.  If you use this tool as part of your next executive search you will be glad you did.    http://www.ESIassoc.com    mburroughs@ESIassoc.com

After The Interview With An Executive Recruiter

There are likely several opinions on this subject, but here are my own.  The subject is how to thank a recruiter who just interviewed you. When I have met with prospective candidates for either a job-related or a courtesy interview, it surprises me when I do not hear from them afterward either through an email or a hand-written note.  Either is appropriate, and the practice itself is just common courtesy and common sense.  That said, it makes more of an impact on me when I receive a note card with brief comments thanking me for the meeting and reinforcing whatever point is important to them.   I chuckle at myself when opening and reading them that in this fast-paced information age, a handwritten note still grabs my attention--more than the same note sent via email instead.

 If, however, the candidate needed to send me some additional supporting documentation, such as a reworked resume,  then the email is most appropriate and I don't give it a second thought.  I knew in advance, in most cases, that it would be forthcoming.

My point in this brief posting is simply this:  If you are sending any communication as a way of thanking your interviewer, opt for a handwritten note.  A personal touch such as this is better than an impersonal email. You have a chance of better connecting with the recruiter in a way that is different (really) from your competition.  Most people send an email. While emails are fast and efficient, they lack a personal touch and are less professional in my view than a note with the same message.  If you are interviewing a lot, lately, buy some nice "Thank You" cards and use them. Write and mail the note the same day as your interview. It will get to the recipient in a timely manner and the vast majority of the time the note will be opened by that person and read.

The same advice holds true following an interview with anyone--including a potential employer and all members of that interviewing team.   Yes, it will take more time to do this.  But it's worth the effort.
http://www.esiassoc.com 
http://www.michaelkburroughs.com

Unsolicited Resumes: Should You Invest the Time to Send Them to Executive Recruiters?

When I began my career in retained executive recruiting we had not yet entered the Information Age. The firm I worked for was a regional boutique with a solid reputation in its market. There were 12 people on staff. About a fourth of the office space was set aside for files, primarily files for resumes, and most of those were unsolicited. They had arrived over the transom and were not aimed at any particular search we were conducting. We had an administrative staff who would quickly review each resume long enough to determine if we had a search that might be a match. If so, the resume was given to an appropriate research associate who would make the final judgment. If there was a potential match he would initiate contact. If not, the resume was returned to our administrative staff to be filed under an appropriate heading. I don't recall a time when the files were purged. They were, however, reviewed each time a search was initiated for which their job category might possibly be a match. The majority of the time the resumes were never seen again.

Move forward 14 years to another time when I was with a different search firm. This time it was a large multi-national outfit. We were well-entrenched in the Information Age. Not only did the national headquarters receive unsolicited resumes, but so, too, did each of the firm's 40+ regional offices. Sometimes, the resume was sent to all of the offices. If received at a regional office it was usually addressed to a search consultant known to be in that office. We each received several hard copy resumes per day. My personal practice was to look them over, briefly, on occasion. I would usually spend a half hour and open them all. We did not file them, but I must admit that I kept a few in a personal file. More often than not, I was interested in seeing how people were representing themselves. If they had a cover letter, I looked it over. I was especially interested in resume formatting--what worked and what did not work. I have seen more styles of resumes than I could possible remember. Some stood out; most were indistinguishable. Of particular note were the resumes that came from outplacement firms. They looked basically the same and were always two pages.

Many job seekers began to send their resumes to our firm (and individuals) via email. This is now the standard practice. At the firm's national headquarters they were filed in a large database for possible later retrieval. They were rarely reviewed by anyone. If they were sent to my email address I would look them over for a minute or so and read the ones that grabbed my attention. On a very rare occasion one would be an oblique fit to a search I was doing. On occasion, I would file a resume in a personal file on my computer--the ones I particularly liked.

I recall one occasion when I was having a tough time on a search for a senior operations leader for a large company. One of my colleagues had a habit of printing electronic resumes and filing them. I looked at a stack of about 250 resumes he had not yet filed and took the entire stack home one evening to sift through. To my pleasant surprise, I found five or six resumes of people I needed to contact. Two of those ultimately ended up on my short list "slate" of five candidates submitted to my client. I also had received some good referrals from them. Neither got the job, but they were excellent candidates. I never needed to take that approach again.

