In the space of 60 minutes (commercials included), Wendy Doulton dispenses such bits of advice to her six-figure job candidates as “You need to lose the cleavage,” and “You make me feel like taking a nap.”

Born in the U.S., educated in London, Doulton’s blunt, unvarnished advice is delivered, in a clipped British accent. “A résumé should be like a skirt,” she declares. “Long enough to cover the basics, short enough to keep them interested.”

Doulton’s delivery may be all Cowell, and her bedside manner runs more to Gregory House than Marcus Welby, but she gets results. She manages the boutique headhunting firm she founded in Hollywood Katalyst Career Group, after stints as head of talent acquisition at Yahoo Media Group, and at DreamWorksSKG.

Her client list includes all the big names; Fox, Google, Amazon, Discovery, VEOH Networks, and Grey Advertising, are just a sample.

The aptly named show, “The Headhuntress,” includes what amounts to a makeover of two job seekers. One prattles on about astrology. The other admits to having appeared in porn films. Doulton turns them into candidates you would be proud to present.

Whether the show will become a Bravo series isn’t clear. Maybe it depends on how well the “interview” goes, something we could find out by monitoring #headhuntress on Twitter. Doulton will be taking questions and feedback during the broadcast tonight at that hashtag. Follow the show at theheadhuntress.

She’ll also join Jessica Miller-Merrell of “Blogging4Jobs” at #JobHuntChat at 10 p.m. ET tonight to answer job-seeker questions.

But when it comes to working the other direction — that is, sourcing placements and req –, the choices are pretty limited.

Now along comes BrightMove with a tool that turns resume sourcing on its head. Instead of searching for candidates to match a req, BrightMatch goes out and looks for job postings to match candidates you have in house.

How an agency might use BrightMatch is as obvious as it seems.

Say you have a particularly great candidate with unique skills, but no current req in house. With BrightMatch you can search thousands of corporate websites — more than 20,000, says BrightMove COO Mike Brandt — to see if there’s a match.

Find one, pitch the candidate, close the deal.

BrightMatch does the heavy lifting. It will parse the resume, extracting the keywords, then search all the sites or only some — you can set the parameters as narrowly or broadly as necessary.

Staffing agencies can use BrightMatch for a little biz dev well before a contract ends. Take a group of programmers nearing the end of a project. Instead of parsing a single resume, enter the skills they have in common to quickly discover what possibilities are out there. With luck, you might just be able to keep the team intact. Or at least keep some of your programmers working.

The results BrightMatch brings back are ranked and can be filtered automatically or manually. Says Brandt: “We use the concept engine normally for finding resumes to reverse-engineer the skills and related terms in an applicant’s resume. We then use those skills to return a result set by relevance, including geography, automatically.”

It’s a cool tool, especially given this economy where hustling is the minimum necessary to stay in business and the more efficiently you use staff … well, to finish the sentence would be to state the obvious.

BrightMatch is part of the company’s core products, and not available as a stand alone. But, Brandt says he’s thinking about making it available to corporate HR so they could offer it as a consolation prize to their unsuccessful applicants.

Job seekers can do something similar by searching Indeed or SimplyHired or even Google, though without a good Boolean string, Google results could be overwhelming. Which is why I asked Brandt if BrightMove might turn this into an app and sell it to job seekers.

“I don’t see us selling it to seekers. We might give it to them but I/we wouldn’t feel right charging a candidate,” he says.

BrightMove has a more ambitious goal than a single app or tool.

“Our goal long term,” says Brandt, “is to create a full lifecycle for agencies and firms that allows them to find potential jobs, get contacts, and then skill market to those contacts through one interface.”

It’s a worthy goal, particularly if that single search interface includes, as he says, internal databases and external sources, including social networks. Adds Brandt, “Our next versions will have integrations to over 30 social networks, email services, calendar services, and contact sites like Plaxo so that a recruiter can work from one place and still leverage it all.”

In my opinion, the likelihood this approach will work is problematic at best, idiotic at worst.

It’s like hiring accountants to do debits and credits any way they want, or letting engineers design products any way they want, or letting salespeople sell your products any way they want, or letting taco cooks make tacos anyway they want. I selected taco cooks only to mention that at Taco Bell they use an extremely detailed checklist on how to make tacos, so they taste exactly the same everywhere. However, most companies seem okay with letting recruiters make tacos any way they want. This, by the way, is my definition of idiotic.

The lack of standardized corporate recruiting processes and practices is why hiring good recruiters is not the first thing to do when building an internal executive search team. In fact, it’s the last thing one should do. The first thing is to recognize that the primary objective for this group to even exist is to fill critical staff, manager, and executive positions with A-level talent. The secondary goal is to reduce the amount of fees paid to external search firms for filling these same positions with equally qualified people. The quality of hire objective should be more important than the cost savings one, since the first is strategic, the second tactical. If you don’t get this order right first, what you do next really won’t matter.

With quality of hire as a primary goal, you next need to consider the A-level candidates you want to hire. Most likely they’re passive, or at least not actively looking. Since they’re looking for career moves rather than lateral transfers, traditional job descriptions shouldn’t be used for messaging or screening. These people might also be outside of the typical comp range, so this needs to be addressed, too. Then consider the fact that they rarely want to work for managers who aren’t leaders or for companies that lack vision, seem unprofessional, or have superficial recruiting and interviewing processes in place. And then to top it off, they won’t talk with recruiters they don’t trust. All of this should be resolved before you begin to hire recruiters.

Now let’s get into the weeds. Part of this is designing your recruiting and assessment processes based on how A-level people who aren’t looking, or are very selective, find and accept new opportunities, rather than how people you don’t want to hire do it. Most companies get this part backwards. They build their processes around a high-volume model designed by some ATS vendor on top of a bunch of legal and comp restraints. This is not how external executive search firms find A-level candidates, so companies shouldn’t either.

It also takes strong recruiters and researchers who are subject matter experts with respect to the job, the company, and the industry. Part of this is having the complete trust of the hiring manager. Most A-level people, who don’t have a short-term economic need to pursue another job, want to engage in a brief exploratory conversation with a hiring manager before getting too serious. Recruiters need to convince managers to agree to do this based just on their recommendation, often without a resume, and the manager must be open and eager to do this. Quite frankly, if the hiring manager isn’t 100% committed to hiring A-level talent, don’t even bother trying. Hiring A-level talent, especially without a well-known employer brand, requires fully committed managers who will put in a 110% effort.

Process consistency — doing the right stuff every time — is also an essential part of the puzzle. While there are many successful approaches, here are the common basic steps that must be followed on each search assignment if you want to hire an A-level person on each assignment:

1. First, turn the job into a career move, describing the short-term objectives and long-term opportunities, including the employee value proposition. This gets the recruiter and hiring manager aligned with the A-level person they want to hire.
2. Next, develop the candidate profile, describing demographics, supply/demand constraints, connections, intrinsic motivators, and likely sourcing opportunities. This way you can customize how, what, and where you describe the career move defined in Step 1.
3. Then create a compelling career-oriented message that can be “pushed” to likely prospects either directly or through referral networks and social media sites.
4. As part of Step 3, prepare a time-phased sourcing plan that tracks and optimizes quality of hire. This is the most detailed of the steps and needs to be customized to meet the specific needs of the job and the likely candidate demographics. This includes the selection of niche job boards, the development of proactive employee referral networks, using social media, name generation, email campaigns, cold calling, and networking.
5. As you begin implementing the sourcing program, make sure your recruiters can recruit. This means engaging candidates who might not want to be engaged. As part of this, track email and cold call success rates, candidate quality, and number of high quality referrals per call.
6. Don’t forget the hiring managers. They have to “own” Step 1 and be willing to talk with everyone the recruiter recommends, even those prospects who want to have a preliminary discussion before getting too interested.
7. Use an assessment process that works. For a variety of reasons I don’t like traditional behavioral interviewing (e.g., answers can be faked, A-level candidates find it superficial), but I do like an intense performance-based interview that lets candidates know you have high standards.
8. Use a solution-selling based closing process that creates an irresistible win-win. Recruiting is sales, and all salespeople go through extensive training. Solution or SPIN selling is a process used to craft a custom solution for a buyer with complex needs that needs to be part of a recruiter’s skill set. In the case of A-level talent, it needs to be a formal decision-tree like process that compares your opportunity against all others from a best-career-move perspective.

If you want to develop an effective internal executive search team that can compete with the best outside search firms, start by creating the right culture and redesigning the underlying process as the first step. Then hire the best recruiters you can who can implement this process. Otherwise, you might just wind up with a bunch of tacos not worth the three-for-a-dollar price you paid.

Let’s talk through this one. You just made a hire. For the sake of round numbers and because it is too early in my day for me to break out my Ti 89, let’s call this person a manager making $100,000 plus 15% target bonus.

Since this manager is a “specialist” and you are a busy HR leader who doesn’t have the time or resources to conduct this search internally, you called in a headhunter. And by the way, I love this term. It is so aggressive, and whenever someone asks me “oh, so you are a headhunter?” I beam with pride. I have the image of some primitive tribal warrior with shrunken heads strung around his neck. But I digress.

When you were choosing to use a third party for this search, how did you evaluate that talent?

I know: the whole reason that you decided to go outside for this one is because you didn’t have time to evaluate talent. But bear with me. There are a tremendous amount of options, and all too often hiring managers and HR leaders don’t even consider the option of retained search because “why would you pay up front when you can use five contingency firms at once that will fight against each other, and you only pay them if you make a hire?”

I understand this. If I go out to a restaurant with my family, I am not going to give the waiter $20 just because his team “has more experience or a better process.”

But this is not a steak dinner, and frankly, if you had the resources in house, you would do this on your own.

My point here is that the industry is too competitive and too saturated for anyone to claim a distinct advantage over the candidates, or end product that they can produce, through a contingency search. If you were in their shoes and you knew that you were competing against four other firms, you are going to try to find people as quickly as possible, and just like in that restaurant, when your steak is rushed it either comes out way too rare or burnt to a crisp.

