Contingency Model is Broken

May 11, 2012 Leave a comment

Yesterday I informed a client I would not work with them on a search.  The reason was not because I am too busy or because I did not think I could fill the search.  In fact, I do have time to take on a new assignment and there is no one on the planet who could do a better job on that search.  I know the company intimately and actually performed the position as well as being the hiring manager.

The reason I would not accept the assignment is the client had already engaged another firm and they wanted me to work on contingency.  I hear a lot of frustration from hiring managers that their HR or Talent Management people are not doing a good job finding quality people for their open positions.  I also know HR managers have a poor opinion of most external recruiters and most external recruiters have a poor opinion of HR.   I believe the contingency fee model is the primary culprit for poor performance from external recruiters.  How much time, money and effort would you put into a project if you knew the probability of success is less than 25%?  You see most contingency firms fill one out of eight assignments.  The good ones fill one out of four.  That means they are working for $0 per hour at least 75% of the time.  My opinion is that most of the time the contingency recruiter puts very little effort into a search.  They simply can’t afford to.  That is why I did not take that assignment.  Because of the rules of engagement established by the client, I would have  succumbed to a poor effort and most likely, a poor outcome for both parties.  Unfortunately, there are too many recruiters who would gladly take the non-exclusive contingency search.  What do they have to lose?  Spend a few hours on Monster and LinkedIn sourcing candidates.  Or pull some old candidates out of the database and sling over the resume.  We may know the candidate is no good but what if the other firm sends them and they get hired?  I must protect against that.  After all, I only get paid if they see the candidate from me first.  How many times do you hear the contingency recruiter tell the client reasons why they may not want to hire their candidate?  Never.  The contingency recruiter will probably spend more time coaching the candidate on how to impress you during the interview then he will vetting the candidate.  You see when you only get paid when your candidate is hired you do everything possible to get them hired.  Hey, they only need to stay 90 days and I get my full fee.

Here is my advice to clients:

  1. Hire a really good search firm and pay them part of the fee at the beginning of the search.  Make sure you have in writing what the firm will do for their fee.
  2. Receive a written guarantee from the firm that they will return the “retainer” if you, the client, are not satisfied with their service.  That does not mean you ask for the money back if you cancel the search or hire from within.
  3. Make the majority of the fee performance based.  One third due when candidates are interviewed on site and final payment upon hire.
  4. Ask for a flat fee and not a percentage of first year salary.  That way you will know the recruiter has your best interest at heart when negotiating salary.
  5. Treat the search firm as your partner on the search and give them complete access to the hiring manager and others on the team.
  6. Ask for a one year replacement guarantee.  If the hired candidate endorsed by the recruiter leaves within one year, they perform a search for a replacement at no cost.

If you are doing search on contingency – rethink your model.  As the saying goes, “you get what you pay for”.

Filed under Recruiting

Medical Device Company Uses the Technology of Teaming To Take Business to the Next Level

May 1, 2012 Leave a comment

The CEO of a Medical Device Company engaged Sanford Rose Associates and The Gabriel Institute to evaluate his management team.  The objectives were:

  • Capture a high level view of the state of the organization’s human infrastructure.
  • Identify individual and team strengths and weaknesses, with specific recommendations for improving job fit, team fit and team synergy.
  • Establish understanding and use of the Technology of Teaming and Coherent Human Infrastructure methods, enabling them to continue making effective, self-sufficient use of the technology in the future.

 

The results of the study were as follows:

  • Managers job functions matched their role preference
  • One key manager was rigid while another was diffuse.  Coaching was recommended to help them recognize behavior that could be detrimental to the team.
  • One key role was missing from the team.

 

A meeting was held with all managers.    The team was educated to the ten team roles identified by Dr. Presser.  The team was made aware of what role each team member plays and the value that person brings to the team.  In addition, that person’s role partner was identified and it was explained how working with one’s role partner can generate synergy.

 

Results:

  • The company has posted record revenue growth with a 53% increase in year over year sales.
  • Team members have a greater appreciation and understanding of their colleagues.
  • The missing team role was sought for the next hiring decision and the role filled.
  • All new hires are assessed to insure only team players are being added to the team and placed in the right role.