There are still some books on the market that tell individuals in the job hunt to mass mail (or email) resumes to retained executive recruiters. This is extremely time-consuming and even expensive. From my point of view this is not the best use of your time. The best executive recruiters stay in business because they treat each search as a fresh project. They identify target companies and, with the aid, these days, of social networking, and good old fashion phone calling these individuals, build a growing list of potential candidates, many who refer other candidates. It is not unusual to have well over a hundred that must be reduced to three to five. From my experience the odds of an unsolicited resume making it to the short list are extremely rare.

Look for future blog postings from me in which I will suggest somee strategies for working with executive recruiters.

What Would You Like to Know?

In the past weeks I've published several articles on the Internet.  They're available at
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_K_Burroughs .   The topics cover executive recruiting, coaching and career transitioning.  More are currently in the queue.  Given the increasing responses to these articles, and the diversity of reader interest, if you have a topic you would like for me to address, contact me via a blog comment below and let me know what you would like to have me discuss and I'll do this as soon as possible.  Look for a new blog posting on your topic, or a new article or both.  I will alert you either way. I can also be accessed through my website at http://www.esiassoc.com/ .

Disclosing Compensation Information to an Executive Recruiter

If ever there has been a topic of debate in the management of one's career, it has been in the area of disclosing compensation information.  The thinking is that such disclosure can cost you a job opportunity or result in a pay cut in an offer that you would not otherwise have experienced.  I'm writing this from the standpoint of an executive recruiter.  I will leave to you how you deal with this when interviewing directly with an organization.  Of course, eventually (and generally sooner rather than later) the organization will require you to complete an application.  Leaving the compensation space blank is up to you, and how it will be received is up to them.

But know this if you are dealing with an executive recruiter:  Keeping compensation history close to the vest is usually a show stopper.  We are being paid well to narrow a large field of potential candidates into those few who best fit the position specification, and that includes a compensation range. 

All executive recruiters identify the compensation target range early in the process.  In most cases, their fees are built on the compensation target--total annual cash compensation, usually.  The client fully expects the recruiter to sift through candidates until an excellent slate of those who fit within the range can be assembled.  There are situations where the entire slate of candidates will exceed the desired range.  This is the point at which recruiters put on their consulting hats.  In these situations what has usually happened is that the organization has lost touch with what people are making who hold a given position in comparable organizations.  It is incumbent on the recruiter at that point to be able to back up their findings rather than simply submit a slate of candidates who make more money.

You will quickly be asked by a recruiter a question such as, "How are you currently compensated?" or "How were you compensated in your previous position?"   If you are coy about this, it is questionable whether you will be moved forward in the process.  The search firm generally has a lot of potential candidates they are working through and a client who expects quick results.  If you take a stand on this you will usually be passed over.  If there is a story around your compensation, e.g., everybody at your company had to take a 20% pay cut over the past two years, or, there were no bonuses paid ever since I arrived and 30% of my compensation was tied to bonuses, then just say so.  Recruiters understand this, especially in the current economic conditions.   Every potential candidate is striving to do generally one of two things:  1) move up in responsibilty and compensation, or 2) get out of a bad situation (for any number of reasons).  Experienced recruiters have heard just about everything, and if your background suits the position well, they will represent the truth for you with their client.  Their job is not to low ball you.  It is to find the best candidate--a candidate that will succeed and stay as long as possible with the organization.  It has been my experience that for the right candidate, hiring organizations compensate them fairly, whatever their history.

So when asked by an executive recruiter to disclose your compensation history, do so if you want to continue in the process.  Be candid and open with the recruiter.  In most cases you will be able to work through any perceived compensation difficulties.  http://www.esiassoc.com/  http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/

Military Resume Writing

If you are a military officer who is transitioning from active duty to the private sector, know before you read this that I was once in your shoes.   The advice in this posting may go counter to that which you have received from others or from some books on the market.  It comes from over a decade of experience as an executive recruiter and two decades of experience in the corporate world in the field of corporate staffing, organization development and HR.

One of the most common things I see in military resumes is an attempt to transform military titles into civilian terms.  For example, company or battalion commander becomes something like "general manager" or "director of operations."   "comptrollers" become "chief financial officers."  Another common observance is the absence of accomplishments.  Instead, what is often written are job descriptions that simply state what you were responsible for.  If you have not started doing so already, and you still have a few years to go in your military career, take note of your accomplishments and keep a record of them.  You will need to do this from now own, whether a military professional or a civilian.