You can’t afford a rushed process and or no process at all. Retainers protect your investment. They are like insurance policies. You know that when a firm is retained, you have their undivided attention, or you should. If you don’t have that level of interaction, then you didn’t vet them properly. If a competent firm has the ability to truly screen candidates out of the process rather that screen them in, you will get a better product, and it will be guaranteed (another benefit of the retainer is a one-year replacement guarantee; why do you think contingency firms don’t make that promise?).

Back to cost. You haggled all of these contingency firms and played them against each other. We are down from a fee of 33% to 25% (which, by the way, many retained firms will entertain in the right situation). $100,000 plus 15% bonus is a $115,000 first-year total cash compensation. That’s $28,750. Nearly $30,000 just to hire this guy, and you want to rush this? It isn’t just the steak that is going to get burned.

Now you train this guy, and he gets through the 90-day contingent guarantee and you start to see the warts. For a litany of reasons, this guy isn’t working out and you let him go. How much have you spent? Three months of salary plus payroll cost is nearly $35,000. A search fee of $28,750. Many estimates put the training of skilled labor at this level at nearly double the salary — $200,000, but lets call it half that because this guy wasn’t there a full year, so $100,000.

Now you have down time or lost productivity to account for the loss of new business or any number of direct impacts to the top and bottom lines of your business. And you have to conduct another search that you now have to manage more closely because the rushed search the last time created a black hole that is sucking money from your company. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars that this search has cost you because it failed.

How much have you spent? What is your total Cost of Ownership? I’m not trying to berate the contingency model. There is a place for every service, and there are many contingency search firms that can perform at a very high level in the right situations. Rather, my point is that there is a better way to control costs, develop talent, and find a partner that can help you … truly help you in your process. I cut my teeth in the contingency search business and ran as fast as I could away from that model. Retained search is more difficult and it is more intense and I have to be available at all hours. But I love it! I am free to add value in a positive way by deeply understanding my clients’ problems and finding creative ways to come up with solutions with them, as part of their team. Contingency search is transactional in nature, and when you are dealing with a commodity that is as variable and volatile as human capital, give retainers a chance. The total cost of ownership is lower in the long run.

For now, a brief overview.

We took a hard look at the way in which we sourced, evaluated, and recruited game-changing executive talent. We questioned which processes should stay firmly in our hands and which could scale cost-effectively through a 3rd party. Our Chairman, Steve Alesio, and our new CEO, Sara Mathew, were open to new ways of not only finding, but also evaluating executive talent. They were willing to admit that our track record with executive search firms was spotty, at best, and that a complete reengineering of the acquisition model for our most senior leaders was in order.

When you think about it, the business case for outsourcing to search firms was made 40 or more years ago with the inception of the executive search industry and has rarely been challenged since. Our premise challenged this decision and made a case for bringing key elements of the function back in-house, effectively giving us more control.

Search firms have lost their advantage, and their hands-off restrictions have only increased their limitations. This at a time when the real cost of using retained executive search is arguably 50% higher than we assume it to be, based on actual realization rates.

Once we took a hard look at our use of executive search firms, we began an in-depth analysis of our past searches that involved both a value chain analysis and an RFI process. This analysis concluded that our executive search value chain could be broken into three major categories we now refer to as the following:

1. Takeoff — the process of defining our organizational needs and converting them into a search specification agreed upon by all our constituents
2. Flight time — the process of sourcing, screening, evaluating and developing a candidate slate
3. Landing — the final candidate selection, offer, and close

We then went back and studied our successful engagements with executive search, and found that our in-house team had basically led the “takeoff” and “landing” portions of the process. Based on these findings, we adopted a proprietary process for the takeoff and landing portions that allows us to effectively manage them without influence from the personal preferences of hiring leaders. We also made the decision to outsource the development of the candidate slate (or what we call flight time) that occurs in the middle of the process — leading to a higher realization rate of our searches and hires that prove to be more successful within our organization.

By entering into regular discussions with our executives, we opened the door to a more in-depth exploration of the issues at hand and a fact-based evaluation of the current state of our talent base. We saw that our intrinsic value was in what we now termed as the “takeoff” and “landing” phases of acquisition. Subjective assessments were our norm and we often made decisions that lead to dismissal of someone today who might be deemed invaluable tomorrow; therefore, we started these high-level discussions with fact-based evaluations that looked at the risk inherent in each candidate. Our model enabled a transparent dialogue contemplating risk factors such as environment, proven past quantifiable results, as well as the unique personal motivators of each candidate’s performance needs and if the candidate(s) were “closable.” This early exploration established a practice that would trickle down throughout the organization and change the way we lined up to the business to acquire top talent.

We therefore implemented a proprietary methodology that operationalized a risk-assessment process already inherent in talent assessment, and began to teach our C-suite to move into a mode of “what do we need” versus “what do we want” — effectively managing what we call the “want/need gap.”

Again, more on this in the Journal, but basically what we found is that more proactive workforce planning on our part led to less reactive executive search engagements. Our “takeoffs” during executive search engagements now included fresh discussions about internal candidates, future operating scenarios and our strategic priorities prior to commencing the search. We got better at managing our internal dysfunction at the beginning of the search.

By working with our executive leadership and entering into a process by which we literally got inside the minds of our hiring leaders, we have gone beyond simply being talent experts. We are now organizational experts as well. We understand our strategic plan and we understand which individuals can carry out that plan with the greatest success; therefore, we know that we made the right decision bringing our executive search in house. We found that once the search was effectively calibrated up front, it no longer made sense to fully outsource the critical hiring of key talent. That only created another level of separation and the possibility of further disconnect. We effectively bridged the gap between the business and the talent strategy by focusing on the calibration and assessment piece versus the identification element. Not to mention, we saved millions in the process, since all along, we were paying for access to a database that we already had available for virtual pennies on the dollar.

Even coming upon the heels of a robust labor report last week (that fueled a Wall Street mini-rally) these pronouncements probably won’t do much for the pessimists, but for recruiters, consider the collective news a call to reveille.

The Manpower report in particular says the second quarter should see a “modest” increase in hiring, based on the company’s survey of 18,000 employers in the U.S. While 73 percent expect to keep staffing level, 16 percent expect to hire. Only 8 percent expect to cut. (The remaining 3 percent fall into the “don’t know” category.)

“We continue to see encouraging signs in hiring activity in the U.S.,” says Manpower Inc. Chairman and CEO Jeff Joerres.

If you read down in the release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you would have seen that temp jobs took a big jump in February. It’s a good sign. Employers may not be ready to commit, but at least they’re dating.

The leaders of two of the biggest staffing firms in the U.S., Tig Gilliam of Adecco, and Roy Krause, CEO of SFN Group (previously Spherion), expect to see 100,000 temp hires per month before much longer. Gilliam also says Adecco has seen a 50 percent increase in the number of its temps hired on full time.

Like the staffing industry, executive recruiters have seen improvement, though it has been more noticeable outside the U.S. As a whole, the industry took a 32.5 percent year-over-year revenue hit in 2009. But the 4th quarter brought revenue improvement and an increase in search activity.

Globally, Asia/Pacific, Central/South America, and Europe saw increases in executive search activity in the 4th quarter of 2009 versus the same quarter in 2008. Though the quarter was down over the 4th quarter of 2008 by .5 percent in North America (the U.S., represents the biggest share) there were 11.4 percent more searches started than in the third quarter of 2009.

Add these reports to the other reports and data coming in and there’s little doubt that the world economy is improving, with the U.S. trailing, but moving forward nonetheless.

That this is no gangbuster recovery in the U.S. is evident from all the cautious comments and qualified statements. ERE member Keith Halperin has amassed a slew of estimates from well-respected sources suggesting it could take years before the 8.4 million plus unemployed are back to work. Scroll down to the comments to see his data points.

The Conference Board’s various surveys shows that confidence in the recovery is shaky and uncertain, even as its Employment Trends Index rises. Consumer confidence dropped big in February, mostly because of fears about job growth. Meanwhile Monday’s Employment Trends Index posted a sixth monthly gain, and the biggest overall percentage gain for a six month period since 1994.

The February rise to 93.5 from January’s 93.2, modest though it may seem, was enough to lead Gad Levanon, associate director, Macroeconomic Research at The Conference Board, to say, “The continued rise in the ETI suggests that job growth is about to begin.”

The timeframe for the reemergence of executive hiring continues to lengthen with each respective survey conducted in this series. The increases in executive hiring currently are largely in consulting and professional services, wealth management, healthcare, and pharmaceuticals, and investment management, according to the survey participants.

The executive job market is improved in terms of volume, but seems to be selective not only in terms of the roles being filled, but the demanding qualifications for each of those positions. This is not surprising in terms of hiring firms using their leverage to find the exact fit they seek, but also having less generous offers to attract top quality candidates, with so many seeking a position. Therefore, there is a quandary in filling these executive positions, as hiring managers want the best and most exacting fit without providing the rewards to entice the very best talent and fit to make a move if they are currently employed. Those hiring organizations need to strengthen the quality of their offers to attract the top talent that is employed — and about 90% of the top talent is still employed.

About 70% of employed executives are open to exploring new opportunities, with about one quarter actively seeking new opportunities, according to the survey participants. Employed executives view the scope of a new opportunity, growth opportunity, and compensation as their most important factors in selecting a new position, while unemployed executives were less concerned about compensation levels but more interested in the hiring organization and manager in their new job selection.

While many organizations have reduced their use of executive search firms to find top executive talent with so many executives available and few executive searches occurring, there is still a need to have recruiters deal personally with executives to best attract and complete a hire. With all the talk about social networking, candidate relationship management systems, career sites, and online presence, top executive candidates still prefer having human connections via employees, internal, and external recruiters. Executives strongly prefer being referred by an employee or contacted by a retained executive search firm or internal company recruiter to putting a resume on a job board or submitting a resume to a company career site.

While most executives find the various aspects of their most recruitment process to be acceptable, the aspects that least met their expectations were the overall timeframe to make a decision, interview feedback timeliness, and quality. These aspects are certainly able to be improved by hiring organizations.

For hiring organizations, this continues to be an opportunistic time for hiring top talent to upgrade and gain a competitive talent edge. Forward-thinking organizations are building their executive talent pipeline via employee referrals and working with quality executive recruiters.

About the survey: A survey link was sent to our LinkedIn connections and groups as well as directly emailed to almost 10,000 executives in the Claymore Partners’ database. Six hundred sixty two participated in the online survey conducted from January 26th to February 1st, 2010, for a 7% participation rate. The survey respondents were largely executives over age 40 with annual incomes of over $100,000. There was broad job function and industry representation, with a concentration in the financial services and consulting arenas.

Our model is a high-risk, high-reward type of opportunity that offers great financial success once you reach a certain level. Traditionally HR has not been involved at all in the sourcing and recruitment of these individuals. That all changed when in fall 2008 Lockton engaged in a sales recruiting experiment that I was fortunate enough to get involved with.

Senior management selected five markets to target to find successful C-Level B2B salespeople. Basically, we were going to hire some great top-level salespeople and teach them our industry. The types of backgrounds were fairly stringent with regard to minimum amounts of experience, documented exceptional levels of success in sales at the C-level, amounts of revenue produced per deal, community involvement, and other factors. They then partnered with two search firms that varied greatly in their approaches. One of the search firms was very research-based and very selective in who they contacted and targeted and ultimately presented to my company. The other firm was much more industry-specific and took a “smile-and-dial” type of approach that has had some good success with several of our locations. My supervisor got me in front of management as an internal option to see if I could have any success. I was the litmus test and was given the smallest market to try to develop some candidates.

We spent $60,000 with the two firms in four markets that produced one live interview and phone interview. I set up six interviews in my initial market that resulted in one hire and was then quickly put on to two other markets that resulted in four hires out of the eight total hired across the country.

What led to being successful in this initial search, when the firms that do this for a living were not?

There are a variety of reasons for this, and I’m writing about them in more detail in the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership, but it boils down to several main ones.

First of all, I know my company very well. I have studied our industry extensively and have asked a lot of questions about the various pieces of it. I am able to effectively communicate what it is that makes our company unique and what type of person it appeals to. Second, I asked a lot of questions on the front end. When I first got involved in this project I met with four of our successful salespeople and asked them why they joined my company, what obstacles they had building up their business, and a whole lot of other questions in order to gain a good understanding of the value proposition. I wanted to know what type of person this opportunity would appeal to and who it would not. I wanted to know the toughest thing about it, as well as the best things about being in sales at Lockton.

Finally, I physically traveled to the office I was working with and got their buy-in by showing I was working with them and in their best interests. This was most likely the biggest reason why this project worked: that I traveled to the office I was working with and got an understanding from them of what would work in their office. It is one thing if senior management wants to do something, but another to get the buy-in from the office that it is actually affecting. By doing this I was able to find out what would work there and what wouldn’t. The senior folks in that office were very candid about who they would (and would not) take a chance on hiring.

I don’t want to give the impression that I don’t believe search firms can do a good job. They can. It has been my experience from being on both sides of the fence that the right group can be a true partner with a corporate company. If they do many of the same things discussed here, such as getting to know the business very well, than they can and should be successful.

Take Your Time

High achievers want to get results now. If you decide this is something that is worth pursuing and would be of value to you and your company, realize it will take time. You have to think of it as building a search practice within your company. To build any well-regarded practice, you need to start with an initial successful search and build on it. Make sure you have a supervisor who is in your corner and believes in your abilities. If you work with someone like this, they will do their best to get you in front of the decision-makers when the opportunity presents itself. When you do have a chance to get involved with a senior-level search, jump on it with enthusiasm and a well-thought-out plan. Once you are able to show that you can be successful in this role, the word will get out and more people in your company will want your assistance on the next search. And the next one. And we all know you can’t beat a great referral built on a previous success.

For more information on the benefits of building an executive search function internally, see my article from last week entitled “The Benefits of Internal Executive Search and Why Now Is the Perfect Time to Make the Move.“

Selecting the Appropriate Strategy or Model

Models abound in talent acquisition, so when it comes to recruiting executive level talent it should come as no surprise that organizations can pursue a wide range of approaches. In addition to the major approaches listed below, some organizations opt to position the executive search function outside of the core talent acquisition function or HR, opting instead to have it report directly to the executive committee. The six major models used by organizations with established executive search practices include:

1. The comprehensive model — this model establishes a full life-cycle recruiting process focused on executive hiring within the organization. The individual/team charged with executive recruiting is responsible for all aspects of competitive intelligence gathering, sourcing, screening, assessment, and closing.
2. The hybrid model — this model consolidates responsibility for recruiting higher volume executive roles with an internal function while continuing to use external service providers for lower volume roles or roles requiring a unique expertise.
3. The final stage model — executive recruiting is a process, and like all processes different stages consume varied resources. The final stage model offloads the resource intensive stages of the recruiting lifecycle to research organizations willing to unbundle sourcing from the rest of the process, freeing up internal resources to focus on relationship building, screening, assessment, and closing.
4. The inverted model — outsourcing isn’t new to the recruiting profession; a majority of corporate functions outsource some aspect or another of the process already. However, for many organizations executive recruiting has always been outsourced while non-executive recruiting was executed internally. The inverted model flips those conditions, outsourcing the recruitment of lower-level professional and wage-labor roles to service providers while transitioning the core talent acquisition function to focus on high level professional, managerial, and executive leadership roles.
5. The competition model — under this model, searches for executive level roles are allocated to a selected mix of internal and external recruiters at the hiring manager’s discretion on the premise that the competition will more rapidly strengthen the internal team.
6. The TA specialist (gradual change) model — this model, by far the most common, allocates a portion of executive searches to specialists within the core talent acquisition team who have prior executive search experience, or that possess a unique combination of skills and knowledge relevant to the search. As more and more searches are executed internally, the TA function gradually assumes responsibility for internal executive search.

Benchmark the Best Firms
The second step should be to benchmark some of the major corporations that have in the past used internal executive search. This research should include understanding how they made the business case, what benefits they anticipated, and what outcomes were both in line and out of line with expectations. A list of potential problems and characteristics of an outstanding internal search function should also be put together. Some firms know to execute executive searches internally include:

• Cardinal Health
• PepsiCo
• Keane, Inc.
• Research in Motion
• Key Bank
• Sodexo
• Kohl’s Department Stores
• Target
• MetLife
• VMware
• Microsoft
• Wachovia

Build the Business Case for Internal Executive Search

The next stage in developing your plan should be to build a convincing business case that convinces the executive committee that the internal function would be capable of producing superior results, not only from a financial perspective, but also qualitatively. Work with CEO players within the executive committee including the CEO, CFO, COO, and CHRO to develop a long list of potential benefits and drawbacks of bringing the function in-house. With the list developed, work with the CFO to monetize those list items he/she determines to be the most financially relevant. Elements of the business case should include estimates of:

• The program’s projected ROI
• The performance differential i.e. a prediction of the difference in quality the internal function will produce compared to that of external service providers (measured via the candidates post hire on-the-job performance)
• The cycle time differential between internal and external searches. Where possible, work with the CFO’s office to monetize the value of any predicted time savings.
• The candidate diversity differential — i.e. a prediction of the difference in diversity rates the internal function will produce compared to that of external service providers.
• The retention differential — i.e. a prediction of the difference in retention the internal function will produce compared to that of external service providers
• The process success rate — i.e. the improved position fill rate as a result of dropping external firms.

Note that this strongest business cases converts typical HR results measures into dollars. For example, if you state that the turnover rate will be 5% lower, it won’t be as powerful as stating that the higher retention rates increase revenue by $17 million.

To build a strong business case you will need access to real data that is difficult for critics of your solution to criticize. The best way to garner such data is a pilot study that uses a “split sample” approach (like in drug testing). Leveraging this type of pilot would require that an equal distribution of searches be allocated to an internal and external service provider simultaneously. You then compare to see which one produced the best results. You can also do a side-by-side comparison, where both providers are used to source candidates for the same position.

Compile a List of the Top Arguments for Sticking With External Executive Search
It’s important to compare the positive aspects of moving the function inside with arguments for maintaining the status quo. Do your research with benchmark firms and work with your current vendors to compile a list of counterarguments for sticking with the current external approach either completely or in special cases.

Some of those arguments should include:

1. They are more aggressive — there’s just no question here: executive search recruiters are at least 50% more aggressive than the average corporate recruiter. Of course you can hire executive search types for your internal team, but if that isn’t an option, you might find it impossible to convert most corporate recruiters into executive search experts.
2. Privacy capability — executive search firms have a long history of protecting the names of potential candidates from people who don’t need to know. Obviously, a well-designed internal search function can also have privacy process that allows candidates to drop out of consideration without public record.
3. Hire just when you need them — rather than retaining a continuous staff of internal executive recruiters, you need only pay for these services when you have an opening. It’s also hard to maintain recruiter skill level internally if you have infrequent openings.
4. More global capability — some larger firms have a much broader global capability than you could ever develop internally. If you truly need to do a significant amount of global hiring, you’ll find that using agencies will continue to be the norm in many regions. Many of the top candidates only know that system, so using another one might confuse them.
5. Superior closing abilities — in my experience, executive search professionals are markedly better at selling difficult candidates and closing the deal. In the same light, if your firm has a bad external employer brand image, external professionals also excel at overcoming that issue.
6. You only pay with a placement — if you use contingent firms, there’s no fee unless you hire someone the provider introduces.
7. Manager relationships — whether you like or not, executive search firms are good at building relationships with managers. It’s important not to be naïve: if you try to drop a major executive search firm, be aware that they will put tremendous pressure on your executives to stop HR in their tracks.
8. Candidate relationships — if you need candidates immediately but they require a long-term trust relationship in order to be sold, executive recruiters with their long-established relationships may be the only option.
9. A mixed approach is possible — obviously you can build and maintain an internal search function but still occasionally hire an external search firm when their unique capabilities are needed.

Compile a List of Potential Problems with Operating an Internal Search Function
One of the key practices that distinguish individuals’ great at execution versus the average performer is the time they spend identifying potential problems they may encounter and devising potential solutions in advance. Executive searches play out in a high-stakes world where political maneuvering is the norm, so recruiting leaders attempting to move executive search in-house need to be even more aware than ever before what problems they may encounter and be able to enact feasible solutions in rapid succession.

