A Think Piece: Why Is Recruiting So Low on the Corporate Power Scale?

scaleThis is one of a series of what I call “think-pieces.” Instead of casual reading, these articles are intended to stimulate some in-depth thinking and to pose some strategic questions that recruiting leaders should ponder. The questions raised here are, at least in part, designed to make you uncomfortable” with your current approach to recruiting.

It’s December 2009 and it’s the end of the “decade from hell” during which the recruiting and talent management function endured some ugly times. Rather than bemoaning what happened, why not take a few minutes or so and rethink your approach to recruiting. The topic for this particular think-piece is corporate power and why recruiting seems to have so little of it.

Thought-provoking question #1 — Is it true that on the corporate “power scale,” recruiting falls well below where it deserves to be?

My basic premise is that when it comes to power and recognition, the recruiting function should be one of the most important business functions, ranked right up there in importance with finance, product development, and sales, but for some reason, it is funded poorly and often underappreciated.

Fortunately there are a few exceptions; a few stark examples of situations where recruiting is so important that it is classified as a mission-critical business function. Two industries where recruiting is certainly “king” include both college/professional sports and the entertainment industry. It’s obvious to everyone in these industries that if you attract a major recruit like A-Rod, LeBron, or George Clooney, you haven’t just recruited a good employee, but instead you’ve changed the revenue stream of the company for a significant period of time. As a result, sports teams and entertainment moguls put huge resources into recruiting. In direct contrast to corporate recruiting, when their teams or studios are doing poorly, they put even more effort and resources into recruiting top talent.

The point that I want you ponder is that in the corporate world, there’s something in the way that we currently conduct recruiting that puts us well down on the mission-critical scale, in spite of our actual impact on corporate performance. If you agree with this premise, below you will find some points that might explain our relatively weak position in the corporate world.

Thought provoking question #2 — What are the top 10 characteristics that make functions powerful in the corporate world?

It’s possible for a business function to go from powerless to mission-critical merely by changing the way it acts. Supply chain is certainly a great example of that dramatic transition. For years it was known as purchasing, inventory, and transportation and under that overhead approach, the three functions received little attention, recognition, or resources. However, once it began to use technology, metrics, and to demonstrate its dollar impact on corporate revenues, it became a corporate darling and rose to the top of the power scale. The question is, “are there common factors that cause the most powerful corporate functions to receive the lion’s share of corporate resources?” I recommend that you come up with your own list of these “power factors” within your organization. But I am providing you with a list of the top 10 critical “power factors” that I have found to be consistent differentiators between the powerful and the underfunded.

  1. Focus on revenue impacts: Process results are reported in dollars, demonstrating their impact on revenue.
  2. Show impact on strategic goals: Process goals and results are unambiguously linked directly to strategic business goals.
  3. Competitive advantage: Results are directly compared to the results of competitor firms, in order to ensure that your firm retains a competitive advantage.
  4. Prioritize: They prioritize their efforts and focus on creating strategic impacts.
  5. Proactive: They seek out opportunities rather than waiting and reacting.
  6. Metrics: The functions are managed and decisions are made based on numbers and strategic metrics.
  7. Manager’s reward: Their results are an important component of executive bonus formulas.
  8. Innovation: Their rate of innovation is among the highest in the corporation.
  9. Technology focused: They use the latest technology.
  10. Reporting: Their actions and their results are reported as an integral part of the standard business and financial reports are read by executives.

Thought provoking question #3 — Does our current conservative approach to recruiting essentially doom us to a weak power status, or are there actions that can be taken to increase our status?

Below you will find a few recommended actions and some thought-provoking questions for each of these 10 power factors.