So my advice here is short and sweet.  If you were a company, battalion, ship or wing commander, say so.  Tell a little bit about the scope of responsibility and then isolate some key accomplishments.   Go back through your career and think hard about what you accomplished in each of your past positions.  Two or three cited accomplishments per job is a sufficient number.  State them clearly and succinctly.  In the case of staff roles, use terms that do relate to the private sector.  For example, if you were a battalion S-3, state that you were the chief of plans, operations and training.  If you were a battalion S-4, say you were the chief of logistics.  If an S-1, you were the chief of personnel and administration.  You get the idea.  While many civilians can relate to what a company commander might do, they would hardly ever relate to what an S-3 or G-3 would do, so you will have to spell that out a bit.  Instructor positions speak for themselves.  You could say you were a faculty member or department chief at XYZ school or service academy, and briefly state the subject matter for which you were responsible.  

In summary, resist the temptation to try and make your resume look like a civilian manager's of comparable level.  It's not.  Stress leadership wherever appropriate. The experience you have gained in the military has a unique value, and it is more and more appreciated and understood in the past decade than it was previously. Once you make the transition to the private sector you will be able to use civilian terms, but when you do, resist the urge to go back in time and do the same for your military experience on your resume.  Stick with the military titles.  http://www.esiassoc.com/     http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/

Junior Officer Recruiting

With repeat deployments and extreme hardship on their families, there is an exodus if junior officers leaving all branches of the service that is unusually high.  A junior officer falls into the ranks of second lieutenant to captain in the Army, Marines and Air Force, and ensign to lieutenant in the Navy and Coast Guard. They generally have less than eight years of service, sometimes a bit more.  Most, though, are leaving at the five-year point.  In many cases these young leaders are leaving with very mixed emotions.  When you have private conversations with them and ask, "Do you miss the service?" you often get both a yes and a no.  What they DO miss are their comrades.  There is a level of intensity in their relationships with other officers--and their NCO's and enlisted members--that is almost impossible to replicate in the private sector. What they DON'T miss are...well, the obvious things.

Many organizations have long valued the inherent talent in junior military officers and recruit them with enthusiasm.  Others do not have a clue what they are missing.  The ones that don't, either don't realize what junior officers can bring to their organizations, or have little or no understanding of what it takes to develop a junior officer and the types of responsibilities they have held.  Others simply do not put a premium on young leaders who can think on their feet and operate effectively with a minimum of oversight.  Still others think that there is no relevance what-so-ever between a military officer and a civilian manager.  And there are those who have political leanings that are such that the military in general is viewed as an undesirable institution and that carries over to their hiring decisions.

What makes a junior officer attractive to a potential employer in the private sector?  There are many examples.  At the top of the list is that the majority of departing junior officers are very effective leaders as well as managers.   They put a high premium on the welfare and effectiveness of those they lead, and take personal responsibility for what they do and fail to do.  In the course of being effective leaders they are also ethical decision makers.  They fully understand that in reality, there are few, if any, grey areas.  There is right and wrong and they can be counted on not only to do things right, but to do the right things, which is (to paraphrase Warren Bennis) the difference between management and leadership.  Both are, of course, essential.  But there is little in the way of comparable leadership formation in the ranks of young business managers.  From the outset in the military, leadership is driven home, and one's peers will insist that another officer conforms to the highest standards, even if the system fails to see it for some reason.  

