Search Firms - A 360 Degree Evaluation

Who treats candidates poorly (particularly those who are out of work) and which firms do a good job? It’s time to hold firms accountable for rude behavior and conversely praise those that treat the job seeker with respect and dignity...

---

March 29, 2007 [Anonymous Contributor]

[JUDY]

I talked about the position but did not reveal the name of the company. The following exchange ensued between two very assertive people."

I don't understand all of the secrecy -- if this is a legitimate company seeking a legitimate public position "communications" then I think this secret way of communicating is bizarre. If you want me to respond to a real position, then give me real information, and don't represent yourself as PRSA when you are with a soliciting firm. If you have legitimate business to do, then I can be very helpful, but I cannot go along with this cagey approach.

[JUDY]

My firm has an obligation to protect the name of the client at an early stage of the search. The reason is that if the identity is widely known, they will be inundated with people cold calling them. The other is the delicate nature sometimes of the relationship to the client and the potential candidate. By keeping the discussion at a confidential level until we determine if there is a possible fit, the individual does not need to risk knowing information that could be harmful to his/her career if superiors found out that the individual was looking at a potential "competitor."

What I am doing is standard practice in the retained search world and protects everyone involved. One of the fundamental reasons search firms exist is to keep these walls in place until there is a need to know.

Please check my web site for a statement of mission and values. I live them and have earned the trust of both clients and candidates during the more than 25 years I have been in business.

I appreciate your business, and understand the confidentiality issues... I myself would need more straight forward information to pursue this, even though I am intrigued.

TOP

January 30, 2006 [Judy Cushman]

[JUDY]

I have been astonished and disappointed to hear how search executives treat senior level PR executives who are job hunting and not employed. Their lack of courtesy, follow-up and knowledge about the content of positions should not be ignored. As a job seeker, no matter how senior, the candidate feels disenfranchised and powerless since s/he needs to be “blessed” by the search executive in order to be considered as a candidate. This will be a page for anonymous contributors to talk about their experiences both good and bad and name firms and search executives (if they care to, that should be singled out).

The business of finding a new position can often be an emotional roller coaster and for a senior professional that can be a foreign experience. In many cases, a Senior VP, Corporate Communication, makes the offers and decides whom to hire. He or she expects to be treated well by search firms (as they have in the past when they were the client, not the candidate.)

A talented and successful former client and senior corporate communications officer shared his experiences and frustrations as he pursues a leadership position.

TOP

January 30, 2006 [Anonymous Contributor]

The newsletter sounds like an interesting idea.  I think, first and foremost, is the need for at least a modicum of etiquette regarding timely feedback, next steps and timetables.  I can't tell you how often I've passed weeks without hearing anything.  Even after following up, sending notes.  I know it's a two way street -- patience is not my best virtue... but, still. 

To say nothing about being jerked around, kept on a leash, given minimal information.  I could write a book. To me, you've got to bite your lip, take a deep breath, walk around the block...do whatever it takes to shake it off.  What happened to treating people the way you'd like to be treated?  And, don't they know that, but for the grace of God.... 

I think you can also do the world a favor if you cover the example of hiring executives giving relatively narrow searches to people at firms who have no experience in/with the discipline.  I can tell you from this end that it's really annoying and frustrating.  And I think the hiring people are doing their companies a disservice. 

Meanwhile, for what it's worth, I think there's a mini-trend going on with corp comms people being packaged out, often with jobs eliminated.  I think it's a sign of the times -- work that's harder to justify than the contributions from other fields, greater than ever urge for revenue and profit growth through sales can lead to consolidation with communications people being the fall people.  It's not good.  To say nothing about the need to, in order to be successful, tie one's coattails to the CEO, who is now in a more and more tenuous position than ever.  This is not good for job security.

[JUDY]

We have continued to discuss his experiences and he elaborated on his contacts with “headhunters” and how his job search has had some unexpected and positive consequences.