You must demonstrate revenue impacts: is there any doubt in your mind that recruiting a key innovator, a top salesperson, or a great branding person directly increases corporate revenue? Incidentally, is this impact not just for one year but for many years as the new hire stays with the organization? If we can agree that there is a major business impact as a result of strategic hiring, what exactly is preventing you from working the CFO’s office to convert the impact of recruiting into dollars? Why doesn’t your team calculate the difference in performance between a great and a mediocre hire in the same position, in order to make the business case that demonstrates the tremendous revenue lost as a result of weak hiring processes. Have you calculated the correlation between excellence in hiring and improved workforce productivity and business results?

Tying recruiting goals to business goals is essential: most recruiting functions rely on tactical goals like reducing cost per hire and monitoring the number of positions filled. Does it make sense that such narrow and functional goals would appear insignificant to senior executives? Their goals are to increase sales, improve market share, increase customer satisfaction, and to innovate in the product area. Does it make sense to work with the people who set the overall strategic business goals to ensure that everyone sees the direct connection between what recruiting does and those goals? What is keeping you from converting your goals, so that they directly match those of the business? For example, let’s look at the business goal of increasing sales. Is it possible to demonstrate how great hiring in the sales function can directly increase sales? Well, if that’s possible, why not change your recruiting goal so that the strategic impact is clearer? Does the goal of “hire 75 people” resonate the same to senior executives as this goal: “increase sales performance by 12% by hiring 17 top-performing salespeople away from key competitors”?

Focus on beating your competitors: it’s no secret that most recruiting functions are inward-focused, while most executives are laser-focused on aggressively crushing their competitors. Would your power position improve if you demonstrated to executives how you were also extremely competitive and as a result, you directly monitored and then aggressively countered the recruiting strategies and actions of your major competitors? What are the barriers that are preventing you from demonstrating that your company’s sales, product development, and innovation rates are measurably superior to your competitors’ because your recruiting practices are superior to your competitors’? Why don’t you conduct a competitive analysis on a regular basis to see where what you do is inferior to what they do? And shifting back to the sales example, why haven’t you demonstrated how aggressive recruiting on your part can hurt the sales of your competitors? Do you purposely target the best salespeople at your competitors? In head-to-head competition over top sales candidates, what percentage do you win?

Prioritize and focus on high-impact areas: just like sports teams, all powerful functions prioritize their customers and their services in order to put their limited resources to where they can have the most business impact. Football teams focus on hiring quarterbacks, and movie producers focus on landing one or two marquee stars. In direct contrast, most recruiting functions treat all positions and hiring managers the same. They process requisitions based solely on the date of the requisition. Executives already prioritize products and business units; what is preventing you from doing the same? Would you gain more respect and increase your business impact if you instead identified the most critical business units and jobs? If you focused your hiring on revenue-generating positions, would you increase revenue? Does it really make sense to put your best recruiters on low-impact jobs and commodity business units?

Shift from reactive to proactive: most recruiting efforts can only be classified as reactive, meaning that you react only when a recruiting requisition opens up. But wouldn’t your power position improve if you shifted to the more desirable proactive mode? What if you shifted recruiting to a continuous “pre-need” mode, where you proactively seek out available talent rather than hoping that it might be conveniently available at the exact time when you have a position open? If you understand the superior approach of a we-find-them capability compared to posting jobs and hoping that the best will find you, have you considered a most-wanted list where you continually target top industry people throughout the year and react quickly when they are available? What’s keeping you from alerting your managers when top talent becomes available? Maybe you should study and learn from sports teams, where they purposely increase their focus on recruiting when performance is down?

Metrics: not a single one of the most powerful business functions make decisions based on emotions or past practice. From finance, to IT, to marketing and supply chain, they all rely heavily on “decision metrics” to continually improve. Most recruiting departments failed to generate a single metric in important areas such as:

Article Continues Below

What is your continuous improvement rate in recruiting?

What is your failure rate in hiring?

What are the critical success factors in world-class recruiting?

As a result, maybe the time has come to stop listening to HR metrics people (who almost universally “don’t get it”) and instead to begin to talk to business metrics experts. Why is it that it after all the work you’ve put into designing metrics, no one pays attention to them — because they’re all historic and they don’t help with actual daily decision-making?