From an officer's earliest days as a cadet or midshipman, the point is drilled home that they are not special people, they just have a high obligation to serve responsibly, and they have many for whom they are responsible...totally responsible.  The maxim in the military is that an officer's first obligation is to the mission, followed very closely by being totally responsible for the health and welfare of those who work under his or her supervision.  Those two values are complimentary not contradictory. There is a level of "selflessness" that is expected of a junior officer that is not the norm in the private sector.  Let me illustrate with just a couple of examples.  As a young cadet, I was acting as a platoon leader on a forced road march training exercise.  It was cold and raining.  We had about 20 miles to cover that day, with pack and weapon.  We would stop every hour for five or ten minutes.  It is natural for people in such a situation to simply flop down and rest as much as possible.  But there was a mission to perform.  Every member of that march had to face and point their weapons outwardly from the edge of the road, in effect building a defensive perimeter.  It was my job to see that they did that affectively while also getting a breather. Furthermore, it was also my responsibility to check on the welfare of my men, and in this case, welfare had a lot to do with the condition of their feet.  I asked every man to tell me how his feet were holding out.  I expected and got truthful answers.  I had a lot of cold, bare, blistering, smelly, wet feet to look at that day. At least once or twice along the march people would put on dry socks.  While that may seem trivial, the point was this:  I looked after the mission and the welfare of my men BEFORE I looked after my own welfare.  In essence, my feet stayed wet most of that day.  Yes, it is important for the leader to remain healthy, but it was more important for me to push on and check on my soldiers before looking after myself.  It was a lesson that stuck.

Another example occured when I entered the private sector in the early 80's.  I had the privilege of using the company's executive dining room for lunch.  I did not do so.  It was anethma to me to see the men and women in my department going the main cafeteria while I would have ducked into the executive dining room.   You see, as a junior officer, it was fully expected that I did not eat a bite until all of my soldiers had been fed.  It was my responsibility to not only see that they were fed first, but that the quality of the food was good (field rations aside).   It was very difficult for me to fathom eating in better conditions, and eating better food, than the people for whom I was responsible.  It still is.

So how does this relate to the private sector, to actively recruiting junior officers who are leaving the service of their country?  Well, extrapolate those simple values to the complexities of accomplishing the mission in your organization.  Would it not make sense to hire young leaders for whom it is ingrained that the right things get done?  That the employees are well looked after along the way?  Would it not be desirable to have your young managers leading from the front and subordinating their own needs until those they lead are well taken care of? (There is a statue of an infantry officer at Fort Benning, Georgia, leading the charge, looking back and motioning with his arm and hand for his soldiers to follow.  Incribed below are the words, "Follow me!")   

Yes, there are many fine young leaders out there.  Leaders who did not come from the junior officer ranks of the military.  But with few exceptions, and irrespective of the branch of service, junior officers are groomed from the start to do the right things while doing things right.  If you have not incorporated junior officer recruiting into your hiring practices I would urge you to do so.  There are several recruiting firms who specialize in placing junior officers.  Talk to them and see for yourself the talent that is increasingly becoming available to you.   http://www.esiassoc.com/    http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/

Good Candidates Don't Get Better With Age

This blog posting is not about age discrimination in the executive recruiting process. Instead, it focuses on the risks organizations take in not moving swiftly on hiring candidates they want.

This scenario has happened to me often.  In the course of presenting a quality slate of executive candidates, everyone participating in the candidate review meeting is happy with the slate and ready to move into the interviewing process.  Smart organizations move quickly and systematically through the process, identify a primary and back-up candidate, extend an offer, and more often than not, hire the candidate they want. Other clients, unfortunately, have allowed the slate to sit idle for any number of reasons (few of them valid).  The thinking in those organizations is that the slate of candidates is conveniently parked and ready to be processed at the organization's convenience.  They assume that every candidate is fortunate to be in the slate and will hold their breath until the organization is ready to take the next steps.  This is a problem looking for a place to happen.

From the recruiter's vantage point the slate is primed and ready to be interviewed.  A key role of the recruiter is to keep all candidates interested and informed as the process moves toward a conclusion.  To arrive at 3 to 5 top notch candidates, the search firm will have sourced and worked through a pool of a hundred or more potential candidates, interviewing at least twice as many as they ultimately submit for interviews.  Each candidate has been sold on the attractiveness of the opportunity and the organization.  By then they will have done their homework about the organization.  They tend to be decisive individuals and expect the organizations they would join to be the same, especially considering that a search firm has been retained to find them. They assume there is a sense of urgency about filling the position.

There are several manifestations of organizational delays:  One is that the organization stalls for weeks before scheduling interviews.  Another is that the organization conducts interviews, but they are weeks apart.  Yet another is that the organization has completed interviews but has not provided any meaningful feedback to the recruiter (or the candidates) and everything has stalled.  In almost every case communication with the recruiter has dropped to a trickle.  It becomes very difficult in these situations for the recruiter to continue to positively represent the client.  Instead, communciation with candidates becomes a series of excuses.  The initial enthusiasm expressed by the candidates rapidly begins to fade.