Here are some additional thoughts regarding search/headhunters, which you are free to use;

I don't know how many times I've been promised feedback from a recruiter following a day of interviews, only to find dead air when I follow up.  All of a sudden, what had been instant call-backs moves to a black hole where there is no response to either e-mails or phone messages.  And this can go on interminably.  If there was a problem, if I said something I shouldn't have, if there was no chemistry, tell me.  I'll get over it.  At least I'll know where I stand, be able to try and learn from it and, most important, go on. 

I'm sure there are often examples on the flip side, where we don't get back to the recruiter or we don't respond to their inquiries.  My view is; this is also bad behavior, on our end.  Wouldn't it make sense to call back, if only to stay in contact?  The fact is that we both need each other, and should act accordingly, and professionally.  Period. 

And a few personal thoughts, if you're interested:

It can be very difficult to pick yourself up again, after a rejection, regardless how sugarcoated it comes to you.  I've had to swallow deep and try to get out the words "what happened?"  Then I hear someone else was picked from among equals, that there were no losers,  that the position wasn't really for me and the recruiter has something better... the list goes on.  So I try again;  "any advice on what I can do better?"  The response is "no, no, they really liked you."  Or "It's just that someone else met their criteria a bit more than you did"....  In other words, in most situations, you'll never find out just exactly what went on.  And that's too bad.  What to do?  My advice is to change the subject; find something, anything, that will lift your spirits again.  And go do it.  Then, and only then, get back to the work at hand.”

[JUDY]

The business of finding out why you were not offered a job is one of the most frustrating challenges for job seekers. The truth can range from “you really blew the interview with the CEO” to “we have two outstanding candidates and either could do the job but one is just a better fit for us.” You will never know unless you have a very special relationship with the recruiter which one of several possibilities it is.

From a recruiter’s perspective trying to explain why the fit wasn’t there can be a no-win situation. The recruiter can become embroiled in a pointless conversation where the candidate tells you why the client is wrong and why he or she is really stronger in all the areas he/she was judged to be lacking. Frankly, this is just venting and engaging in this type of a conversation is painful and embarrassing. Another scenario is that the candidate is so offended by the truth that he or she will not work with the recruiter again.

I normally try to tell finalists that they wouldn’t be finalists if they lacked the credentials to do the job. I also tell them what experience categories the other finalists have so they understand the client is considering a number of options as the client makes a hiring decision. This goes a long way toward helping a finalist feel he/she is not being rejected if the offer goes in the other direction.

But there is a flip side, which I didn't really expect. 

First, it's great having a 10-second commute each morning.  And not deal with cafeteria food. And enjoy ultra-casual day, every day.  And being able to stay current on news, all day long.  Although there's a limit to how many squirming CEOs one can watch on CNBC every morning. 

And being able to watch the seasons change.  Where we live, during the winter months if you leave early for work and return late, you don't see your home and property in sunlight except on weekends.  All that changes.  You're not in conference rooms and cubicles all day.  You find out what time of day the sunlight bakes your family room.  When the mailman actually comes.  Which neighbors have a lawn service.  Who's doing home repairs.  You're introduced to an alternate rhythm.

And you can find out how compatible you really are with your significant other.  Sure, it's great to be able to spend time with your family... up to a point.  Because now you're, well, always around.  My advice is that, when the cat actually accepts you as a full-time resident, it's time to go and network, set up appointments, go on interviews, get out of the house.

And then there's the weekday/weekend dilemma.  It's hard to tell the difference.  It's not like you've been folded, spindled and mutilated all week by colleagues and clients in interminable meetings and airline flights.   No, and this is especially true on slow weeks, the weekend sort of blends in.  Same clothes.  Same routine.  Same to-do list.  With the only catch that nobody's around to take your phone calls.  That said, however, they probably are on-line, at least to do e-mail, at least during some point in the weekend.  So the work process still continues.

Which means there's really no let-up from the nagging pressure, no real getting away from the mission at hand.   It's kind of like a low-grade toothache.  For which the only relief is to look into the mirror at the end of the day, any day, and say you accomplished something.”

TOP

January 30, 2006  [Anonymous Contributor]

I'm so glad you are bringing this to light.  What I can tell you?... a local lady I worked with over 10 years ago... was so pushy.  I interviewed for a job she recommended me for... they made me an offer, but I didn't feel comfortable with the company... she basically threatened me and said that I would have no other opportunities and that I should take it. I was just starting out in PR, so this was a little intimidating. I decided not take her advice and subsequently she was mad at me.