Managers need to be rewarded for great hiring: like it or not, managers have learned over time to laser-focus on the things that are measured, reported, and rewarded. Even though HR controls compensation and performance appraisals, most managers are not rewarded significantly for great people-management. If people are your “most important asset,” why aren’t managers measured and rewarded for effectively using that asset? Yes it’s a tough battle, but if promotions, raises, and bonuses were tied directly to people results, wouldn’t managers then come to you for help in improving these areas?

Innovation must permeate the function: the most powerful functions innovate continually and at an amazing rate. Rather than waiting for funding before they innovate, they instead innovate first in order to get more funding and recognition. Is it true that within HR, cutting costs and avoiding errors is more beneficial to your career than risk-taking and industry-leading innovation? Is using Facebook really innovation? What is the rate of innovation within recruiting? When was the last time that a business function came to recruiting in order to learn about effective innovation processes? Are you guaranteeing continuous innovation by recruiting continuous learners on your recruiting staff, and do you have formal processes for identifying the “next practices” in talent management before everyone else adopts them?

Being technology-driven is essential: the most powerful functions love technology because technology is essential for speed, globalization, innovation, and improved decision-making. Do your recruiters misuse or avoid technology because they are too closely tied to tradition? Does buying an ATS system and using only a few of the features qualify as being technology-driven? Why don’t you use technology in interviewing, assessment, employer branding, and onboarding? Does your technology allow you to do 100% remote hiring, or can you prove that your technology increases the quality of your hires?

Your results must be reported to all: visibility is essential for obtaining and maintaining power. If recruiting results are reported only to HR, your results, no matter how spectacular they may be, are likely to remain a well-kept secret. Have you worked with the CIO and the CFO to ensure that your results are embedded in standard financial reports? Are managers with poor recruiting results embarrassed to see their name at the bottom of a ranked performance list? Can your executives and managers see each month how excellent recruiting results correlate directly with excellent business results? When recently hired individuals are recognized for outstanding business accomplishments, do you step forward and remind everyone that it was your process that made it all possible? Finally, what actions must you take in order to ensure that recruiting metrics receive the same visibility and recognition as inventory, time to market, and market share metrics?

Some Final Questions To Ponder

If your brain isn’t already spinning with thoughts, ideas, and questions, here are some additional questions to further stimulate your thinking.

  • Do you vary your recruiting approach and strategy between different business units that are in completely different growth modes stages in their business cycle?
  • Do you have a plan that would allow you to dominate your industry in talent management?
  • Do you let individual hiring managers use their short-term perspective to decide what competencies your organization will have? Or instead, do you make an effort to educate senior managers about the future competencies that are needed throughout the corporation?
  • Does your lack of integration make the hiring process a hodgepodge of disconnected events, rather than a seamless process?
  • Why is the only “solution” that you offer hiring new employees? Why not offer options including substituting technology for people, hiring contingent workers, and getting ideas from non-employees through contests?
  • Have you quantified the negative impact on product sales from mistreating applicants who may also be current or future customers? Does your candidate experience equal your customer experience on the product side?
  • Have you analyzed why within HR, OD, leadership development, and succession planning received more emphasis and recognition than recruiting?
  • Do you even have a forecasting capability within recruiting? Do you have a plan for when the economy suddenly improves? Is your recruiting process agile, so that you can meet the diverse recruiting needs of the different regions around the world?
  • Do you identify and track the many bad and negative things that appear in social networks and on the Internet about what it’s like to work at your firm? Have you demonstrated the impact that a great employer brand has on your firm’s stock price?