In the search process, passive candidates are targeted and the recruiter has convinced them to consider their client's opportunity. More often than not the candidate is happy in place and not looking for a new job when contacted by the recruiter.  Few organizations realize that executive recruiters have two significant roles, not one.  Organizations think of recruiters as primarily candidate sourcers and qualifiers.  They often miss the point that the other half of the recruiter equation is selling the candidate on the opportunity, and once sold, they expect to have the hiring process move to a conclusion in a timely manner.

The biggest risk in delays--for any reason--is this:  Often, the passive candidate will have kept recruiters at bay prior to having their interest piqued with a particular opportunity.  They then draw this conclusion:  "As long as I'm considering XYZ's opportunity I might as well keep an open mind about other opportunities as well."  They begin to take every recruiter's call and start to consider other options.  This portends disaster for the hiring organization.  Good candidates don't get better with age.  It has to be assumed that if a good candidate is considering your opportunity, other opportunities are being considered as well.  It is a sad day when the hiring organization reenergizes their process only to hear from the recruiter that the candidate they were most interested in has taken another opportunity (or worse, has withdrawn from the process due to frustration with the hiring organization).  When either of these situations occurs, it is hard for the recruiter to continue to source, qualify and sell candidates on a career opportunity when the hiring organization is lackadaisical about moving the process along in a timely manner.

Solutions to this problem are obvious, but one of the best that applies is to practice the Golden Rule:  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  If an organization does that, then everything should work out fine for everybody. http://www.esiassoc.com/     http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/

A Process for Rapidly Integrating Newly Hired Executives

If you've worked with executive search firms you know the drill on placement guarantees.  They range from one to two years, depending on the firm.  This guarantee is more of a marketing device than an insurance policy.  The facts are that the search firm can do everything imaginable to find and recruit the best person, but once that individual accepts a job and starts to work, the search part of the business is over.  At that point most recruiters move on the the next project (they usually have several going at once) and hope that the new executive works out.   Many executive recruiters, myself included, have had the misfortune of needing to honor a guarantee because the new hire either left the organization or the organization left the new hire prior to the end of the guarantee period.  When that happens, the recruiter's guarantee requries that they replace that new hiree for no additional retainer fee--just expenses.  Nobody wins: the new hire, the organization or the recruiter (who has to work for free to replace the individual).

The reasons executive hires don't work out are many.  Often the candidate feels misled by the organization and promises are not kept, or there is an unanticipated missmatch with the boss.   At other times, the new hire may have made a series of mistakes during the initial 90 or so days that are irreparable.  Smart organizations don't let poor hiring decisions go on for long.  The adage, "Better an end with terror than a terror without end" applies here.  Unhappy executives will either cut their losses and run (in good economic times) or hang in there, miserably, for at least a year, sometimes longer. It can be like a bad marriage with no honeymoon.

From my vantage point, there is a way to improve the successful outcome of an outside executive hire. The research shows that the first 90 days often determine the ultimate success or failure of a new executive.  Assimilation is expensive in many ways.  Michael Watkins at the Harvard Business School, in his groundbreaking book, The First 90 Days, shows that it takes 6.2 months for an outside executive hire to reach the "breakeven point."  Up to that time, the executive has for the first three months been consuming value, and later, over the next three months, starts adding value.  After 6.2 months the new leader has broken even and is now adding more value than consumed.   Watkins' book is designed to help newly hired managers at any level to navigate those critical 90 days through a checklist of things they can do to help themselves.  The premise of the book is that most organizations have no means to do that for you.  On-boarding programs generally are not intended to this level of integration.  They have a different purpose altogether.   Without an effective method to for a new leader to assimilate quickly, Watkins says that "...40 to 50% of senior outside hires fail to acheive desired results." That's a huge number!  He reminds us that each year over a half million managers enter a new position in the Fortune 500 alone!  That discounts healthcare organizations, universities, nonprofits, government, et.al.

Aside from the useful self-directed roadmap that Michael Watkins provides, what else can be done to improve the odds of success?  Moreover, what can be done to ensure that the breakeven point is considerably compressed? (Who has time to wait 6.2 months when almost half the time the new leader fails anyway?)  In my firm we have developed a process that has been proved valuable within corporations and in executive recruiting situations. The process significantly shortens the time it takes for a new leader to be successfully up and running. We call it New Leader Integration, "pre-boarding" for short.  Here's how it works.

