| Recent and Current Searches |
 |
GM for a new Napa resort and private club
President for a national ministry
CEO for a large, national tour operator
CFO for a senior living provider
CFO for a California university
CEO for an international non-profit in California
CFO for a hotel company undertaking major growth
CFO for a nationwide broadcasting company
CAO/CFO for a start-up aircraft company |
|
| CHOSEN CANDIDATES ARE OUT-OF-BOUNDS FOR HOW LONG? |
 |
In the last Reflections from the Lamp we asked our readers how long a candidate hired by a client should be "out-of-bounds" (meaning we would not recruit them away from the client where we were involved in their being hired). There were numerous responses on the subject and the responses were varied; some from the employer's perspective and some from the employees, some from the younger generation who are used to making career moves more often than those in the older generation. Some were fairly passionate on their position. Thanks to all who responded.
To date, we have never recruited a candidate from a position where we were the search firm involved in them being hired except with the client's permission. And only a few candidates have ever asked us to consider them for another position. So, after much reflection and counsel here's what we are planning to do.
Effective January 1, 2008, for all new executive search assignments we will grant "ten-year" status to the candidates we place. We will not consider a candidate we've placed in their current position except with the employer's consent…or if there has been a change of control of the company for a decade after their start date. We will have a "ten-year" policy on placed candidates. It is not a retroactive policy so it only affects new searches starting after January 2008.
Ethics are very important to us. We want to do what is right to all parties involved, so this was not a subject done without serious consideration. We believe the policy modification is fair to all parties.
by Bruce Dingman |
|
| AN IMPERFECT RECRUITER |
|
We answer honestly when asked about our success rate: We are not perfect. "Success rate" is hard to define but for the sake of discussion let's use the standard that the client was happy with the results of our work … even years later. Although our success rate is very high, once in a while we fail. Sometimes we can't find a person either due to the client's expectations, the specifications on experience, the location or the compensation. Over 95% of the time we succeed, but not always.
In my twenty years of doing search, all candidates I have placed with a client have lasted over a year in the job for which they were hired and many have stayed well beyond ten years.
They say confession is good for the soul. Although it may not have a positive effect on our reputation or new business, for the sake of transparency let me describe what happened recently.
One particular client was a non-profit organization with which I am very close and very involved. Four years ago I did a pro bono search for a key leadership position for the organization. That person has now left the organization under a cloud; a moral failure.
My staff and I had originally felt very good about the candidate. We had done our usual due diligence and every thing looked good. Was there anything we should have seen that would have caused us to realize this problem was going to appear? The answer was no. (We were really tough on ourselves. We felt both professional and personal anguish over what has now happened.) Sometimes there can be a change in a person that could not have been predicted. Our candidates are typically excellent, but the reality is they are not perfect, and neither are we. And neither even is our client. But we'll continue to keep asking the questions about how we can do a better job. We owe that to all parties involved.
by Bruce Dingman |
|
| Book Reports |
|
 Go Put Your Strengths to Work
By Marcus Buckingham
Reviewed by Tim Bernstein |
Go Put Your Strengths To Work (GO!), by Marcus Buckingham, is about doing more of what you do well and less of what you don't!
GO! is an interesting book for at least three reasons. First, it puts feet to Marcus Buckingham's first book, Now, Discover Your Strengths (NOW!). Second, it continues and vastly expands on the online integration of learning by means of an individualized "secret" code on the inside of the book's dust jacket. Third, it starts off by debunking three culturally fortified myths all (or most of us) contend with and replaces them with provable truths.
Myth and Truth #1: "As you grow, your personality changes versus; as you grow, you become more of who you already are." This theory is foundational to both books. Truthfully, this was eye opening to me for I have spent years trying to remediate weaknesses that, in turn, have caused me to discount my strengths.
Myth and Truth #2: "You will grow in the area of your greatest weakness versus; you will grow most in the areas of greatest strength." We are culturally and educationally programmed to "fix what is bad, deficient or lacking." However, Buckingham asserts that when we play to our strengths they are more likely to be improved and capitalized on.