Possible issues include:

• Quality of recruiters — executive sourcing and search requires recruiters of much higher caliber than most corporate functions are built on today. This will create political issues between this function and the broader talent acquisition function. Great executive recruiters leverage tons of competitive intelligence about the business and the industry to become business experts first, recruiters second. Maintaining recruiter aggressiveness may also be difficult once external executive recruiters are brought in house.
• Political issues within HR — the nature of executive recruiting will create a close connection between the individuals executing internal executive search and the executive team, often a stronger connection than that between the operating committee and the HR leadership. This can create jealousies within HR.
• Sufficient compensation — executive recruiting requires a compensation model that can be difficult for those outside the function to tolerate. Imagine an executive recruiter two layers deeper in the organization than the VP earning three times the VP’s annual income.
• Managing recruiters — executive recruiting isn’t a routine activity, which can make those managing the function suspicious as to what those in the function are up to. Executive recruiters may disappear for weeks while sourcing and gathering competitive intelligence, producing little to no visible activity, and then dump a mass of activity all at once. Traditional recruiting managers and your regular recruiters might not understand this process.
• Budgeting — budgeting for executive search is not as simple as budgeting for a defined systematic process. Great recruiters tailor the process and candidate experience to the search. While broad parameters can be established, traditional analytics and budgeting processes may prove to be woefully inadequate.

Select Program Metrics to Demonstrate Performance
Metrics are simply measures that help you and others determine if your actions have led to a situation where you have accomplished your goals. For each program goal you establish in your plan, you need at least one metric that all parties involved agree is indicative of performance related to that goal. The top internal executive search metrics that I recommend include:

1. Quality of candidates presented — what percentage of all candidates introduced meet or exceed the defined requirements. Alternate measures could include the diversity rate of candidates introduced and the percentage introduced that have previous experience at “targeted” benchmark firms.
2. Quality of hire — as measured over three years by job performance scores, number of new products developed or projects completed, amount of bonuses (as a % of salary), number of promotions, 360-degree evaluations, or other job-related measures.
3. User satisfaction — ratings of both candidates and the executive committee.
4. Average tenure — the average tenure of executives sourced via the internal function.
5. Time to fill — the time it takes to fill the position in days from the initial contact.
6. Improved candidate information — the quality of the information provided on the candidate (job switching decision criteria, interests, and dream job requirements).
7. Legal issues — the number and the cost of legal issues related to executive search.

Each of these metrics should be compared to the past performance record of external search firms.

Final Thoughts
Recruiting managers are always seeking the “Holy Grail” when it comes to being more strategic. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that recruiting for higher-level positions like the CFO and the director of product development will have a strategic impact on the firm and make the TA function more visible among the executive committee. With that in mind, the decision to move the most impactful recruiting inside is an easy one. Of course there are some risks involved, but taking large risks and acting proactively are part of being a strategic leader.

In many organizations, executive search fees consume double-digit portions of the recruiting budget, yet produce results only 45% of the time. Few budget items are more costly and ineffective, but the motivations behind this shift are not solely monetary. Executing executive searches internally dramatically increases the business impact of the talent acquisition function and raises the visibility of talent acquisition as a key contributor to business performance significantly.

After all, what else in recruiting could possibly impact business results more than bringing in a high-quality, innovative executive capable of delivering market-changing increases in efficiency and effectiveness?

The increase in “face time” between talent acquisition and the executive committee further increases the function’s ability to sell the vision of the organization and sustain operations when budgets get tight. In the following section, you will find numerous arguments supporting the shift.

When you add up all the positive benefits, it’s hard to argue that there will be a better time to explore this strategic move.

Changes in the Business Environment Make It a Perfect Time to Act

Economic factors always play a role in determining the feasibility and desirability of business decisions. Some of the economic factors that make this a perfect time to bring executive search in-house include:

• Many organizations have time to focus on building new initiatives. Cost-containment efforts and hiring freezes coupled with reluctance by organizations to eliminate their talent acquisition functions have contributed to a situation where many recruiters are on the payroll but working on many non-recruiting related activities. As hiring volumes are not likely to increase dramatically for at least 8 to 12 months, many organizations have the time to plan and build a robust executive search function internally.
• Available executive recruiters with proven track records. Executive recruiters are in a different league than most corporate recruiters. The great ones often know more about their client organizations than the senior-most HR leader and are viewed by candidates and executives just as much as coaches as they are recruiters. As the economics of third-party search models continues to erode, a significant number of recruiters with proven track records could be enticed to join an organization.
• Executive search openings will become frequent. Historically, the demand for external executives was sporadic, a condition that contributed to a strong argument against building executive search capability in-house. However, increased volatility in global markets, double-digit growth in emerging markets, changing workforce demographics, increasing rates of knowledge obsolescence, and years of pent-up frustration among executives chained to jobs that no longer motivate due to economic conditions will drive a significant increase in the demand for external executive hires as turnover skyrockets. Left unmitigated, the demand for external assistance in recruiting organizational leaders could chew up a majority of existing talent-acquisition budgets.

Changes in Recruiting Tools/Approaches Also Make Now a Perfect Time

In recent years, the Internet has brought a phenomenal amount of transparency to labor markets around the globe. That transparency has enabled many innovative recruiters to gain access to a wide range of cheap but effective recruiting tools that render closed databases of candidates such as those maintained by third-party agencies much less valuable.

Some of the changes in recruiting that make now a perfect time to shift executive search back in-house include:

• Finding executive prospects is now much easier. Finding the names of potential candidates is no longer a challenge. A majority, if not all, of the most visible leaders in an organization are visible externally both on user-maintained websites like LinkedIn and other white collar social networks and system maintained databases like ZoomInfo and Jigsaw. Even the corporate homepage of individual firms now list their executives. In addition, most executives in public companies receive stock as part of their compensation, making it easy to find their name and job title in financial disclosures required by the SEC.
• Building relationships with prospects is easier. Executive recruiters are masters when it comes to building relationships, the key to which is not trading solely on the value of a job opportunity to a candidate. Great executive recruiters use competitive intelligence so that they can deliver value to a candidate during each and every interaction, be it via email, phone call, or face-to-face meeting. Social media tools like Facebook, LinkedIn, Ning, and Twitter, combined with CRM methodologies, make sustaining longer-term relationships with larger masses of professionals much easier. In many respects, these tools have brought executive recruiter type “tickler files” out into the public.
• Search firms aren’t as strong. If you read the business news, you already know that executive search firms have been going through a great deal of turmoil themselves in the past few years. As a result, many have built sourcing functions offshore, shed high-cost relationship builders, and replaced knowledgeable account executives with younger, more sales-oriented professionals who know little about the nuances that characterize an industry. They have added other value-add services to help defray the impact from declining search revenues. Combined, all of these factors result in former powerhouse agencies producing results that most corporate functions can match or exceed at a fraction of the cost.

Factors to Consider When Determining to Shift Executive Search Inside

If you decide to begin a formal assessment as to whether or not it’s a good idea to build an internal executive search function, start with a simple “business case” checklist of factors that can impact organizations, including the benefits and opportunities that accrue to organizations executing executive search in-house and the problems that can occur when using executive search firms.

Benefits and Opportunities Resulting from Internal Search

• Increased sales, partnership, and CI opportunities. No firm wants to lose sales and partnership opportunities. Recruiting for executives requires you to “sell” a large number of influential executives inside and outside your industry on the value of your firm. When you use external executive search, relationships “belong” to and are retained by the external search firm. However, if your own recruiters build these relationships and sell your firm effectively, it’s possible that a significant number of those candidates not hired will hold a more positive image of your firm, and as a result may consider becoming a customer or strategic partner with your firm. The benchmarking and candidate assessment work that is now done by your own recruiters might also yield competitive intelligence that can be used to benefit your firm. The dollar value of this benchmark information and potential sales and partnership opportunities need to be added to the positive ROI of an internal function.
• An opportunity to build a competitive advantage. All high-impact business functions need to provide their firm with a distinct competitive advantage. When you develop your own search function, you have the opportunity to build a truly modern, technology-driven global function that could provide your firm with a distinct competitive advantage. Search firms are generally forced to offer the same services to all clients, so using them seldom provides a major competitive advantage.
• Internal recruiters know your firm. In the past, one of the advantages of search firms was that over time, they got to know your firm, its needs, and its culture. Unfortunately, the downturn has dramatically changed how many third-party search providers operate, reducing their ability to be as knowledgeable as they once were. In addition, in the fast-moving world of business, it is nearly impossible for any outsider to keep up with changes in organizational needs.
• Referral programs can produce amazing results. Traditional employee referral programs routinely produce hires who are better performers and have higher retention rates. Referrals produce these results because top-performing employees tend to know a high percentage of the harder-to-find, “not actively looking,” currently employed top performers. Referrals also work because colleagues are often more willing to talk to their peers at other firms about opportunities, than to recruiters of any type. Although it’s a surprise to some, referral programs focused on executives can have even more dramatic results, in part because executives have much broader networks than the average employee. As a result, specially designed executive referral programs can produce amazing results without the need to pay a referral fee (many such programs donate a reward to a charity of the executive’s choosing).
• A chance to build up HR’s image. Using external search firms for the most critical jobs further reinforces an already weak HR image that they can’t handle the really tough, high-risk assignments. Stepping forward and becoming accountable for the most visible and high-impact recruiting jobs provides HR with an opportunity to build its internal brand image. If HR wants to increase its visibility and impact, it must change its focus toward recruiting at the top of the organization and outsource recruiting at the bottom, rather than vice versa.