Final Thoughts

The key success measure of any “think piece” is that it makes you uncomfortable with the status quo. This particular article focused on the disparity between the power that we should have compared to how little power we do have, and it should have encouraged you to think about action steps for recruiting to gain its rightful place among the corporate power elite. Maybe action steps on how to improve your relative power should be a topic at your monthly or annual meeting. Finally, you should also notice that the approach that I’m recommending is based not on whining or demanding recognition but instead on how to act differently in order to influence senior management. The goal is for them to finally recognize what we already know, that nothing improves the performance of an organization faster than hiring a significant number of top-performing innovators into key positions!

Dr. John Sullivan, professor, author, corporate speaker, and advisor, is an internationally known HR thought-leader from the Silicon Valley who specializes in providing bold and high-business-impact talent management solutions.

He’s a prolific author with over 900 articles and 10 books covering all areas of talent management. He has written over a dozen white papers, conducted over 50 webinars, dozens of workshops, and he has been featured in over 35 videos. He is an engaging corporate speaker who has excited audiences at over 300 corporations/ organizations in 30 countries on all six continents. His ideas have appeared in every major business source including the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, BusinessWeek, Fast Company, CFO, Inc., NY Times, SmartMoney, USA Today, HBR, and the Financial Times. In addition, he writes for the WSJ Experts column. He has been interviewed on CNN and the CBS and ABC nightly news, NPR, as well many local TV and radio outlets. Fast Company called him the "Michael Jordan of Hiring," Staffing.org called him “the father of HR metrics,” and SHRM called him “One of the industry's most respected strategists." He was selected among HR’s “Top 10 Leading Thinkers” and he was ranked No. 8 among the top 25 online influencers in talent management. He served as the Chief Talent Officer of Agilent Technologies, the HP spinoff with 43,000 employees, and he was the CEO of the Business Development Center, a minority business consulting firm in Bakersfield, California. He is currently a Professor of Management at San Francisco State (1982 – present). His articles can be found all over the Internet and on his popular website www.drjohnsullivan.com and on staging.ere.net. He lives in Pacifica, California.

 

Topics

11 Comments on “A Think Piece: Why Is Recruiting So Low on the Corporate Power Scale?

  1. Great points, very thought provoking. Assuming your premise is true, at least for many organizations, I think many if not all of those factors are in play. I would only add that “recruiting” is a term that implies filling temporary needs. Not that it isn’t appreciated or acknowledged, but it minimizes our impact. An emphasis on talent or people management places us in a more central, ongoing role and strenthens our conceptual ties to all parts of the organization. Words matter–we all know this–but maybe we need to use them more wisely when talking about our own jobs.

  2. It is amusing to me to ask any corporate leader “what is your company’s most valuable asset” as the response is 99.9% of the time “people”. Yet ask these same individuals to outline the most mission critical priorities and 00.1% of the time it is recruiting.

    Until we can develop the right metrics to show that we are a profit center and be willing to be measured and rewarded to those standards we are an expense to be managed.

    While I wholly embrace Dr. Sullivan’s questions, in my opinion if we can’t show financial impact the rest is mute.

    As a thought, how about defining cost per vacancy for starters. For each day that a position is unfilled what is the cost? This is a very difficult question to answer for many positions however to get the ball rolling the sales context might be easiest.

    Most VPs of Sales can show you lost revenue in accounts won by competitors or no growth due to a vacant sales position in a market. Every day that position stays open the Sales Manager’s heartburn gets worse in terms of leakage and lack of growth. Ask her to annualize these figures and back into a daily value, I am sure you will get a prompt response. You can then show that filling the position under the company average will save / produce revenue. By the way, just for kickers you can then throw in the Kevin Youkilis (nod to Money Ball and recruiting metrics from Sullivan 2005) difference between an “A” player and a “B” player and show exponential growth.

    One might say that it is time to fill and subsequently cost per hire that is being measured, however those are meaningless metrics without the context of cost per vacancy. To use Dr. Sullivan’s example it is like measuring inventory and transportation time…meaningless until you understand and calculate their impact on the manufacturing process.