 

“Our entire team has taken the assessment and we are using it as a valuable tool for selecting all new hires.  I highly recommend this technology to any company interested in building a Coherent Human Infrastructure. “- client CEO

 

Interested in learning more about this Game changing Technology?  Contact tomt@sanfordrose.com

Filed under Teamwork

Teamability vs. DISC

April 18, 2012 Leave a comment

In this blog, I want to communicate the major differences between an old technology assessment (DISC) and a new technology (Teamability) and their business value.

DISC seems to be the most popular assessment tool for business today.  It takes about 10 minutes on line and costs $45.  I have taken the DISC and appreciate the information it provides.  My DISC tells me I am gregarious, competitive, trusting, not detailed, a good mixer.  It also says I prefer a team approach and am optimistic about my ability to manage people.  Per DISC, my value to the organization is that I am tenacious, take initiative, team player, change agent.  When I read my report I have to agree for the most part in its accuracy regarding my personality.   Is it helpful to know the person I am about to hire’s personality?  Sure, but I can probably figure that out pretty quickly in a face to face interview.  It is also easy to game the assessment to fit the position for which you are applying.

Teamability reports take about an hour on line and costs $80 per report.  There are two reports available, a self directed report and a management report.  The management report can be brutally candid so it is not typically shared with the candidate.  I won’t go over my report in detail but let me tell you I do not like a lot of what is written in my report.  I am a Threshold Diffuse Explorer.  That means I prefer to work independently (not on a team) and am focused on long range solutions.  My value to a team is to go out in the world and look for opportunities.  A good role for me would be to investigate emerging markets, evaluate competition, recruit talent and generally try to develop new avenues for organizational growth and prosperity.  My report says I can serve as a manager at any level of the organization but coaching is recommended to develop my potential.   Being threshold diffuse means I may perform satisfactorily under normal conditions but under stress my behavior is not very effective.    My report says I am self-focused and will not do well in any job that demands I give to others or make sure their best interests are attended to (OUCH!).

Look, I had some good success while working a corporate job.  With the guidance of a very good mentor, I hit some home runs that made a lot of money for my employer.  What is the reward in a big company for success?  A promotion to manager of course.  And more success leads to higher levels of management.  Guess what?  I didn’t like management.  At my old company, being in management meant being stuck in meetings all day…I hate sitting in team meetings!  What I really wanted to do was travel the world finding new opportunities.

Can you see the business value of the Technology of Teaming compared to DISC?  DISC says I am wonderful but don’t like details.  Teamability reveals things deep inside about my behavior that I could easily hide from a potential employer.   Regardless of what my mother tells you, I have flaws.   Yes it hurts to read some of this.  But, facing the reality about ones weaknesses is the beginning to both personal and professional growth.  Thank you Dr. J.

Filed under Teamwork

Teamability is a Game Changer

April 16, 2012 Leave a comment

The more experience I gain with the Technology of Teaming (formerly known as Role Based Assessment), the more convinced I am that this is “game changing” technology.  Have you ever experienced a new product, book, or movie and couldn’t wait to tell your friends about it?  Ipad owners probably can relate.  I was an early adopter and bought the Ipad when it was first introduced.  People would stop and ask how do you like it and I loved sharing my experience.  When enough people had purchased the product and loved it, everyone had to have one.  When we become emotionally attached to something we want to share it and are hurt when others don’t get it.  That is the way I feel about Teamability. After two years of using the technology, I have seen enough evidence that the information provided can be trusted.  Measuring Coherence, Role Preference, and Teaming Characteristics is the best way to predict how a person will perform on a team.   While many remain skeptical or uninterested in Teamability, we are making progress.  At some point we will reach that tipping point Malcolm Gladwell speaks of in his book by the same title.  In the meantime, my clients who have been the brave early adopters will reap the benefits of being first.  They will have reduced turnover and eliminated bad hires.  They will understand role preference and how much more productive and happy people are when they serve the team in the way they most want to serve.  They will create synergy that comes from role partnering by focusing on a person’s strengths and having them team with someone whose strength is their weakness.  They will hire coherent people and the workplace will become transparent and internal politics a thing of the past.  That day can’t get here soon enough!

