Talent, where art thou? A tale of two leaders
Some organisations–and leaders–seldom have a problem attracting good talent(and not just huge branded MNCs). If asked, these people would likely say that if you want strong talent, spend time knowing the market–who is where, a lot of effort meeting and interviewing people, hire only on strength, and when ready to get them on board, act decisively, methodically, and in concert with the senior team. No short cuts, as it is a lot of work, if done properly.
Thankfully for headhunters,such leaders or companies are a minority; most organisations do a lukewarm job at best of hiring. If more CEOs and C level people acted that way, executive search would shrivel. Not disappear, but slacken..
Let me give you a sketch of one leader that gets it, and another who thinks he does, but has it wrong.
- He Gets It
A-P President, and does exactly the aforementioned, He spends (I am guessing) a minimum of 40% of his time interviewing and assessing talent in the region. And over the past 7 or 8 years has built an organisation that keeps building market share. His region has attracted and put senior people in China, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, all of whom could all be considered ‘heavy hitters’ with a big footprint and brand of their own. They’re still with him, and even if they left en masse, he’d get others in quickly. He is always looking and listening to see who is out there whom he should know. Or if he knows them already, where might they create value for his company, an innovative bent. He moves more quickly than his competition to take talent on board. I’ve seen him do it over and over again, with more success than not. (doesn’t help my search business with them, so I sit back and watch..) - He Doesn’t Get It
A-P MD, and his company is steadily hiring, but some of the new hires have left shortly after they started. More painfully, the company can’t seem to decide how to consummate strategic hires, and lose the potential of good new talent. Lots of infighting is apparent, and senior management is seldom clear or aligned on what they need as regards hiring. They are unclear of budgets, have a slow or hazy interviewing process that is not aligned, no team action in setting talent strategy, HR leaders that are functional rather than strategic, job descriptions all read the same, regardless of business unit or level,. And where is the MD in all of this? Seldom engaged in any of this, leaving it to his team to do it, not him.And if asked (and again I’m guessing) he would likely say that ” attracting talent” is the role of each business unit head and HR, which is what they are paid to do. So, no one in the market knows him, and quite honestly, he could not care whether they do or don’t, and has no time for “engaging” with new hires, too busy steering the ship to be bothered.
I know people at both companies, and the overarching difference is leadership, nothing else.
Our first hero outmaneuvers the competition by spending much more time attracting talent. He is known in the market, manages large personalties with a deft touch, works with his team to “close” a hire, and they have a relatively low turnover.
Our second hero is busy “running” the company, interviewing only those that have been scrubbed and chosen, a nod of approval, surrounded himself with loyal followers from previous companies, and brooks no dissent. Talent management? Not on his watch..
Top management must always take on a more active role in talent, and not leave it to others, move quickly when the flush of excitement is palpable, and avoid the horns of bureaucracy. Each interview matters–both to candidate and interviewer and leaders must create an emotional frisson that allows the candidate to say “Yes!” Not because of the package, but because of how it makes them feel, which is always what people say when they leave an interview, how they “felt”.. And I can tell you how people feel at each of these two companies..