Myth and Truth #3: "A good team member does whatever it takes to help the team versus; a good team member deliberately volunteers his strengths to the team most of the time." According to the author, the end result of making the most of our strengths is that we are better able to serve our team and organization as a whole.
I read NOW! and took the online test a few years back while in a leadership program. It was part of a battery of behavioral measurements designed to help participants understand their motivations, drives, tendencies, strengths, weaknesses, etc. For simplicity sake, it would align with the Myers-Briggs Indicator, although the Strength Finder focuses on—you guessed it—strengths. To get the most out of GO!, it is suggested that you read NOW! and take the Strength Finder test.
GO! seems to be targeted at mid-senior leadership roles. The author uses the Hampton Inns' obsessively guest focused orientation as an example of how the GO! System can increase productivity and the level of satisfaction. Buckingham gives concise, step-by-step worksheets and tips on how to put your strengths to work. Additionally, he offers online media, worksheets and measurement tools to equip you to become focused on what you do well and enjoy most.
The author suggests taking about six weeks to fully embrace the system. I think this could be beneficial. He also lists how to implement the change, deal with difficult managers, and how to develop weekly, monthly, and quarterly plans to profit most from your areas of greatest strength. I recommend the book especially for those who feel stalled, bored, or frustrated. Before making a purchase, find more information at www.simplystrengths.com. |
|
| Our People |
|
Bruce Dingman
President
Donna White
Vice President
Tim Bernstein
Associate
Patti Schultz
Office Manager
Allison Lindauer
Admin Support
Connie Schuh
Bookkeeper |
|
|
|
| Feature
Article |
HIRING FOR THE RIGHT VALUES
by Bruce Dingman
Few leadership tasks are more important than hiring the right leader. As one of the preeminent recruiters in the country, I am often asked by clients to "find excellent candidates who fit our values." It can be done but one must be careful not to discriminate.
The American legal system is both a blessing and a curse in that one can sue another for any reason at any time. While we've never been sued nor accused of illegal discrimination, we are very wary of what we can or cannot do legally. If values are pertinent to the job and don't discriminate on the basis of religion, disability, veteran status, age, sex, sexual orientation, race, national origin or ethnicity, then it's legal and important to use such values in hiring the right person.
By the way, only religious organizations categorized by the IRS as "501 (C) 3 religious" are ordinarily permitted to use the basis of one's faith for hiring. Consulting with an employment discrimination attorney should be done to ensure the employment criteria used is legal.
We are very careful to stay clear of any questioning or considerations that might be illegal or inappropriate. Even so, there are numerous values that can help in selecting an executive who will fit with those of an owner or organization.
Such values may include:
- Interpersonal Skills: How does the person relate to others in the work place?
- Ethics and Integrity: Is the person honest, can the person be trusted?
- Work Ethic: Does the person work the hours needed, rather than a minimum 40 hours or being a workaholic?
- Personal Growth: Does the person keep growing and learning?
- Personality Traits: Extroverted/introverted balance, self-confident, humble, compassionate, has contagious enthusiasm for "selling" ideas to others and sensitive to others yet can perform tough tasks like firing someone.
- Leadership Traits: Is there evidence of intelligence, vision-casting, wisdom and creativity?
- Reaction To Criticism: Does the person want to receive and learn from criticism? Or does he react negatively and reject it?
- Decisive vs. Hesitant: Is the person afraid of making mistakes? Does the person want everyone to agree to the extent that it's not leadership?
- Transparency: Is the person open and willing to be authentic and accountable?
- Macro-Manager vs. Micro-Manager: Does the person give people freedom to grow and/or work semi-independently? Or does the person closely monitor others?
- Compassionate vs. Job Results-Oriented: Is he/she genuinely caring about others while balancing the needs of the organization?
While staying within legal bounds the employer should first define his/her values and the organization's values to which the new executive should fit, then use those values in choosing the right person to hire. |
|
|
|
SOME HIRING BASICS
by Bruce Dingman |
|
Often our clients are organizationally young; systems and standards are still developing, and accordingly some of the common "best practices" in human resources are not yet in place. In case it might be helpful, let us mention some of those best practices.