The process is three dimensional.  It involves the boss, peers and direct reports.  It begins at the end of an executive search engagement. We begin the day an offer is accepted and the process concludes on the morning of the start date.  Our executive change agent (who is also the recruiter) conducts lengthy interviews with a wide swath of people who will both impact the new leader's success and be impacted by that person's success.  These interviews begin immediately upon offer acceptance.  The process is fast, focused, intense, thorough--and it works.   The result of these interviews is a confidential report that is compiled and presented to the new leader for review.  This usually occurs a week before the start date.  The change agent and the new leader then spend the better part of a day reviewing everything in that document.  The change agent becomes the transition coach at that point.  By then every key player in the new leader's sphere of influence has been interviewed.  The change agent has a solid understanding of what the new leader needs to do (and avoid doing), in what order, and under what timeline.  The change agent also knows what the concerns are on the part of the new leader's team of direct reports.  Another outcome of the process is a minimization of team downtime.

The morning of the start date the change agent facilitates a meeting with the new leader and the direct reports.  There are several components of that meeting that are all designed to 1) build trust quickly, 2) eliminate communication barriers and 3) begin addressing the more pressing "must happens" that the new leader is facing...all during that meeting!  By noon of the first day the meeting and the process ends.  By the end of that first week the new leader has met one-on-one with all participants in the process, top to bottom, and has a blueprint of what to talk about during each of those individual meetings.  If all goes well, the new leader is producing the right results quickly and the prospect of a successful hire is considerably improved.

If you would like to know more about this process you can email me at mburroughs@esiassoc.com and I will reach out to you for that discussion.  http://www.esiassoc.com/   http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/

What if You are Not the One Hired?

It can be very frustrating and disheartening to be one of the finalists in an executive search only to lose out to another candidate.  Here is what you should keep in mind:  Most executive searches start with a research process that can involve over 100 potential candidates, most of whom have at least one conversation with a research associate or principle.  That large number is narrowed to ten or so whom the partner will interview and evaluate thoroughly against the position description.  From that "long list" comes a "short list" of five to six candidates who are then presented to the client, any one of whom can ostensibly do the job well.  Occasionally one or two will be dropped and a couple of more added.  Client interviews then occur, usually with at least three candidates initially.  More often than not, the client settles on one of those three and an offer is extended.  As stated in my previous blog post, smart clients and recruiters do everything possible to ensure that all three candidates are kept informed and interested.   The client extends an offer to one, and generally speaking, that individual accepts after a round of negotiations that usually also involve the recruiter who serves as a "go between."  The other two...the back-up candidates...are left with nothing...or so it seems.

In these difficult economic times you may be out of work and this job is critical.  If you get the job, be glad.  If you did not get the job, keep in mind that almost all recruiters never forget who their finalists were.  In essence, the client picked the "first among equals."   It just was not your day.  When the recruiter does a similar search, more often than not, you are the first to be called.  It is human nature to remember the best of the best and go back to them.

If you have been the runner up on several occasions, this can be especially disheartening, I know.  Keep the faith.  Be sure to level with the recruiter and ask for some detailed feedback to ensure that it is not a repeatable issue that is costing you the front runner position.  If you can improve some way, do so. 

Just remember that you started in a huge group and got down to the very, very few.  That should build your confidence rather than erode it.  Stay in touch with the recruiter and let him or her know what you are up to.  If you are open to another opportunity be sure they know this.  If you are out of the search mode, tell them that as well, but encourage them to always keep you in mind if another viable opportunity presents itself.  And always be willing to serve as a referral for other potential candidates.  Recruiters really appreciate this and will not forget that you did so.  Neither will your friends.   http://www.esiassoc.com/   http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/

"Candidate-itis"

"Candidate-itis."   It's a term that applies to organizations that engage a search firm (or attempt themselves) to build a slate of candidates for a given position and then focus on just one candidate. 

Through my years as an executive recruiter I've occasionally encountered clients who initially are very pleased with several of the candidates on the slate and later settle on ONE to the exclusion of everyone else.  For any number of reasons (often the Halo Effect) one candidate pulls way ahead of the others who were originally considered to be just fine.  The others are forgotten.  While it is human nature to do this, it is unwise.