Filed under Teamwork

Yale

February 2, 2012 4 Comments

Just a quick update on the outcome of my son’s recruiting process. Blake visited Yale weekend before last and loved the campus and his future teammates. Admissions said yes and he is almost a Yale Bulldog. In the Iveys, you receive a Likely Letter. That means as long as you don’t screw up between now and April, you are in. I am sure “The Game” will have special meaning for Blake the next four years.

Filed under Uncategorized

Harvard’s Loss

January 13, 2012 3 Comments

My son, Blake, received some surprising and disappointing news yesterday.  Admissions was denying him acceptance to Harvard.  Yes, many kids apply and few are accepted to this prestigious ivy league school.  However, Blake was recruited to Harvard as a football player and his Academics are above the average for accepted football players.  His journey started last February when the head coach, Tim Murphy, sent him a letter stating they wanted him on their team and would sponsor his application.  We were thrilled at the prospect of our son attending Harvard.  We visited the campus last June and met with Coach Murphy.  I was impressed with his sincerity and thought it would be great to have my son play for him. Harvard wanted Blake to play H Back and Coach Murphy would be his position coach as well as head coach.   In addition to Harvard, Blake was being recruited by Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown.  Outside of the Ivy League, he has been recruited by Vanderbilt.  Coach Franklin of Vandy said they are not sure they will have a scholarship to offer. The coaches told him it would be a last-minute decision and he if a scholarship was not offered, they would welcome him as a preferred walk on.

Blake took official visits to Brown and Harvard in back to back weeks in December.  He enjoyed both schools but decided Harvard was the best fit for him.  During his visit, Blake was told he would have no problem gaining admission.  There was only one hitch.  He needed to redo his alumni interview.  The reason for this was Blake mistakenly communicated to the interviewer that he was already accepted to Harvard.  Because of this, the interviewer did not take the time to ask the normal questions that would be asked in the interview.

Let me divert and try to explain Ivy League recruiting.  First, no athletes receives a scholarship in the Ivy League.  Coaches recruit athletes just as other Division I schools recruit their athletes.  The difference is there is no letter of intent signed.  You simply go through the application process and the coaches inform admissions the athletes they want on their team.  The Ivy League sets a minimum Academic Index a student athlete must have for acceptance.  The academic index is a combination of GPA and SAT or ACT score along with some other factors.  The minimum is 176.    In sports other than football, the team must achieve an average AI that is within one standard deviation of the student body.  Therefore, a school like Harvard would have a higher number than say Cornell.  The way the coach can work around this is to bring in some really smart kids to sit the bench.  Football is treated a little differently.  They establish four bands and a coach can have a certain number of athletes in each band.  For example, he could have 2 players in the lowest band, 8 in the next, 12 in the next and 8 in the top.  I have no idea why they would not be allowed more in the top band than the others but that is my understanding.  To read more about this go to an article from The New York Times here.

Blake’s Academic Index is 217 which puts him in the top band of football recruits.  Given he was in the top band and the coach really wanted him on the team, we assumed admission was a given.  So back to yesterday afternoon.  The coach told Blake he was not going to be admitted to Harvard and he was sorry but there was nothing that could be done.  It would be nice to at least be given a reason for not being admitted but we will never know.  Perhaps the admissions office was upset that an athlete would assume he was in and mistakenly communicate that to the alumni.

Coach Murphy told me this morning that he was shocked Blake was not accepted and he did not understand it.  They had Blake as their top H Back prospect in the country.  He said the coaches and players loved Blake and needed him on their team.  To his credit, Coach Murphy said he would call the other Ivy coaches and he was confident Blake could play for any of the other schools.  At this point, Blake will need to reach back out to schools he informed that he had selected Harvard and see if they still want him.  Blake actually preferred Dartmouth over Harvard after visits this summer.  He also liked Brown and their flexible curriculum (he would not have to take English).    The coach who recruited Blake for Harvard is Tony Reno.  Reno was named Head Coach at Yale yesterday.  I would think he would want Blake playing for the Bulldogs.    Blake may need to visit Dartmouth, Princeton and Yale very soon.  He also will explore walking on at some programs like Vanderbilt, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Stanford.  All have very good Bio Medical Engineering programs.