Problems That Can Occur When Using Executive Search Firms

• Using executive search might increase your turnover. Research at one major firm revealed that individuals hired through executive search firms have a higher turnover rate than executives recruited by their own internal recruiters (possibly because search firms naturally attract “actives” that are more interested in continuous opportunity and their career than in building a legacy at any one firm). In addition, exposing your executives to executive recruiters might have a separate set of turnover consequences, even though no ethical firm would use the relationships they build with your own firm’s executives during a current search to recruit them away.
• An increased chance that the hire will be a bad “fit”. During all searches, the longer the recruiter is in direct contact with a prospect, the better they will get to know them. This longer relationship makes for a more accurate assessment and a better fit. On the contrary, if you only see the outside candidates in one or two interviews toward the end of the recruiting process, the chances of making a major hiring error increase dramatically. With an internal function, all of that “assessment time” is owned by people living in your culture, thus improving your chances of hiring someone that fits.
• Losing candidates you never see. External recruiters create an initial list of qualified candidates that you never see, and they do 100% of the “selling” to those on that initial list. Because you’re not involved in any aspect of this initial selling, you can never know whether you are losing great candidates because these external recruiters are doing a bad job selling.
• “Bidding” for candidates is expensive. It’s only natural that large executive search firms “shop” top candidates to many different clients. This exposure to many potential clients allows their top candidates to be bid on, like highly valuable auction goods. This competitive process gives their candidates an opportunity to accept a much higher monetary offer, which simultaneously increases the search firm’s income. This means you will pay significantly more for candidates who are externally bid on. In contrast, passive candidates you directly source might only be interested in your firm, and may be up to 25% cheaper than high-demand executive-search candidates.
• Avoid restrictions on candidate availability. Search firms often have agreements not to recruit from their clients. This might seem to be a benefit on the surface, but it also means that large executive search firms with many clients in an industry will have a smaller candidate pool to offer you because they can’t include employees from their current clients. Even though these individuals might be willing to change firms, you’ll never know it because no one will tell you about these restrictions. Internal search allows you to recruit from literally every firm (perhaps with the exception of major customers) and thus it automatically provides you with a broader talent pool.
• Performance issues. Failing to fill all of your open positions is a potential problem with retained firms. As a result, you need to do your research to make sure that the percentage of “unfilled searches” by your retained firm isn’t notably higher than it would be if you were to use internal search. A similar comparison needs to be done for “time to fill,” because external firms can be slower. The last but most important factor to compare is the performance of the hire (on-the-job performance and retention rates). One major corporation that did this external/internal comparison found no performance improvement, slower hiring, and significantly higher costs from external search.
• Cost of recruiting. Some executive recruiting fees have been reduced during the recession but are still markedly higher than corporate recruiting cost per hire. If you hire a retained search firm, you pay even if they fail to fulfill the search. If you hire a contingent firm, you may pay more indirectly, in the time wasted by your managers sorting through mediocre resumes that contingent recruiters might send them in the hopes that one will “stick.”
• Absence of performance metrics. If your CFO or CEO demands every process have performance metrics, you’re probably going to have to develop them yourselves. In my experience, external search firms are notoriously bad at providing business-impact metrics. If you don’t believe me, search their website and invariably you will find numerous “word arguments” but not a single quantified result or dollar impact.
• New clients may occasionally get a preference. Firms that are desperate for attracting new clients may steer their very best candidates toward those clients with whom they hope to sign new contracts. If you’re a long-term client, you have to include that risk as part of the equation.
• You may select the wrong firm. Unfortunately, there is a wide variation in the “quality of service” delivered by search firms. If your vendor assessment process is inaccurate, you could be stuck with a weak firm. In contrast, if you build your own internal function yourself, you have more assurance that you will have an excellent team.

Next week I’ll expand on this topic with an article that focuses on developing a plan to bring executive search inside. If your organization has done this and you have lessons that you would like to share with your colleagues, please feel free to send me a note via email and I’ll make sure your learnings are incorporated.

That’s what a small group in Washington State is proposing and for no less a location than New York City’s Radio City Music Hall, where the National Football League draft is conducted.

Here’s the game plan, according to Corporate Draft and its organizers, Nolan Wheeler and Mike Gazdag:

Fifty companies are to pay $30k each to have a crack at 2,000 fully vetted veteran senior corporate managers and executives and 500 MBAs. There’s to be two days of “meet and greet” followed by two days of draft picks, during which the participating companies get to “draft” one of the hopefuls sitting in the Music Hall audience.

The companies, who also are present in the Music Hall, get five minutes to make a pick. When they do, they telephone their selection to the draft staff which delivers a custom stitched jersey to the master of ceremonies while the lucky job seeker is escorted to the stage as their 30 second video backgrounder is shown to the assemblage.

“We’re getting the talent based on hype,” Wheeler explains when we ask why any successful, seasoned corporate leader would pay their own way to New York City to go through such a spectacle. “They are going to be looking at this as an ego stroke.”

He likens the experience to “The Apprentice, but professional.” The show, he says, will “bring a bit of Hollywood to recruiting.”

It’s already brought a certain amount of illusion. Mention of Corporate Draft popped up a few weeks ago as a comment posted by Nolan Wheeler to an ERE article. In the comment, Wheeler doesn’t disclose he’s the organizer of Corporate Draft, instead writing, “A friend of mine who works at Amazon.com told me about these guys.”

Why didn’t he identify himself? “To be honest, I didn’t want people phoning me or emailing me,” says Wheeler.

Corporate Draft has no contract with Radio City Music Hall, though the booking agent there is familiar with the name and has had conversations about reserving the facility.  Wheeler Industries, the company organizing the corporate draft, lists its address as Seattle’s prestigious Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza. But, it’s a Mailboxes Etc. maildrop.

According to Wheeler and Mike Gazdag, who said he’s the Corporate Draft’s director of communications, Wheeler Industries is a strategic HR consulting firm. Wheeler described the HR work as “a mile wide and an inch deep,” explaining that he specialized in bringing operational solutions to HR problems. Gazdag said that since the early part of the decade Wheeler and Wheeler Industries have been focusing more on recruitment, which is how the idea for the draft came about.

“He (Wheeler) uses the sports analogy in hiring, ” Gazdag says. “The idea sort of came out of that.” Wheeler, adding more detail, says drafting employees was suggested jokingly when he would liken hiring a CEO or corporate leader to drafting a captain of a football or hockey team. One day, he says, “I wondered: Why don’t people do that?”

The reason, as any good football fan will tell you, is to level the playing field to some extent. That’s why expansion teams and the teams with the worst record get to pick first. Corporations, which don’t depend on evening up the talent pool in order to keep up fan interest, want to hire the best. All the better if they can spirit away top performers from the competition.

Wheeler says two staff recruiters are working now sourcing candidates for the draft, while he has been reaching out to search firms seeking partners and inviting them to submit candidates. Corporate Draft promises that each of the executive candidates will be “screened, interviewed, tested, and referenced.”

“I can’t name names, of course, ” Wheeler says when we asked what search firms have signed on. Nor would he say what companies have come up with the $30,000 to participate in the draft. “I don’t want to share that,” he says.

We asked if he could at least provide the name of some of the clients for whom Wheeler Industries has done work. Wheeler declined. “You have me on the spot here,” he said. “I feel I am being attacked. This is not a scam.”

What’s business as usual? If you’ve been part of, or done work with, executive search firms you know the process. In simple terms, it goes something like this: a vacancy arises, a detailed job spec or job requirement is gathered, and then weeks or more likely months into the assignment the weekly updates culminates with a slate of three to eight (or sometimes more) candidates for the client company to interview and hopefully, if their lucky, hire someone. However, the executive search firm collects its retainer usually in three easy installments at each step of the process: 1/3 when the search is commenced, 1/3 when a slate of candidates has been presented, and the final 1/3 once the interviews have concluded.

These fees are usually 30% or more of the total executive’s compensation and in this day and age a seven figure retained search has become the norm rather than the exception.

What’s wrong with business as usual? From the executive search firms’ perspective some might argue with the way I’ve defined the process, saying it’s oversimplified. Some might say that I don’t take into account the hours invested in flights and travel to wine and dine execs, and the strategy and complexity that goes into a search. That I’ve neglected to mention the large database “the crown jewel” of all firms that has taken years to build. They might also say that beyond the slate of candidates presented, the data gathered through the process is valuable intelligence for the client and part of the total package that justifies the fees. On the client side, an HR leader or company executive might argue that they’ve negotiated the fees down (due to volume business or long-term commitments) and they have a good relationship with the executive search partner who understands their needs and their company culture ( the old adage of: “If it isn’t broken……..”)

The Top 5 Reasons Exec Search Needs an Overhaul

1. The economy and economies of scale. During good times many companies in desperate need of top executives went for the path of least resistance or the one they were most accustomed to. Hire a top firm for must-have-now executive needs. However, as the economic climate has changed, companies in many instances still have the need for those top executives that are going to drive growth and revenue but they don’t have budget for “a-la-carte” search pricing. Executive search retainers don’t guarantee a hire. Fees are sometimes being paid with no ROI to show for it, and in conversations with HR and talent leaders in major organizations this trend is becoming more prevalent. To be fair, sometimes this happens because of the client company shifting gears mid-stream, “moving the target,” or shutting down the search altogether which the firm has no control over. However, this still speaks to the high-risk, inflexible, and expensive proposition of executive search, regardless of where the responsibility lies.
2. The Crown Jewel has lost its luster. Not too long ago, finding these executives and keeping track of them was part of what a search firm prided themselves on. Through the years they have amassed and grown a huge database which they have guarded with their life. Now there is a shift of power and expectations with the advent of web 2.0, 3.0, and all of the social networking tools available; these execs are accessible now to everyone. This has upped the anti — it is no longer enough to have access to executives. To be in the game you must also have constant relationships and branding to keep your firm top of mind.
3. Executive candidates are wising up to the game and no longer want to be part of the interview “cattle calls.” You’ve heard many of my colleagues here on ERE stress the need for relationship-building in the recruiting profession. This is particularly true in executive search. Digging up candidates to present from a database is no longer plausible or feasible. Executive professionals don’t warm up to a call out of the blue regardless of who it’s from, especially if it’s a ” jump on a plane to fill a req now!” type of call. Constant, relevant communication and contact to stay “top of mind” is essential regardless of when a position is vacant. It goes beyond your current needs to staying in touch with top executives and building that relationship. If you engage people only when you have an opening, the relationship starts becoming one way and transactional. People pick up on this very quickly and are turned off.
4. Are companies getting true intelligence? Many firms have “hands-off” clauses on existing clients for obvious reasons. Your search results will have huge blind spots if a search firm that you engage is currently working with your top competitors or top industry candidate sources. You will only have a partial mapping of the market place and potentially miss out on the best candidates out there.
5. At the end of the search who owns the intellectual property? I’m not just talking about the candidate bios or the slate resumes. I’m talking about all of the intelligence gathered and all of the people engaged through the process. The search is essentially building the firms’ property on your dime. When the search is finished they retain all the information gathered in their proprietary database/CRM tool and can leverage this work at any time for future searches or unfortunately in some instances can turn around and repackage/resell the information gathered to other companies. You’re left with a slate, and if you’re lucky an Excel spreadsheet with the people contacted for this search. A list that starts going obsolete the moment it’s presented.

