Executive search is used at all levels and across all functions in the commercial world. Yet in other sectors – Higher Education for example – it is not yet normalised as a recruitment tool; headhunters are used sparingly or at the highest levels only. It is in such sectors, therefore, that search is least well understood, and sometimes misunderstood. Dr Helen Yallop, who heads up the Education Practice at the headhunting company Moloney Search, and who is also a Research Fellow at King’s College London, addresses some of the misconceptions, and suggests ways of getting the most out of Executive Search Consultants, whether as client or candidate.
At worst headhunting is seen as expensive, manipulative and secretive: an unscrupulous business of networks and address books, lunches and cajolery. Perhaps the ‘secrecy’ tag is the most justified of the three misconceptions, for any service industry requiring a high level of discretion inevitably runs the risk of seeming mysterious. Confidentiality and tact are central to not only the success but also to the basic operation of executive search. Potential candidates cannot be compromised by explicit approaches in the workplace, and anonymity needs to be preserved until late in process. As far as possible, the hunting has to be imperceptible to all but the hunted.
The unfortunate corollary of this is that many potential clients remain somewhat in the dark about what headhunting actually involves, and some do not feel comfortable asking about it. But such caution is unnecessary and unhelpful: it certainly doesn’t follow that because the practice of headhunting is discreet that there should be any caginess about the theoretical process. Clients should not be afraid of asking their headhunters about what goes on and how it is achieved. It is entirely possible for us to qualify and quantify what we do, and it is not in the interests of our own reputation to operate shrouded in mystery.
Costs may or may not be negotiable for clients in cash-strapped sectors and circumstances, yet there are several ways of assuring good value for money. To start with, anyone paying for a ‘search’ should expect just that. Even if the headhunter could produce a shortlist after making as few as six calls, a search should by nature be extensive. It should have a broad international reach, and it should bring the vacancy to a large number of targeted and appropriate potential candidates whether they are technically in the market or not. In terms of scope, ‘searching’ might mean approaching anything from 150 to 300 people (sometimes more). In order to achieve this, search needs to be preceded by the appropriate research into sectors, communities and industries. If in any doubt about scope, clients should follow the recommendations of Dr. Curly Moloney who wrote the Cabinet Office recruitment guidelines and audit the headhunters’ work, or at least request a short report on search data.
A positive adjunct to volume is diversity. We can ensure that we approach balanced numbers of women and men. As search is to some extent self-selecting, we cannot ensure a perfect 50/50 split of men and women when it comes to longlist stage: the longlist represents the best of those who express genuine interest, and often this interest is not equally balanced between the sexes. However, voluminous searches do tend to produce diverse shortlists; diverse not only in sex and other biological criteria, but also in experience and background.
Clients should realise that they can learn a lot about their own organisation via headhunters. A search can double as an intelligence gathering exercise. In the course of the many conversations conducted during a search, headhunters will be able to gauge reaction to the client institution in the marketplace, hear the gossip about it, and get a sense for its perceived reputation. This is valuable information for clients, and tapping into it is simply a case of asking headhunters for their post-hoc analysis of marketplace perception.
A search is also a great opportunity for clients to manage their PR. As headhunters are hired ambassadors for the client institution, it is advisable for clients to think carefully about how they wish to be thus represented. Whereas it is obvious that this should inform the initial selection of headhunting company (and the individual headhunters), it is sometimes less obvious to clients that they have the opportunity to choose the image they want to project, and brief the headhunters accordingly.
This kind of ‘added value’ can have long-term beneficial effects. A good headhunter can ensure that candidates have a positive experience (regardless of ultimate outcome), and a good experience cemented in the memory can generate interest, business or even funds for the client in future. For example, conducting a search for an HEI or charity can allow for the gentle articulation of its development strategy to an audience amongst whom there may be potential supporters.
It is a commonly held misconception that headhunters persuade (at worst, cajole) less than enthusiastic or wavering candidates into entering discussions with clients. Whereas it is undoubtedly true that a good headhunter will have the capacity to emphasise aspects of a role that are likely to appeal to any individual candidate, it is simply not in our interests or those of our clients to persist with and engage the less than enthusiastic. Those who begin so tend to drop out of the process at some stage. It is costly and inefficient when this happens; costliest in all respects when it occurs late in the day.
For exactly the same reasons, headhunters must engage interested candidates in extensive and realistic discussions of client and role. It is easy to make a sought-after or prestigious appointment sound attractive; it is more challenging, yet far more important, to be able to have frank and insightful conversations about the quotidian trials and frustrations attendant on the role. Yet mismanaged or unrealistic expectations can lead to failed appointments. Failed appointments are not only unpleasant and emotionally disruptive but also regressive and costly. It is here particularly that our reputation is at stake. Although most headhunters will offer to repeat the search gratis if an appointee leaves the post within 6 months, it is more important to appoint a headhunter who will take the time and have the insight to present the vacancy in a positive yet candid way from the outset.
Unsuccessful candidates sometimes reflect retrospectively on the validity of their own candidacy. In some cases this prompts thoughts such as, ‘If I’d known they wanted to appoint the sort of person they have, I’d not have thrown my hat in the ring.’ No doubt there are suspicions that headhunters waste candidates’ time by including no-hopers on longlists in order to bulk them out. However, it is very often impossible to judge until very, very late in the process who the serious contenders really are. For, no matter how much time a headhunter spends with the client taking a detailed brief, and regardless of its initial specificity, it often develops in unpredictable ways. Longlists are often deliberately diverse and allow the headhunter to show the client range and scope: what and who they can get for their money. It may only be the action of going through the longlist in detail that allows the client to refine their thoughts on the kind of background and experience that is going to be most relevant.
Although the business model of executive search is client driven one, and it is ultimately to our clients that we answer, candidates are far more than raw materials. Indeed it is our duty to ensure that there is no distinction between our treatment of clients and our treatment of candidates. Candidates must be fully informed decision makers whose individual circumstances we learn and respect. Those who go through (often long and arduous) processes need to have considerable faith in their headhunter’s ability to guide them through it, keep them fully informed, and to communicate with them regularly. Moreover, they need to be able to see us as advisors and confidantes with whom they may share often quite sensitive or personal information, along with the gamut of hopes, desires and fears that interviewing engenders. Often intuitive by nature and acutely aware of how a recruitment process can be a life changing experience for candidates, headhunters are trained in how to make things easy and pleasant. The best indication of our success in this respect is when our candidates go on to become clients.
Points to bear in mind for getting the best out of headhunters: