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, and that it was a very important endorsement of the company plan that these people had joined. So far, so good. Of course, this talented team didn’t join for peanuts, so to cover their own costs at least they needed to run pretty fast.
We looked at revenue generated against the business plan. The gap was significant. We discussed the challenges around that and what initiatives were in place to create sales. What became apparent was that these commercial hires from big-name companies had zero experience in taking a sales proposition to a new market. Their contacts were the wrong people, so in effect they brought no existing relationships into the company when they joined.
Furthermore, their former experience was all reactive. By that I mean incoming briefs were handed out and their role was to respond with a proposal that fitted the request. Tramping the streets of London making multiple meetings with new contacts just wasn’t on their radar.
“How many sales have you made?” I asked the CRO. “That’s not my job,” he replied. “I manage the team.” Said it all really. They all left and so did I. The chief executive likened my participation to having his homework marked. He didn’t respond well to accountability. I wished him luck.
But I also work with companies where the outcome has been far more positive. With people who are much less comfortable in a rules-based environment. Or those who feel they’ve been unfairly passed over in the promotion stakes and acknowledge their future is probably best organised elsewhere. Often these types flourish; I’ve seen this on many occasions. Interestingly, they often recommend previous colleagues to join them. A great endorsement for the company they work for now.
It’s important to understand the motivations in both instances. You can sometimes hire big names that will succeed in a smaller company environment. These people are able to adapt to a more hands-on accountable way of life. They don’t need the back-up and resources of a large corporation. Equally, highly trained professionals from global corporations can have spent years hiding in what can be a too-forgiving organisation. When they are eventually moved on, it can be the smaller companies that take up the slack.
“Hey, we’ve just made a great hire from Kellogg.” Only to find that Kellogg finally bit the underperformance bullet and their problem child has just been adopted by you.
The Monday Revolution (you can start on Monday)
1. First impressions are important. Make sure your image is the best it can be.
2. Describe the role in a clear, positive and dynamic way. If it reads like a job written by somebody who doesn’t understand what they’re doing, you’ll not be making a great hire.
3. Take personal responsibility for the first two points.
4. Ask candidates to provide evidence to support their claims. If they can’t, don’t hire them. And do your own digging.
5. Have a proven process for employing people. Use tests, psychologists, practical exercises. Good people won’t mind. In fact, they’ll be impressed with your diligence.
6. Hiring people is a gamble. Shorten the odds to get the best result you can. And remember, once they’ve arrived chucking them in the deep end until some meaningless probationary meeting isn’t the best approach.
Chapter 4
Sticks and carrots
Pay and reward
Not long into my eight-year tenure as CEO of Capital Radio, I was confronted with an important decision. Chris Tarrant was our number one DJ and his London Breakfast Show generated millions in advertising and sponsorship revenue. He had a fixed-term contract with some time to run. Anticipating the negotiation, his agent secured a written offer from one of our closest competitors, Heart FM, to double
