It sounds obvious, but as a starting point, ensure your public face is making the right impression. If your public presence isn’t up to scratch, it will cost you quality candidates. Who wants to join a business that hasn’t taken the trouble to present itself in the right way? This has little to do with the expense, much more to do with awareness. So many people complain about their own companies’ online presence: “I’m sorry, our website is pretty crap; we’re supposed to be updating it.”
One of my regular seminars for business leaders is centred around building high-performing teams. To succeed at this, you’ve got to hire the right people in the first place. At my event, I’ve looked at the public image of all the companies present, usually around 20, on the basis that top talent is going to be sought after and more likely to want to work for a company that, at least at a superficial level, looks attractive.
When I start to explain what I’ve done, the people in the room tend to look embarrassed and worry that I’ll single out their company for a shabby look. I don’t. I just highlight two or three that present an attractive dynamic image. On one memorable occasion it included an engineering company from Birmingham and a biotech from Cambridge. Both were delighted and really pleased that their efforts to portray a great image had been recognised.
When I joined Capital Radio as commercial director, I had a disappointing early experience. On air the company was always irritatingly optimistic and upbeat. Yet their physical reception area was a dingy mess of poor-quality merchandise and people sheltering from the rain. I still joined but I did get it changed. I remember saying to Richard, the then chief executive, had he noticed the disappointment on the faces of listeners and advertising customers as they entered the building? They were expecting a welcome that represented the on-air persona. When we relocated to Leicester Square, in the centre of London, we made amends and it was no longer an issue.
After image, the second priority is being clear about what you want the person to do. Not just now, but in the future as well. If they’re going to progress and will need additional skills at a senior level, identify those required attributes at the recruitment stage. Too many times I’ve worked with companies who’ve promoted an executive to a senior position and expected them to have skills they’ve never even possessed. Or skills they’ve never been able to easily develop and worryingly probably never will.
I’m sorry, but some accountants, engineers and IT people are never going to be killer sales or commercial people. And certainly vice versa! Yet, when promoted to partner or director, that’s often what’s expected. Disappointment, stress and anxiety inevitably follow.
Job descriptions often fall way short of what’s required. They are often a revamp of something drawn up some time ago, or more likely the work of someone in “the people department”, abundant with platitudes and corporate speak. It really is very important to be precise about the skills and experience that match the job requirement.
Companies struggle to find “really good” people because they don’t spend anywhere near enough time considering what they really need. Knowing the right person when you see them is not a successful strategy.
The next stage is as critical as the first two and is often where hiring mistakes are frequently made. If you were buying a company you wouldn’t take their word for the fact they say they are a great business, would you? Of course not. You’d do a considerable amount of due diligence digging, to ensure you weren’t being sold a pup. But when hiring people there is a great propensity to rely on personal judgement and gut feel. Important of course, but only if supported by evidence. And gathering facts about people can be tough, but not impossible.
When interviewing, I have a set of questions directly related to how I will judge that person’s performance. I provide examples of situations I know will confront them and ask how they will respond. I ask the candidate to provide me with examples of how they have managed similar encounters. I require them to provide evidence to support their answers.
The important point is the emphasis is on them to provide the evidence, not for you to seek it out (although, of course, you’ll be doing your own due diligence). To supplement this, add to the process some exercises very specific to the position. If the job requires them to write board papers, make them write one for you.
Take references, if not the current employer then the previous ones. It’s increasingly difficult these days, as people are frightened of being sued, but some will be helpful if not bound by a corporate policy of silence.
And take professional outside help to provide independent assessment. Personally, I favour psychometric testing to reveal traits such as energy levels, problem solving and other important areas not always apparent at interview.
I recently discussed this approach with a company that has a poor record of attracting the right people and then keeping them. Until now, the company took the view that you can’t question and challenge senior candidates because they’re above it and would be offended. They’re not the only company I know to take this approach.
They each interview the candidate, have dinner or lunch a couple of times and then make the hire. Unsurprisingly, it’s not particularly successful. I’ve been hired myself as a non-executive board member in exactly that fashion. There’s an assumption that because I’m a successful director in one business, I’m the right person to sit at their board table. Of course, I shared the responsibility to ensure it made sense from my side as well. I have to say that in more than one instance, it didn’t go well for either of us.
But back to the central point: avoiding the pitfalls and improving the chances of making a great hiring. A common situation that regularly occurs is that of senior people applying for a role in a much smaller business. There’s appeal in the big fish, small pond syndrome and I get that. Lost and overlooked in a large sprawling organisation, there’s much to be said for working in a much smaller company. Often it goes like this:
“We’ve some good news, a very senior guy from Google has applied for our CRO (Chief Revenue Officer) role. I wouldn’t have expected someone like that to be interested. But I’ve had a meeting with him and he’s really keen. Wants to work in a much smaller coalface environment and has a really great network of contacts.”
This could be a significant hiring for the company. Being the sort of small organisation that can attract talent from global corporations, who presumably have many career choices, is very flattering. And it’s great to tell shareholders and investors (if you have them) that the company is recognised as a go-to place.
These candidates tell us what we like to hear. And they’re certainly being genuine about it. Big companies that have lost their way. Laden with corporate rules that stifle innovation. Imported in-house regulations from elsewhere don’t help and therefore the time has come for them to apply their talents in the world of fast and nimble.
I have seen this work really well in some companies and disastrously in others. There is no doubt that acquiring big-name talent can make a very positive impact. Not just very senior people, but those who have also been expensively trained in a big corporate environment and are looking to move to somewhere less constraining.
To illustrate this point here’s an example of how it can easily trap you into believing what you want to hear. Some time ago, I joined a newish company as chairman in waiting. The business was a tech company specialising in state-of-the-art video production and had attracted a lot of outside investment. As part of my induction, the chief executive asked me to meet various team members. The creative IT guy fitted the stereotype. Hoodie, limited eye contact and a vocabulary that supposed I had a detailed knowledge of coding. If only. Nevertheless, we enjoyed our time together building virtual worlds on screen and discussing the commercial application and appeal for customers.
Next up was the CRO proudly recruited from a global tech business where he’d spent the last ten years or so. He was a very charming, friendly guy who was delightful to spend time with. He explained how he’d recruited the team into this very small company from other big-name players,