So why is this a problem?   Frankly, sometimes its not a problem; the ONE candidate gets an offer and accepts. Everybody is happy.  It becomes a problem, however, when the client tells the recruiter to release the other candidates (and even stop searching) while the offer is negotiated.   What I've seen happen is, for any number of predictable reasons,  the "one" candidate and the client cannot reach agreement on the offer, or the candidate's mind changes, and the deal falls through.  Other potential problems occur when during this dance the candidate receives another offer that is better and withdraws from the process.  When this happens and there is no superlative back-up candidate(s) the project gets stalled and the search has to begin anew.  Much time is lost, frustration is rampant, and most likely, it is an expensive mistake.

While it's the recruiter's job to continue to search while candidates are being evaluated and an offer is being extended, occasionally the client will lose interest in the process while they pursue their candidate.  They don't want to see or hear about other candidates. This is the malady I call, candidate-itis.  

Here is how clients can avoid candidate-itis.   Ensure that throughout the search process there are at least two (and preferably three) very viable candidates.  By viable, I mean that any one of them could do the job well and be a fine hire.  Make certain that the recruiter keeps these viable candidates interested in the opportunity and ensures that they remain aware of everything that is going on with the search.  There is no substitute for honesty and keeping an open line of communcation with all candidates, even at the risk of losing one or all of them.  It is more likely, however, that if the candidates are well informed they will remain interested.  This is much easier to do if the client does not become overly enamored with one candidate.

If you are a candidate, insist that the recruiter (internal or external) be forthcoming with you about the status of the search.  If you are not the front runner, show continued interest and keep the line of communication open with the recruiter.  Don't go around the recruiter to the hiring manager, regardless of the temptation to do so.  While the front runner more often than not gets the job, I can say from experience that occasionally the back-up candidate gets a shot...and the job. 

For the recruiter and the client, practice the Golden Rule and take action accordingly.  If you are a candidate, do likewise.  Keep the recruiter aware of your situation, especially if you are considering another offer. Regardless of the outcome, you'll be glad you did.   http://www.esiassoc.com/    http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/

Never Underestimate the Halo Effect

Many years ago I was in the business of recruiting physicians.  One candidate with whom I was working wanted to relocate from the one coast to the other in order to be near family.  His experience and credentials made him a very attractive candidate for just about any healthcare organization.  As this search firm was of the Contingency model, I had not met face-to-face with either my clients or my candidates.  This was a business done entirely by phone.

I presented my candidate to a potential employer (a hospital) and worked with their internal recruiter to arrange a weekend interview.  I was confident that if the candidate liked the location and hospital, he would accept an offer that he would likely receive.  This hiring process usually took about two weeks.

He flew out to this hospital on Friday and interviewed on Saturday.  Monday morning I called my client (the internal recruiter) to follow up on the interview.  His opening remark was, "Have you met this guy?"  I reminded him that I had not.  He then went on to describe him to me and focused on what he wore to the interview with the hospital CEO.   He had worn a blazer with a Mickey Mouse tie and watch.  I groaned and then said, "Well, I guess I need to send you another candidate."  He said,  "Oh, no!  Not at all!  The CEO loved him and gave him an offer on Sunday morning.  He accepted on the spot and will be joining us, soon."   I was confused.  He went on to say that their CEO's hobby was animation and he, too, wore a Mickey Mouse watch.  They spent much of their visit comparing notes about their mutual hobby and became fast friends.

I had made the mistake of jumping to conclusions based on my own view of the world.  I learned from that episode that people make hiring decisions for a wide variety of reasons.  I should have known.  It had happened to me, once.

When I was interviewing for a job after deciding to leave the Army after 12 years, I was in the best shape of my life.  I had by then run three marathons.  The first executive I interviewed, who was key to the decision, had a chronic weight problem that he was perpetually addressing.  A tactic of his was the treadmill.  Physical fitness was for him an unattainable goal and he put a high value on those who were fit.  He spent the entire hour of our interview asking me about running marathons.  His executive assistant had to interrupt our meeting to get me to my next interview.  The remainder of my interviews were more predictable.  I got an offer soon thereafter.  One reason, though, was that the president was a WW II army veteran and put a high value on army officers. They were few and far between in this company.  In my defense, I should say that I was, indeed, well qualified for the job. 

I have gone on to other roles, and have spent the past decade as an executive recruiter and coach.  On numerous occasions I have seen my clients zero in on a candidate for one particular attrribute that they happen to admire (i.e., the "halo effect") and make a hiring decision accordingly. 

The trend in recent years to have finalist candidates go through a management assessment process is a good one in my opinion (though most recruiters do not like to see this done as it can torpedo what otherwise seems to be a quality candidate).  It has been my experience that such assessments truly help organizations make better hiring decisions, and I encourage the practice.  http://www.esiassoc.com/     http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/

Leadership Observations from an Unlikely Source

If you have read my previous posting you will note that two of the Four Pillars of Leadership are Courage and Candor.   One of the individuals in history who has influenced me for decades is Generaloberst Freiherr Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord.  Whew!  That's a mouthful!  Let me tell you a little about him.  I assure you it is worth the time to read on.

Von Hammerstein-Equord was a career German Army general of no real historical distinction.   He was, however, a brilliant officer.  Early in his career he was identified as such and sent to the Imperial War College to become a General Staff officer.  The German General Staff were the cream of the crop.  The school lasted for three years and each year many washed out.  The General Staff basically ran the German Army for over 100 years.  Regardless of a General Staff officer's rank, he was well respected for his accomplishments and competence.  It should be noted that a condition imposed on the West Germans when they asked to be able to form a new army (The Bundeswehr) in the mid 1950's, was that there would be NO German General Staff corps.  They were that good.

Von Hammerstein-Equord served with minor distinction in the First World War in a General Staff officer role and remained in the army thereafter..

The Treaty of Versailles mandated that the defeated Germans could have an army, but it could not number more than 100,000 men.  Keep in mind that at the end of the war, millions of German soldiers were still fighting.   With a severe economic depression and political chaos awaiting all demobilized soldiers, remaining in the army was not an unattractive option for many.  There were lots of experienced officers and non-commissioned officers wanting in.  The Reichswehr (as it was called) was broken down into two groups:  5,000 officers and 95,000 enlisted men and NCOs.   Many former officers from the war were reduced to sergeant rank in order to stay in the Army.  As many Germans felt they had been sold out by their leaders when Germany surrendered, one of the purposes of the 100,000 man army was to have this group serve as a cadre for rapidly mobilizing should the need arise in the future (even then they expected another war might happen).  So with that breakdown, one would assume that the 5,000 officers in the Reichswehr were top notch.

The 1920's were tumultuous years in Germany.  There was runaway inflation and several political parties violently vying for power.  Von Hammerstein-Equord was promoted to Chief of the German High Command in 1930.  He held that position until 1934 and retired.  If you know your history, he was leaving the army at about the time Hitler was rising to power (Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany in 1933).  He was very outspoken regarding Hitler's rise and even told Hitler in 1932 that if he instigated a coup-de-tats that he would order his troops to shoot Hitler's men.  Von Hammerstein regarded himself as a servant of the German state, not of its political parties.  I tell you this to let you know that von Hammerstein-Equord had nerves of steel and was committed to his country...his competence was a given.

So, how did he describe his elite officer corps (the cream...the 5,000)?

As Chief of the Army High Command, von Hammerstein-Equord oversaw the composition of the German manual on military unit command (Truppenfuehrung) dated 17 October, 1933.  He originated a special classification scheme for his officers.  He wrote:

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious and the stupid.  Most often two of these qualities come together.  The officers who, are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments.  Those who are stupid and lazy...can be used for routine work.  The man who is clever and lazy, however, is for the very highest command (positions); he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But the officer who is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately."

The interesting thing about this story to me is that he was describing a corps of 5,000 officers who had been subjected to a vigorous selection process before being appointed as officers in the new army.   I guess it also goes to show that there is somewhat of a Bell Curve in any grouping of individuals...even the best.   It also reemphasizes that we simply cannot afford in any organization to retain managers who are deemed "a menace" (for whatever reason).

Courage, Candor, Competence and Commitment; the Four Pillars of Leadership, are here demonstrated in a most unlikely source.  http://www.esiassoc.com/  http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/