Since then I have heard similar complaints about her from other people in the industry. Then one day I was applying for a position at a local agency... they were very interested in me and everything was going wonderfully. Then I got an email saying that they had some interesting information on me and reconsidered going forward. The person I met knew a friend of mine and I asked him point blank what this information was... come to find out that this local recruiter had heard I was applying for the position and told him some horrible things about me that were not true. Needless to say I was mortified and angry... but there really isn't any recourse a person HAS.

Being a PR professional where you manage reputation...your reputation means the world to you as well. So you can imagine my distress. Anyway, a year later, she was poking around trying to get some recruits for some positions that she had available...unbeknownst to me, two other business colleagues that she touched base with had recommended she call this stellar PR person...they told her to call me. She grunted and said thanks... obviously she never called. From that moment 10 years ago... I decided I was better off calling on companies myself and not relying on recruiters too much. (You excluded of course).

Not a good story aye?

TOP

January 30, 2006  [Anonymous Contributor]

I went through the same experiences as your original contributor during two years of excruciating job searching that, fortunately, has a happy ending and makes me believe there's a moral for both candidates and search firms.

Two months after my supervisor/mentor retired as EVP Communications and HR, my new supervisor (CFO) upended my world by letting me go from my position as SVP, Communications & Investor Relations.

[JUDY]

This is the normal way these situations evolve. There are no surprises here and if I were in a position to counsel anyone in this circumstance, I would say, "take the initiative and decide what you want in a severance package before the current employer imposes one on you. This is a tricky road because there may be a lucrative buyout (if you wait for them to make the move.) However, going to a new supervisor and offering to get out of his/her way for a price, makes for so much less hassle that it is worth money to the company. Performance has very little to do with anything so do not assume because you are an "A" rated employee that that matters.

I had been in this position, and the two prior to it, for only two years - the first move coming by choice since I wanted to break into IR, the second forced by losing my role to greater experience in a merger. These moves had taken me from Pittsburgh to Seattle to Rochester, NY. Thus, I had resume red flags (to many or most recruiters) of 3 positions in six years, now unemployed, and having worked in 4 disparate industries (versatility often under-appreciated). Equally problematic, those short stints had severely limited my network development so I was reliant on public posting and what search consultant relationships I could forge.

My job search statistics over the two years are sobering: Over 550 communications and IR positions applied for, only 15 real 'first' interviews (phone and/or in-person) and ten 10 second interviews (a good hit rate exacerbating the frustration of getting few first interviews).

The rejection stories after the 7 of the 10 second interviews are probably common, and painful to remember: overqualified (position eventually never filled), internal disagreement about 'best' candidate, CFO trumps treasurer choice at 11th hour with unexpected candidate, function leader gets cold feet about lack of industry experience (despite resounding endorsement of senior management after three interviews), zero follow up after in-person interview, not the right fit, concern about frequent changes. Only one position I decided was not right for me (they pursued hard but I chose to keep looking). One I had to turn down to accept my current position as the offers came on the same day.

The search consultant interactions I had, or often didn't have, were utterly dehumanizing and demoralizing. To wit, even TRRG, (The Repovich Reynolds Group) who profited by placing me in my IR position in Seattle, didn't have the time of day for me.

However, one firm stood tall and different among the scores who disregarded my strong background. Heyman Associates in NYC was responsive to my initial outreach despite never having worked with me before (though having contacted me three years earlier, I wasn't completely unknown to them). They invited me to NY to meet with them so they could know me better to judge where I might best fit. They career counseled me. They always returned my communications (phone and email), even if sometimes it was delayed. They were strong advocates on my behalf for the right positions. And on many occasions they were therapists, keeping hopes alive amid dismal down periods.

Heyman didn't ultimately place me, but they played a critical role in getting my current position as VP of Strategic Communications for a health care service company. They had placed my supervisor in her position a year earlier. So, when I found out about the opportunity through another source (the search was not given to firms) and asked if they knew anything about her, they gave me invaluable information for preparing and handling my interview. Three weeks later I had my offer.