Validation

Many of us in the space have seen this paradigm shift for years. Validation came in the form of a statement to BusinessWeek at the beginning of this year by the CEO of one of the top search firms in the industry. His acknowledgment of the current industry process being broken and a need for an overhaul is astute, visionary, and courageous. It marks the beginning of a broader change in the industry as many more firms will follow suit and become more innovative and flexible in the way they service their clients.

How do I benefit from this shift as a corporate HR leader, talent leader, or executive recruiter?

Being proactive and ahead of the curve during these times of economic uncertainty will not only improve your chances of retaining your job, but will also have leadership view you in a different light. Even when hiring is slow and budgets are tight, there are smart ways to be strategic, interface with your internal clients in a different light, and position your function as an integral business partner.

Here are three quick ways to boost your executive search.

Optimize your internal executive search function: It’s old hat for most top firms to set up a mirror executive search organization in house. This was the first logical step in cutting costs and streamlining efficiencies. Unfortunately, most internal executive search functions found out that through the shifts in demand they still had to go to third party search firms to get the job done, creating duplication of efforts and an us vs. them mentality. Now that economic times are tight and hiring is sporadic, HR and talent leaders are faced with having to reduce the number of highly specialized executive recruiter(s) they’ve hired and trained.

Mitigate these issues by not going to the extremes, meaning not doing 100% 3rd party but also not trying to do 100% in-house. Usually from interacting with top internal executive search leaders I see anywhere from a 60::40 to a 40::60 in-house to third party ratio as the right mix. The second part to the solution is to have a core executive team in house and then augment the capabilities by hiring 3rd parties that compliment or augment the capabilities of the core team rather than a third party that duplicates the work in house. As illustrated earlier, search firms are overhauling their teams and offerings to be more consultative and provide these services. In addition, there are a select number of firms in the industry whose core expertise is in leadership risk management, internal/external succession planning, and market mapping. These are all third party solutions that will augment your capabilities and what your team brings to the table.

Go beyond the work at hand to a more holistic approach. It’s not just enough to fill the few reqs in your cue right now. To be a valued talent/HR organization, knowing and mapping the marketplace is a must. You should know who the best talent is in your industry, by region and market for every profile that you hire for. You should be building talent pools, pipelines, and every other word coined today for proactive talent scouting. You should know the talent in your industry not just through a resume but through meaningful occasions and events that piques their interest in you and your organization.

This effort which seemed unattainable once is now a realistic objective through the use of technology and a strong team behind it. If done correctly, an internal executive search team will transcend the req-filling recruiter role to an intelligence function — a function with their finger on the pulse on competitive intelligence, marketing & branding opportunities, new sources of revenue, and potential M&A targets.

If you’re an individual contributor — be opportunistic. Find ways of connecting the right talent with the right in-house leaders regardless if there is a req open or not. You should always be connecting in meaningful ways with external top talent. This economic downturn creates a window of opportunity for you to connect and build relationships with top brass at competitors that might not have returned your calls during the good times. Ask yourself these simple questions when you are building your opportunistic foundation:

• Take the top five profiles that you are constantly hiring for (profiles, not reqs)
• Do you know at least 10 people in the industry per profile?
• Of those 10, people how many of those do you have a relationship with?
• How many of these would you feel confident in spotlighting to the C suite or the Board of Directors?

If you aren’t taking advantage of the slow time to be opportunistic and spotlight the top corporate athletes you’re running into who are now more likely to return your calls, you’re missing the boat.

Companies want their interview slates to include more passive candidates to complement the active talent pool. When engaging a search firm for an active role what you will most likely get are the people in their database who are ready for that next jump. Once they have created the slate the search stops and the mapping of the marketplace is limited or never takes place. You are in essence limited to selecting the best people available right now, not the best of the best. Top executives will not be on anyone’s database or be posting their resume any time soon. They are certainly not active but they are “gettable” if two things happen in tandem.

First, constant dialogue and relationship is created and nurtured with these athletes well in advance of any opportunity.

Second, based on the consultative listening through these exchanges you will then be able to present (not just any position) but the right and ideal opportunity that meets most if not all of their expectations as top professionals in their industry.

Knowing what these opportunities are and when and how to present them is the essence of all talent professionals and, having the right intelligence is key.

• Corporate recruiters have access to tens of thousands of active candidates via job boards and specialized career sites.
• Corporate recruiters have access to information about tens of thousands of inactive candidates via a variety of Web tools ranging from Google to ZoomInfo to LinkedIn.
• Thousands of corporate recruiters have been certified in advanced sourcing techniques from firms like AIRS and the Adler Group.
• ATS and hiring management systems not only house customized resume databases, but they also enable recruitment processes to be streamlined so that recruiters are able to spend less time on operational details and more time delivering value-added services to hiring managers.
• Once the sole resource of search firms, research, and sourcing firms provide rapid candidate generation services to corporate recruiters at affordable prices.

…Why aren’t search firms out of business?

Out of Business? Search is Thriving!

In the face of all of this, the executive search Industry is not only nowhere near close to going under, it’s thriving. (The current economic downturn will temporarily halt this, but overall growth in the search industry has been explosive over the last 10 years.)

Consider this:

• Kennedy Information reports that the global market for executive search services is $6-8 billion annually, and that growth in that industry since 1990 has been “staggering.”
• Korn/Ferry produced record revenues and earnings in Fiscal Year 2008 ($790 million/38%), an increase of just under 50% from 2006.
• The average placement fee at Heidrick & Struggles reached $114,900 in 2007, up from 2003′s average of $81,100. That, coupled with growth in total search assignments, created 2007 revenues that increased 95% from 2003.
• According to ExecuNet, search firm recruiting assignments rose 24% in 2007, and 25% were adding staff at the end of last year.
• Average compensation for a search consultant can range between $200-$600,000+ annually.

That the search industry has been growing may not be surprising, but the speed at which it is skyrocketing is, especially in the face of all the investment made over that same period into internal recruiting functions.

After all, it wasn’t too many years ago that staffing industry pundits were predicting the demise of the search industry, in the same manner that real estate brokers and stock brokers were supposed to disappear, thanks to the power of the Internet and its open access to information. After all, who needs a third party when all of their previously proprietary information is available for free or inexpensively on the Web?

Don’t Shoot the Messenger

There is an old axiom in the search business about competition that goes like this: “Other search firms aren’t our competition — competent internal recruiting functions are.”

When an internal function is competent and able to fill openings effectively, there’s no need to hire external firms. Therefore, as internal competence grows, more and more difficult positions are serviced in-house and fewer (or no) roles require external assistance. As a result, the market for external search shrinks as fewer positions make their way to external firms.

But this is in fact the opposite of what has happened: the demand for external firms has increased exponentially. This phenomenal growth in the search business tell us that search firms do a better job, or at least that they are perceived to do a better job, by the executives who choose to engage them over their own internal recruiting group.

Now before you pummel me with negative commentary, understand that I wish there were another conclusion to draw. But there really isn’t, and facing our shortfalls is the first step toward fixing the problem.

The recruiting service that is perceived to be the most valuable by executives is recruiting the top roles. This is easily proven by looking at the high fees executives are willing to pay for a single hire. The average search fee of $110,000 for one hire is more than most corporate recruiters make in an entire year.

The reason that executives are willing to pay high fees for search services — and worse, to not even consider giving search assignments to many internal functions — is because they perceive the external provider to be a more credible, capable, and more reliable source of talent. Why is this so?

It’s All About the Methods

There are several key differentiators for search firms that clearly distinguish them from the typical internal recruiting function. Although there are more, here are the top five that internal recruiting functions can adapt that will improve their outcomes dramatically. And, these can be integrated into most recruiting functions quickly and easily:

Run the assignment like a project and dictate methods

The first thing that search firms do differently from most corporate functions is to take absolute control of the project. This includes a documented project plan, timelines, and crystal-clear delineations of roles, responsibilities, and mutual deliverables.

It also includes getting the client to agree to follow the search firm’s project methodology, not the client’s. A critical mistake we often see corporate recruiting teams make is asking higher-ranking leaders how they would like to see the project unfold. Expert service providers dictate methods so that they can guarantee the results. Insisting on following the correct methodology is a key step that is too often missed by internal teams.

Force the client to define their hiring requirement in light of market realities

A good search consultant will excel at making sure the hiring requirement is specific, realistic, and actionable in the talent market.

This can be challenging since managers often provide requirements that read more like a wish list rather than a carefully considered formula for success. We have observed internal recruiters accepting assignments that contain so many hiring requirements that they cannot be fulfilled in the market.

Recruiters should take an active role in helping to build the hiring requirement right from the outset. It may be necessary to challenge the hiring manager on unrealistic requirements, too many requirements, or too broad a requirements set.

Secure the proper level of project funding

Why do we fund search firms with high fees, while internal organizations are forced to continually drive down the costs of recruiting to lower levels?

In some ways, internal organizations themselves are to blame because they have positioned their value equation in terms of cost reductions. They brag about reducing cost-per-hire and total recruiting spend. Yet, the reality is that some positions will cost more — and perhaps dramatically more — to fill than the average.

No search firm would accept an assignment for less than the cost of delivery. Internal teams shouldn’t either. To gain approvals for higher levels of funding, make the value of the service crystal clear and avoid focusing on the cost of the service.