Salary Ranges
All well run organizations will have a compensation range for each position, whether the position is hourly or salaried. Ideally a person is hired between the bottom and mid-point of the range so there is room for increases over time. However, the range should only be a guideline; getting the best person is what is most important. So if the right person is available but outside the range, then it might be best to pay within reason what it takes to get that person.
The relationship between different positions is hierarchical, one is valued more than another; however, given there may be overlap between the ranges it could well be that a senior person in a lower level position might earn more than an inexperienced person in a higher level position. As long as people understand the range concept, it should be acceptable and reasonable. Bear in mind, credibility of the compensation strategy in the mind of the employees is important for it can affect their support and enthusiasm for the organization and its leadership.
When hiring we never wish to tell a candidate "the client is looking to pay X dollars." More likely we'd say, "The client doesn't know what it will take to attract the right person but they think it's likely to be X dollars or more." We want the "marriage" to include appropriate compensation satisfaction by both parties. If both parties are thinking in the same range, there is a likelihood that both sides will end up with a satisfactory situation. However, the candidate or employer may be taking an unrealistic position. We accordingly counsel in hopes that something appropriate will result.
Seniority Pay versus Pay for Performance
Most organizations give periodic raises. The person has learned more and hopefully is more efficient, so deserves more money, right? Not necessarily so.
It's not uncommon in large organizations for an old-timer to say to a new comer, "Just keep your nose clean and you'll get raises." That does little to motivate excellence. But there is a better way.
If quarterly reviews are done with credibility (devise a system that's easy to do and train the supervisor so that the employee feels each review is fair and accurate), then a position might have two components: a base wage for the position and a premium wage for excellence. The premium wage is earned each quarter for the next quarter and could include how well the person did on quality of work, team orientation, customer orientation, punctuality, absences, attitude, reaching goals, etc.
Cost-Of-Housing Allowance
Often we are involved with a new hire coming from a much lower cost of housing area. Dallas, Texas to Westlake Village, California is such an example. To make up the difference in the cost of housing (i.e., $500-700,000) by paying a higher salary can skew the compensation ranges. We've seen several clients use a better way.
They have made a corporate policy to use on an "as needed basis" for new hires "cost-of-housing" allowance. That might be $10-50,000 (depending on what's needed to cover increased mortgage costs), and it would stay in the person's compensation package indefinitely. However, it is never increased. Once the person has locked in their cost of housing it's not subject to inflation, so it does not increase over time like a salary would.
Using a cost-of-housing allowance has three advantages: there is no increase in the cost over time, it keeps compensation plans in order, and it's only used as needed when bringing a new hire into a higher local housing market.
Recruiting Firms In Various Forms
Knowing your firm's needs and which type of recruiting firm can best serve that need is important. All search firms have some niche they serve. No search firm effectively handles all the types of needs an employer may have. At various times the employer may need a firm providing a receptionist on a temporary basis, an executive secretary on a permanent basis, a localized search to find a VP-Human Resources, a national search to find a CEO, or a very discrete search to find a uniquely experienced person for the Board of Directors.
Retained versus contingency. Contingency firms get paid only if someone is hired and therefore that recruiter cannot afford to put a lot of effort into the search. The retained recruiters, assured they will be paid, are committed to the search's success. Contingency recruiters tend to handle positions paying less than $120,000 and retained recruiters tend to handle positions paying $120-150,000 or more. For more information let me know and I'd be glad to send you an article I wrote that was published in Lodging magazine dealing with the issue of retained versus contingency.
Specialist firm versus generalist firm. Some firms specialize in just one industry or one function, (i.e., only find attorneys or only work in the hotel industry) and others are generalists who work in many arenas and in numerous functional areas. The Dingman Company is both. We're specialists in hospitality, education and non-profits and we're also generalists having done searches for the travel industry, industrial manufacturing, technology, healthcare, etc. In the areas where we're specialists, we have greater knowledge of the industry and our Roladex of contacts (and candidates) for that arena is substantial. However, any good generalist firm can find excellent candidates. Having professional research capability in finding candidates is part of the fabric of a good search firm. As Willie Sutton, the bank robber said, "I rob banks because that is where the money is," we just figure out where the candidates are, and then find them. The reason to use a generalist rather than a specialist is the client's belief in the recruiter's professionalism, integrity, ability to perform, and often having already done excellent work for the client or someone the client knows. Personal referral or repeat business are the two highest reasons a recruiter gets an assignment.