The morals? For candidates, respect that search consulting is a business and be prepared that, regardless of your skills and pedigree, you will quite often be forgotten, ignored or mistreated by individuals and search firms you reach out to.

[JUDY]

This is turning out to be all too true by the number and length of responses from highly qualified, senior level professionals. I do think search professionals need to constantly be reminded that these job seekers, no matter what position they have held, are particularly sensitive and appreciative of the help they can be offered. Job seekers need to understand that search professionals, particularly smaller organizations, must meet client needs and there is precious little time for exploratory conversations. 

But NEVER burn bridges because you may need these people's help someday. For search consultants, please don't lose sight of the fact that compassion and treating searching candidates, particularly those currently unemployed, a little better may benefit you at a later date when that candidate may have a search to conduct and may choose to put it in your hands.

TOP

January 30, 2006  [Anonymous Contributor]

I am currently employed, but always on the lookout for a great communicator opportunity. As a result, I am contacted from time-to-time by recruiters and even HR corporate heads. That's right, they contact me. We talk, we interview, I express my level of interest, they enthusiastically describe next steps...pretty much, that's it. Most I never hear from again. Some send pretty impersonal 'form' emails. Rarely do I get to speak with ANYONE from previous interviews. I'll be interested to watch your blog as it develops and look forward to gleaning useful information from it.

TOP

January 30, 2006  [Anonymous Contributor]

It’s interesting that etiquette has become a topic on your Blog.  Over the years, I’ve witnessed ill behavior on all sides of the hiring process.

Overall, there seems to be a lack of truth, honesty and straightforward communication in the entire process.  Some specific examples come to mind: 

1. There are professionals who, for whatever reason, ignore/distrust/avoid headhunters.  And they don’t even offer the courtesy of taking or returning a call from a headhunter.

2. There are headhunters who treat unemployed people like lepers.

3. There are HR departments/people who treat headhunters like overpriced Monster search listings – never understanding the in-depth analysis and link-up that good headhunters bring to the process.

4. There are companies and hiring managers who don’t even provide the courtesy of a follow up call and note to an applicant/interviewer.

5. There are candidates who do their best to circumvent the headhunter and deal/negotiate directly with the hiring manager.

6. There are candidates who ask about the compensation first, and the role/responsibilities second – as if the comp makes the person and the job, not the opportunity and/or the company and its leadership.

7. There are headhunters who call only when they want something.  Not to check in or gauge the climate in the industry (not Judy).

8. There are headhunters who expect referrals even when they won’t disclose the company.

9. There are hiring managers who delay hiring – seeking the “perfect candidate,” while people on the team burn out from all the extra work and begin their own new job search process.  Ultimately the company suffers.

10. There are people on all sides of the desk – candidate, headhunter, interviewer – who simply have a bad day, a bad interview start/finish, a stumble on delivering a powerful, insightful answer (this is particularly evident in marathon interview sessions at a company when candidates are blood sugar-low, or just worn out).  But the blame is always placed on the candidate – it’s never the interviewer’s fault for being late, distracted, short, unprepared or temperamental.  And the headhunter is blamed for not delivering a candidate that was prepared enough. 

I believe that in many cases there should be a “start-over clause” in an interview, where a candidate or interviewer can wipe the slate clean, get up, leave, and re-enter the room, and have a clean slate with which to start the interview.  Also, if an interviewer is reading email or is distracted during an interview, the candidate should have the right to request and get, another interview time/date, or simply move to a room without distractions.  It’s not like the candidate is any less important, busy or distracted than the interviewer.  So the latter should commit uninterrupted time and full attention to the candidate.

TOP

January 30, 2006  [Anonymous Contributor]

As for which search firms treat job-seekers well and which don't, that's a difficult question for me to answer.  I did not see a particular pattern when I was job-hunting.  It could be that the smaller firms were sometimes (and I stress "sometimes") a little less attentive to the job-seeker, that could have been simply because they had fewer people to do the work. I've had my share of negative experiences with search firms, but I've had good experiences, too.

TOP