Life goes on and Harvard lost an outstanding young man.

Blake

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with ,

Building Championship Teams

January 11, 2012 Leave a comment

In the sports world we often hear about team chemistry. Teams with good team chemistry excel and those without it under perform. When a team spends millions on free agents yet can’t reach the playoffs (think Washington Redskins), we blame poor team chemistry. What we really mean is their wealthy free agents could not perform as a cohesive unit. I am thinking of Albert Hanesworth,who signed a $100mm contract, refusing to play the position the coach asked him to play. On the other hand, when a team performs at a championship level we say they have great team chemistry.

Chemistry is defined as the study of matter, its properties, and interactions with other matter and with energy. It is these interactions with others that we are talking about when we refer to team chemistry.  Business is also a team sport. There is a quote at the entrance of Sonoco headquarters (my former employer) from its founder that reads, “People Build Businesses”.   That quote is very simple but also profound. To build a championship business, you need the right elements (people) interacting towards a common goal. When you have team members who care more about their agenda than the team, you won’t succeed. Not only do you need “team players”, you also need the right mix of talents and personality on the team.   If everyone on the team wants to play quarterback, you can’t win the game.  You need some who don’t want the spotlight and enjoy being in the trenches blocking and tackling.  This is what excites me so much about Dr. Janice Presser and the “Technology of Teaming”.   She spent 25 years studying how people “team”.  Now we have a tool that measures if a person is a team player and, just as importantly, what role they want to contribute to the team.  My new consulting company, TeamWrx, helps companies utilize this breakthrough technology to build championship teams. If this interests you and you want to learn more, contact me at tomt@sanfordrose.com.

Filed under Teamwork

What Business Leaders Can Learn From College Coaches

September 2, 2011 Leave a comment

It has been a long hot summer and alas we are entering my favorite time of year… football season! High school football kicked off last week here in Tennessee.  My son Blake, pictured below, is a senior and is being recruited by several universities for football. After going through the recruiting process with Blake, I think there are lessons (good and bad) business leaders can learn from college football.  Here are some observations:

Lessons from College Football Recruiting

Football coaches know their success depends on their talent.  That is why they spend more time recruiting than they do coaching.  Head coaches make calls to prospects and travel all over the country meeting with players in their homes selling their program. They lead the recruiting effort. Business leaders should be like the head coach and involve themselves more in the recruiting process.  Don’t wait until a position is open to recruit talent.  Develop a list of the top people in and out of your industry and start recruiting them before you have a need.  Don’t delegate this to your HR department or rely on external recruiters to do this for you.  Write or call a star candidate and let them know you want them on your team.

Talented players are often overlooked. Division I programs insist players fit into a stereotype for size and speed at their position.  Tight Ends, for example,  must be 6”3”, weight 220 lbs. and run a 4.7 forty. One tenth of a second or one inch can be the difference in who is offered.  Football acumen, intelligence and leadership take a backseat to “athleticism” in player evaluations. Some prospects receive scholarship offers before they have played one high school game.  On the other hand, players like Dallas Clark  have to walk on.  Clark did not meet the stereotype for a tight end, but became an All American at Iowa and All Pro with the Colts.

Businesses also miss out on talented candidates because they stereotype when setting the requirements of the position.  Like a team that won’t recruit a Dallas Clark, companies miss out on good talent when they become narrow minded.  Examples of narrowly defined requirements range from college degree to industry experience.  Unwritten requirements often times are a person’s age, race, or gender.

Another mistake I see companies make is using personality tests for hiring.  They stereotype the personality of a good sales person as being aggressive and extroverted.  If one is selling used cars those traits may be good.  In strategic selling like capital equipment those traits may do more harm than good.  Yet, I have had clients stop the interview process when a candidate does not fit their personality mold.  It does not matter to them that the candidate has a proven track record and glowing endorsements.

Filed under Teamwork, Uncategorized

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.