The recruiter versus the firm. Perhaps the biggest mistake a client can make in hiring a recruiter is to have based the decision on the work that others in the firm have done. While touting the research already done may impress, will there be any new research done to find new candidates versus just recycling the runner-up candidates into the new search? Will the recruiter that seeks the assignment be the recruiter handling the search or will it be delegated to a rookie recruiter who is perhaps unknown to the client? The excellence of the search results depend on the recruiter you hire and not necessarily the reputation of the firm.
Big firms versus small firms. The dangers of using a large firm can be significant and multiple. For some large firms there is little collaboration between recruiters. There might even be a practice that the resumes of candidates under consideration for a similar search within in the firm are not available to another recruiter. Or if they are, might the search firm be presenting the same candidates to more than one client at the same time and whoever hires the candidate first wins? Has the firm done so many searches in that arena that many of the places to go looking for candidates are out-of-bounds?
We offer prospective clients a list of questions to ask the recruiter being considered so that they can make an informed decision. The list is yours for the asking. |
|
|
|
NEEDLESSLY MAKING A BAD IMPRESSION
by Bruce Dingman |
|
Without question, one is often disappointed in themselves if they make a bad impression when they didn't realize their action would have that effect. One such area is being chronically late.
A June 3rd article in the New York Times' Career Couch column by Phyllis Korkki addressed this issue. It's a subject that is seldom addressed, yet ought to be and she offered some fresh insights.
Ms. Korkki adds a lot more information on the subject. She says such people are mostly in two groups: the "deadliner," who gets an adrenaline rush by being under pressure; and the "producer," who gets satisfaction out of seeing how much she/he can get done so purposefully overfills the schedule.
Over the years, we've heard a variety of excuses why people say they tend to frequently be late: "People are so important to me that I don't want the person I'm with to feel I have to dash off to another meeting, but rather they feel so valued that I want to finish what we need to cover. And my people (who are waiting for me) know this, so it's not a problem."
I completely disagree with that excuse. Tardiness sends the opposite message to those who had an appointment scheduled—communicating that they are not valued and it doesn't matter that they have to wait. When meeting with someone who says, "I will have to leave in 15 minutes for a previously scheduled meeting," the person understands and will not feel unimportant when the other person has to leave.
The scenarios just described deal with a positive reason why someone is late … the person cared about how others reacted to being late, even though the perspective was erroneous in my opinion. But being tardy often is not a result of caring about others. Rather it's because of poor planning, procrastination, overly optimistic in how much time things will take, or all of these.
This will come as a surprise to those who are chronically late. Being late besmirches your integrity. When one makes a commitment to be somewhere at a certain time, then to not do so is technically to have lied. Most people would not be hardnosed on that if it's occasional, but if tardiness is chronic at least subconsciously they might think the person doesn't live up to their commitments, so it affects one's reputation or integrity.
Whatever the reason behind being chronically late, it's a red flag in this recruiter's book. It's a fairly serious and easily correctable flaw.
While being late can have negative effects on productivity within an organization (others are waiting, even talking about the person's tardiness), it also has a negative effect on relationships. Most people who have been kept waiting feel that the tardy person does not value their time or perhaps even value them. They might even think "Does this person think they are so important that making me wait is ok?" The ultimate effect is that tardiness degrades the personal and working relationships with others. It also has a negative effect on morale within the organization.
Personally, I've never wanted to hurt anyone or make a bad impression, so I make it a practice to always be early. I practice the axiom of "He who is always early is never late." It works. Think about it. Ask those close to you how you do. Do you want to maximize the impression you can achieve? Then don't let chronic tardiness, such an easily fixed thing, be a detractor to your work and personality. |
|
|