Hire top recruiters with deep industry experience/subject-matter expertise

The most clearly visible difference between search firms and internal functions is the level of recruiter working in each.

In the course of our consulting work, we’ve met plenty of excellent internal recruiters. Unfortunately, we have met many more who really aren’t qualified for recruiting roles. Worse, we’ve meet some recruiting leaders who really don’t have much of a background in recruiting.

To really excel at recruiting, internal functions should take a lesson in staffing their recruiting functions with strong, industry-savvy recruiters who possess foundation knowledge in recruiting as a profession. Start by hiring a seasoned recruitment leader who understands talent markets, marketing principles, selling, internal consulting, and knowledge transfer. Select staff members who have been trained in the recruiting industry at some point in their careers and have enjoyed success in contingent/search roles but also understand the realities and limitations of internal recruiting functions.

Continually work a database of industry contacts/potential future hires

This is straight out of Recruiting 101, but let’s face it; search firms do a better job of building and maintaining recruiting networks than internal functions.

Part of the reason, of course, is that fees give them ample funding to do so. But another large part is that they are serious about recruiting for the long haul, and internal organizations are serious about recruiting to fill the open req in front of them.

This difference in focus changes everything about their behavior. When recruiters are pressured to fill today’s openings, they have little time to focus on cultivating tomorrow’s potential hires.

Most companies have plenty of resumes in the ATS/hiring management systems but have not built the capability or the know-how to stay abreast of who’s who and who’s where in the target talent markets critical to their growth. Building a robust database of key talent targets, engaging those targets in meaningful dialogue, and nursing relationships over time will pay big recruiting dividends over the long haul.

If corporate recruiting functions were truly great at recruiting and had the credibility they seek with top executives, then there would be limited need for third-party search firms. Realistically, there will always be a need for competent search firms. But the accelerated growth of this industry over the last 5-10 years indicates that internal functions are failing to deliver the most critical, and arguably the most valuable, recruiting services in a way that puts internal functions on equal footing with our external counterparts.

It’s time we took a hard look at why.

Some thoughts in an email from Marcon on the world’s largest executive search company.

Average fee/search increased a very strong 15%.

Growth is clearly decelerating — from +26% in FQ2, +22% in FQ3, +16% in FQ4.

Futurestep also had a solid quarter, and continues to make good progress of improving its operating margin. Revenue increased 22% and operating margin expanded from 8.1% to 9.2%. (Futurestep is the RPO division; it’s about 14% of the company.)

North America and EMEA, two largest segments, were significantly better than expected, while Asia-Pac was disappointing. The only real negative was Asia-Pac.

South America performed well, but is small.

Korn/Ferry’s top executives also talked about the business, the economy in general, and more, during a conference call.

Here’s a look at Seetoo’s “SWOT” chart when it comes to moving search in.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”

This past quarter, I conducted two senior-level management searches. Each one stands out as a shining example of what to do and what not to do. Understanding the differences can double your monthly placement rate in about half the time. Before reading the details, you should benchmark your own recruiting skills using this 10-Factor Recruiter diagnostic assessment to get a sense of what it takes to be a great recruiter.

Here’s a quick summary of what happened. One of the searches was for a director-level technical position for an industrial products company. This is the one I didn’t conduct too well. I had to present seven candidates, and the client would only see four of them. My normally accurate assessments were suspect, and I didn’t have a great deal of confidence in representing either the job to the candidates or the candidates to the client. Making matters worse, it was a long and difficult close with compensation being the primary discussion point. We got very few referrals on the search, and it took about 90 days from beginning to end.

The other search was a slam dunk. It was for a director-level project manager position for an alternative energy company. In this case, three candidates were presented, all were seen, all were considered strong, and the company hired one within 45 days. Our assessments were dead-on across all job factors. Making matters better, we had two strong backups in addition to the three candidates, and both were referrals. While the compensation issues were not insignificant, the short- and long-term career opportunity overwhelmed the other two jobs the final candidate was considering.

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. There are a number of factors worth considering that resulted in a 200% increase in productivity (half the number of candidates in half the time). Here are the ones that made the difference:

• Understanding Real Job Needs. Although I prepared a performance profile for the technical job, it was a battle with the hiring manager (vice president level) all the way. He was insistent on a certain level of skills, experience, and industry background, and it was difficult to get him to change his point of view. The vice president of operations leading the project manager search was a different breed entirely. He quickly accepted the idea of emphasizing critical results and performance objectives as superior selection criteria rather than qualifications. Part of this was that he wanted to hire the best person doing comparable work, and he knew he would be able to find some all-stars outside of the emerging alternative energy industry.
• Becoming a Partner with the Hiring Manager on the Search. I was pushed onto the vice president for the technical job by the vice president of human resources. While a very competent person, he was old-school and he found using Performance-based Hiring to be inconsistent with his old-line management style. Although we got along, it was more obligatory than sincere. The vice president of operations for the alternative energy company sought me out through referrals and wanted to use new techniques to find top performers. We hit it off right away. This alone helped communications and understanding. After preparing the performance profile, he knew I understood the job, and trust and openness instantly jumped up a notch.
• Understanding the Market. I did my homework for the alternative energy company. Within a few days, I knew the players, the competition, how the industry was financed, and the short- and long-term market opportunities. On the other hand, the comparable market evaluation I prepared for the technical industrial products job was superficial at best, reflecting a minimal understanding of the industry jargon. Knowing the industry from a macro standpoint really helps when sourcing and assessing candidates, presenting the opportunity, and getting referrals. When you don’t know what you’re talking about, recruiters come across as a desperate car sales representative rather than an objective career consultant.
• Conducting a Performance-Based Assessment. As you know, I advocate the idea of digging deep into a candidate’s accomplishments (performance-based interviewing) and comparing these to the performance objectives described in the performance profile. The purpose of this is multi-fold. First, to assess competency and motivation. Second, to identify gaps in the candidate’s background that can be presented as stretch opportunities if an offer is ultimately made. If you don’t know the job, you have nothing to benchmark the candidate against. This compromises the assessment and precludes the idea of recruiting on anything other than hot air and promises. Not only do you have little confidence when presenting your candidates to your client, you’re also pretty inept when negotiating an offer. All you have then is compensation as a bargaining chip. So, even though I conducted the same interview for all of the candidates for both searches, I had far less insight and even less credibility with those candidates for the job I didn’t understand as well.
• Sourcing Active Candidates. As long as they can be easily found and are well-written, ads can attract the attention of top people who look on a casual and infrequent basis. With a little research, we found some great niche sites to post a compelling project manager ad. The title was something like “A Billion is a Lot of Green Project Manager Dollars.” It worked. We found a few strong candidates plus garnered a few quality referrals. While the technical director ad was interesting, we had less information and less desire to get creative. The results were satisfactory, but not stellar.
• Sourcing Passive Candidates. Don’t pick up the phone and call a single passive candidate if you don’t understand real job needs as well as have a great understanding of the market. For one thing, without a great voice-mail message packed with insight and some salient facts, few people will return your call. Even those hungry enough to call you back will quickly recognize your lack of knowledge and confidence. While I didn’t actually do the cold calling, our sourcers spent about one-third the time getting the first group of 20 prospects for the project manager search. Within a few days, we had candidates we could present. FYI: We found all but one of the initial prospects on ZoomInfo and LinkedIn.
• Networking and Generating Referrals. If you been to one of our training sessions, you know we spend a great deal of time teaching recruiters how to get great referrals from everyone. While there is much technique involved, if you don’t know the job and market, you come across as both insincere and superficial. It’s difficult to get strong referrals if you can’t build relationships, and it’s more difficult to build relationships if the person called doesn’t trust you. We expect to get 2-3 referrals on every cold call to a passive candidate. For the project manager, we came close to hitting these numbers; for the technical director spot, we were less than half the goal.
• Negotiating the Offer. If you want to place a top person who has multiple opportunities, you’ll need to position your job as offering at least a 30% increase over everything else the candidate is considering. Your objective is to make this 30% a combination of growth, job stretch, benefits, quality of life, and compensation. You’ll be able to prepare much of this comparison by conducting the performance-based interview mentioned earlier, looking for gaps in the candidate’s background. By asking lots of insightful questions, you’ll be able to demonstrate how your job compares to the competition. However, to successfully pull this off you need to know the job, the market, the competition, and the leadership traits of the hiring manager, and have equal in-depth insight into the candidates’ abilities and desires. We did a great job in closing the project director position. The candidate had multiple opportunities, but ours was far superior when compared both tactically and strategically with the others. The technical director comparison was harder to put together and less effective.

On a side-by-side comparison, it required at least twice the effort required to find candidates and negotiate the offer for the director of technology spot as it did for the project director position. While the sourcing, interviewing, and recruiting techniques we used were identical, we lost most of the time due to a lack of understanding of real job needs and the weaker relationship I had with the hiring manager. At a minimum, this required us to source, recruit, interview, and present more candidates. And, even though I believe I’m a very good interviewer, I felt less sure about my assessment of the technology candidates. Collectively, much of what we did for the director of technology job was a waste of time, and eventually it became just a numbers game. Taking the assignment properly and developing a strong recruiter/hiring manager partnership upfront are the real keys to improving your productivity. No matter what else you do to become a better recruiter, don’t ever lose sight of this fact.

“…It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines research as a “careful or diligent search,” a “studious inquiry or examination,” and “the collecting of information about a particular subject.” Why is it, then, that most executive search and recruiting professionals so often think of research as mere “name generation?” “Name gen” is rarely careful, diligent, or studious. More often, it involves a relatively haphazard scooping up of names and titles, willy-nilly. And that leads to a “kiss every frog” approach to recruiting in order to find your prince.

As the execution engine of executive search, your research can be either a Ferrari or an Edsel, a car that failed spectacularly due to poor workmanship and a failure to understand the American consumer. The Ferrari is Human Capital Intelligence: research that, through analysis, is transformed into actionable intelligence to provide your search with a competitive advantage. When you embed intelligence into virtually every step of your search process, you dramatically improve search performance. I’m not suggesting that you work harder. I am suggesting that by doing the following 10 steps, you can work smarter so you don’t have to work as hard.

