May 15, 2013:  Getting from job opening (point A) to hire (point C) is not all the same process for all search firms!

I work with a number of clients for whom executive, retained search is a first time experience.  I empathize that, at initial concept, it can seem like money up front for uncertain returns.  That uncertainty is usually mitigated by hiring a dedicated resource like a search firm consultant team (a retained firm should be focusing on your opening non-stop, without employment tasks around payroll, benefits or other less impactful positions being recruited for synonymously).  Uncertainty should also be reduced by carefully scrutinizing the process a search firm utilizes.  I often hear potential clients say "okay, so what's your process?  You all have a process."  Well, the distinctions are important because - just like location, location, location is everything when you're investing in property- candidate vetting and the process, process, process is the difference in recruitment firms.

It’s safe to believe that the assumed recruitment process is familiar to most people:  there is a position open, a job description comes together, sourcing begins, interviews with the recruiter are completed, interviews with the client are done, and an offer.  So how could that process vary, really?  Consider real estate or buying a single family home where you have a need (business or number of bedrooms), target location, offer, negotiation, an acceptance.  What assures the home will rent/resell or the business will flourish?  It's all in the process (aka due diligence).

The process at my firm, Allen Austin Global Executive Search, is what made me leave my prior firm.  I met my CEO, Rob Andrews, with significant resistance.  I was working at a "Big 5" firm and wanted to move up the ladder but was not getting the opportunity while I watched new consultants come in one after another from places like McKinsey (which was not on my resume).  I knew I wanted to leave but had a “Big 5” chip on my shoulder, convinced no place could possibly do executive recruitment better.  After my husband met Rob on the golf course and told me no less than 20 times to send over my CV, I reluctantly agreed to a Saturday lunch - with my husband and with his wife.  I didn't take the meeting seriously at all and even thought of bringing our 4 year old along; why not?

I met Rob that day and found him interesting, full of war stories and acronyms but no arrogance.  He told me about his days at other firms and interviewing elsewhere and finally starting his own firm to create the culture (servant leadership) he couldn't find anywhere else.  I was interested, enough to read his book "High Performance Human Capital Leadership."  That book, essentially a how-to guide for doing executive search (either in house yourself or through external consulting), proved to me that the process DOES HAVE variance and that the difference is in both the work product we deliver to clients and the diligence we conduct in vetting candidates.

QUESTION:  Do you receive candidate resumes identically formatted as a work product from your consultancy?

Reformatted resumes are my biggest pet peeve!  In my experience, those resumes are a serious "BS" deliverable to the client and take the admin staff (and researchers) hours - HOURS - to either pull from the system (no sourcing necessary) or retype from LinkIn or the source file.  How is paying for staff to retype resumes worth the big bucks a client pays in retained search?  Consider reformatted resumes a RED FLAG that you will not be getting the best diligence on candidates.  Moreover, if that resume accompanies a quick summary of the candidate and that is all you get in advance of a face-to-face, press the cancel button on that contract quickly. 

So what makes for a better retained search process with client deliverables being more than candidate resumes?  At minimum, see the resume as it was submitted by the candidate.  There is much to be learned by listening to the source, not the interpreter.  You should see the resume and discuss it with the consultant only for course correction, skills and sourcing purposes NOT as the primary document proposing someone for an interview.  Get as much information on the top 3-5 candidates, as vetted by the consultant, in order to spend your time carefully interviewing professionals that should go the distance.  The old "quality over quantity" idea.  At my firm, the vetting and diligence after resume includes:

1. Work History Report that defines the candidate's current and prior compensations, reasons for leaving each employer, and the positions that reported into their role.  This is all the stuff not overtly stated (or at all) on the resume.  The rest of the story.  
2. Candidate Self-Assessment that is significant, in length, and asks for contextual responses describing the candidate's professional history to provide color on their character, commitment to making an employment change, contribution they see themselves capable of making at the recruiting company, and culture they value and see themselves performing.
3. Executive Summary of our (we usually have two Partners working each search and both always meet the finalist candidates) assessment of a candidate's fit with the organization, presentation of their skills and capacity to perform within the go forward strategy that we have learned.  Though outside the scope of candidate vetting, our process of discovery about the client company, their go forward strategy and organization is another essential variable in the larger retained search process!
4. Psychometric Assessment results.  These are optional, and we utilize Profiles XT for its ease of interpretation.
5. 360 Degree Reference Audit, which is not an afterthought at the time of offer.  We talk to two superiors, two peers and two subordinates.  The operative word here is talk.  This is not an on-line form emailed to references with a hyperlink questionnaire; we actually speak live and report the responses nearly verbatim as an aggregate of the references though not directly attributable to the reference.

I get that the reformatted resume and a brief summary gets candidates in front of the client quickly, but how much more expensive is a search when you factor in the hours of several busy executives' time meeting with go nowhere candidates?  That cost is in addition to the length of time a search drags out when it goes past several months attempting to find a shoe that fits.

Getting from point A (job opening) to point C (successful candidate hire) is really about process.  While past searches completed by the retained search firm is important to build trust and credibility, consider how that volume was accomplished.  How are candidates are vetted and what information does the client see in order to determine who is worth the expense of time and energy?  Finally, beware of the reformatted resume.  It should be a sign that you’re retainer dollars are being spent on admin typing . . . and 70 words per minute doesn’t fill open positions