1. Link your human capital intelligence strategy to the overarching strategy for the company. A company may be focused on growth and expansion into new markets, or alternatively may be focused on divestiture (selling assets that have been weighing the company down, while at the same time distracting it from its core business). Strategies are as varied as the businesses they inform. Ideally, your hires should provide a strategic advantage linked to that overarching strategy.

   You could, for instance, target candidates who have deep domain expertise in a new market your company is entering, with relationships and knowledge to leverage. Alternatively, you could raid primary competitors to knock them back a rung while you gain the advantage. Your understanding needs to be informed by deep background knowledge of the industry, its history, and its players. So read a few books that bring the history of the industry to life, keep up with industry publications, and continually track business news. (I keep a television tuned to CNBC throughout the day in a room adjacent to my office.)

2. Conduct an internal intelligence review. Critical information is usually scattered like buckshot across departments and teams within companies. Sales departments often have conference attendee lists. Marketing departments often have big market research reports. Your company has already paid for this information. Use it for recruiting, and you increase your company’s return on investment.
3. Study what actually works. Review the resumes of the people who have actually been hired into the position and team into which you are recruiting to determine what, if anything, they have in common. How many years of experience do they have? Is that experience aligned with the job description, or are they expecting more of the candidates than they are of themselves? Is there a cluster of candidates from any one particular company? For instance, check out Microsoft’s Distinguished Engineers and Technical Fellows, executive-level personnel on the engineering career track. What do you see in common? I’ll give you a hint: take a look at Hal Berenson, Dileep Bhandarkar, and Darryl Havens, or examine Technical Fellows Butler Lampson, Charles Thacker, and David Cutler. In fact, about a dozen engineers came from another company. (Have you figured it out yet?) The cultures are a perfect fit.
4. Consult with the hiring manager. Intelligence provides a platform upon which to build out a consultative relationship with an executive who serves as a hiring manager. If that manager is in need of a critical hire, he’s likely overworked and understaffed. The last thing he wants to do is to stop and download the information you need to find the perfect candidate. However, that is exactly what needs to happen. Rarely do position descriptions tell you what the candidate will actually have to accomplish his first year on the job to be considered a success.

   So ask. And don’t accept a simple explanation. Get granular detail, starting with the 5 Ws: Who (org chart), What (tactics), Where (travel), When (timetable), and Why (strategy). And, while you’re at it ask, “How?” Then, test the requirements by inquiring, “If I find someone who has successfully done what you need to have done, and if he only has eight instead of the required 10 years of experience, do you want to see him? What if he’s successful, but has only an undergraduate degree?” Start knocking out unnecessary requirements until you get to the core “must haves.” Review the compensation, and ask, “Are you confident the salary and scope is competitive when compared to other opportunities in the marketplace?” Set expectations and describe how you will provide him with actionable intelligence from Step 5 to make the search bulletproof, while at the same time find the candidates he needs.

5. Conduct market intelligence. Conduct research to capture and report out the number of similar openings against which you are competing. Find out what your competitors are offering in the way of salary, benefits, and relocation. Often, hiring managers and the financial personnel controlling the purse strings assume that the salary is competitive when it doesn’t offer a candidate enough of a difference to warrant making a move. You know it. The hiring manager knows it. Almost everyone within the organization knows it, but weirdly, everyone remains stuck for political reasons or simply through inertia. A market intelligence report serves as a powerful wake-up call for everyone involved and provides hiring managers with the hard data they need to go to bat for an adjustment in compensation, title, or scope.
6. Develop a search plan and work the plan. In Steps 1 through 5, you have gathered a great deal of potent information. Take a moment to analyze what it all means. Resist the impulse to dive in and scoop up big buckets of candidates from target companies. There isn’t enough of you to go around. Instead, work your sources to find out who the best people are. Report out a list of initial target candidates with biographies, and incorporate the feedback into your plan. Look for patterns upon which you can capitalize. Ideally, cherry-pick the rock stars. Never target entire companies. Rather, track specific luminaries or specific teams that are outperforming. To avoid wasted time calling the wrong people, reverse engineer the titles by examining job postings to determine what precise titles at each target company map to your opportunity. Prioritize the best targets and push less likely suspects further down on your to-do list.
7. Set news alerts for opportunistic swoop-ins. Visit the news page in Google and set alerts relevant to your search. Track RSS feeds. Scour blogs. Track reports of layoffs, mergers and acquisitions, and earnings disappointments, events which often make candidates a little more willing to make a move. If a company or an entire industry goes into free-fall (as was the case with subprime), it offers a significant opportunity to capture talent at virtually every level and function.
8. Develop a bench of executive candidates and candidate pipelines for staffing level. If you find yourself recruiting similar senior-level executives, it makes sense to proactively recruit a bench of candidates in advance of a role opening up. Building out candidate benches or candidate pipelines across a range of positions offers you the opportunity to drive time-to-fill to near zero.
9. Demand superior research and transparency from search firms. Retained search firms often tout their personal networks and proprietary databases as the reasons why you should choose them over their competitors. But those advantages have been largely rendered irrelevant by social networking sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook and by the proliferation of candidate information on the Internet. There is no shortage of candidates or of networks. What we have is too much information, too little intelligence. So before you waste your time with shootouts between firms vying to win a retained search, simply check the websites of Egon Zehnder, Heidrick & Struggles, Korn/Ferry, Spencer Stuart, or search firms of your choosing. If their definition of search process makes no mention of intelligence and revolves primarily around target company and target candidate identification, walk on by.
10. Conduct intelligence on intelligence: Share best practices. There is no one association for you to join that will help you leverage intelligence in search. The Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals will teach you about competitive intelligence, but it is not specifically focused on search. The Association of Independent Information Professionals will teach you about research, but not necessarily intelligence. David Lord has built a network of corporate talent officers for the sole purpose of advocating for best practices in search, but it is not focused on intelligence, and the same goes for the IACPR, an organization committed to that same end. As a result, we at The Good Search have had to build out our own roundtable. Collaboration speeds innovation and when done properly, all participants stand to benefit from the collective knowledge.

Clearly, harnessing the power of intelligence is a best practice that has long been embraced by other industries such as finance and marketing. Its arrival in the search business is long overdue. Recruiting that fails to leverage human capital intelligence is like searching with your eyes closed, with far too much stumbling around in the dark. Search that harnesses the power of intelligence continually scans the competitive landscape. It is as if the scales have fallen from your eyes.

I once was blind, and now I see.

Two recruiters called me last month to offer recruiting assistance on a particular project they heard my company was working on. This was a routine search in the $50,000 to $60,000 range that we had filled hundreds of times before. In this particular instance, however, we were caught in a backlog.

The recruiters were right about the period of time being longer than usual. Since both were esteemed individuals I’ve known and respected for well over 10 years, I decided to invest about a half hour with each to fully explain the search.

I should emphasize that both of these individuals travel through recruiting associations, attend conferences, keep their skills sharp, and represent that single-digit minority I would entrust sensitive projects to.

You could understand why I was frustrated when both said, “We’ll get right on this” but proceeded to not call back for one week. Then two weeks. Then three weeks.

Sadly, this is the manner in which many recruiters treat their clients. This type of behavior is not limited to recruiter-versus-recruiter relationships alone. And this is why most clients and hiring managers develop a disdain for recruiters.

At the very least, one could have called back after two weeks and stated something along the lines of, “You know, Frank, I really worked hard on this but could not find anyone suitable to refer.”

Or something such as, “I’ve had some other commitments come up and can’t work on this. I wanted to get back to you rather than leave you with no follow up communication.”

There’s nothing worse to a hiring manager (I consider myself a hiring manager as well as a recruiter) than long periods of dead silence after a recruiter is enthusiastic about helping you out.

It would be best had you not called at all. Now not only did you not perform up to your expectations, but you actually fell short of your previous image and brand you created.

The Grace Period

Is there such a thing as an appropriate “sound of silence” timeframe? And if so, is it one week? Two weeks? One call per month?

I say it depends on the level of a search and specificity of the industry and skill set.

For a few exceptions, when you are dealing with positions in the under-$75,000 per year range, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t call your client and provide feedback on a semi-weekly basis.

I have one account that demands we conference every Friday. We did just that until there was an ample pipeline of candidates and the conferences were no longer needed.

I like clients who demand action, because I usually get reaction in return for our efforts.

In my real-life experience, whenever I have actually called a client and “fessed up” that their search is proving to be more time and effort than what we had anticipated, they have always appreciated the information. This is especially true if there are particulars that go with it.

Sometimes by providing feedback, the client relaxes criteria or increases salary. Other times they have decided to rearrange the retainer so as to not have my firm walk away.

But to not call back at all is inexcusable, unprofessional, and a complete waste of valuable business time. I’m just as mad as any client would be not hearing back from a recruiter for three weeks after being promised action!

The Missing Recruiters

As it turns out, our organization finally found the “right candidate” within the next week or so after sharing this search on a split arrangement with my two trusted colleagues. So the subcontracted assistance was thankfully no longer needed.

Trouble is, they don’t know that due to their own inadequacies.

You see, I decided to call them to notify them of our success. Just in case they were working late into the evenings making dozens of calls and foregoing golfing on weekends on my account, I decided to advise them their services were no longer needed and that our candidate had been selected.

And the real punch line to this story? When I called and left a message, they still did not call back!

This tells me that they:

• never took the search seriously.
• lacked respect for my time.
• probably never spent more than one hour once they got off the phone with me.
• probably treat their clients the same way.
• have little regard for their image.

In a recent Fordyce Letter column, more than a few recruiters from around the country reported they had no qualms “walking away from difficult clients” if the search proved to be no longer worth the effort.

Walk away? Just like that? And leave another client scratching his head as to what’s wrong with our industry?

To walk away with no explanation tarnishes the search industry. To walk away and explain why this is necessary is a much better choice.

Please don’t give the rest of us a bad name through your long periods of silence! Call your clients. Call them weekly or semi-weekly. But please let them know something rather than handing them long periods containing nothing but the sounds of silence.