    I would argue that every position has a cost per vacancy…if it doesn’t…well then it is not needed. I also know that this is not an easy number to derive mathematically…transformation is never easy.

  3. I hired two positions this year amongst the hundred(s) I do each year. If we had used agencies the projected fees for these two positions alone totaled more than my annual salary. It is simple $’s and sense! I do agree with Dr. Sullivan metrics are necessary but try the simple facts as well.

  4. Congrats on yet another well reasoned and well written contribution to ERE that strikes at the core of how the recruiting funtion creates real and perceived value in organizations.

    Will it lead to change?. Try this metric. {NComments + NRetweets} for this article / <NComments + NRetweets) the most recent article on how use Social Networking to become a hero. To the extent that the resulting index breaks 1.0, change has a chance. To the extent that it falls below 1, it is business as usual. My subjective 90% confidence interval for the index runs from .05-.3. Yours?

    In the article, you join Lou Adler in calling for a greater role for financial metrics as one vehicle for raising the perceived value of recruiting, and rightly so. However, like Lou, (and everyone else I have encountered in the recruiting space) you remain blissfully unaware of the science of recruiting. There is one, you know. Drs. Charles Handler and Wendell Williams represent that voice on ERE, but even they fear to tread into the science of the recruiting utility equation. It is somewhat analogous to working on thermoneulcear fusion while ignoring the formula e=mc**2.

    The utility equation was introduced in the late 40s by Hubert Brogden in an article titled “The Dollar Criterion”. It was refined in the 60s in a widely cited book by Chronbach and Gleser titled: “Psychological Tests and Personnel Decisions”. The utility equation puts into the metric that matters (dollars) the increased value created by making N Hires that stay Y years of average tenure with a decision accuracy of R (correlation between the candidate score pre-hire and the candidate’s performance once hired), a sourcing power of S (derived from the number of candidates per person hired) and the difference in the dollar value (DV) of the performance of a top third vs. average vs. bottom third candidate, if hired and put on the job. After all that, you subtract the costs of making selection decisions(SC), since the cost of hiring randomly is assumed to be 0. So in the shorthand of equations, it is: Utility in Dollars= (N x T x R x S x DV) – SC.

    While it is beyond me to do it cold turkey, it has been algebraeically proven (sources available on request). Like Einstein’s powerful little formula that equates matter and energy, it is precise and complete. It includes the influences of sourcing and retention as well as the critical influence of selection decision accuracy. While the earlier work described above applies to comparing just one selection method to random selection, more recent work by DeCorte, Lievens, and Sackett (2006) have extended utility computation to the common reality of multiple steps in a selection process.

    So we can know the metrics that matter when it comes to recruiting. And they are often uncomfortably large (meaning $10s and even $100s of millions) when staffing hundreds of professionals or thousands of entry-level hourly positions a year. For professionals, it happens all the time in healthcare, public sector, and high tech. For hourly, it happens all the time in the restaurant, retail, shipping, manufacturing, healthcare and financial sectors. Well, maybe not so much in the financial sector these days.

    And today’s labor market ups the ante, with hundreds of respondents showing up to a job posting and online assessments advancing to the point where lower costs and higher decision accuracy delivers a one-two-three punch when added in with today’s high sourcing power. Sure there are a lot of desparate pretenders in the response avalanche, but that is the value of a low cost, valid, online screen. The response avalanche doesn’t need to paralyze hiring managers into hiring from their friends, relatives and hundreds of close personal friends on Facebook (real life story). They can actually post the opening, deploy valid online screening assessments, and let the utility equation show them all the dollars they are handing their companies by sending the top scores to on-site behavioral interviews.

    It isn’t rocket science but it is people science. And you can try this at the office. Just ask.

  5. Great reflective post from Dr. Sullivan on the classic “how to make HR more relevant to business” theme with solid expatiation from Dr. Janz on ROI and hiring.

    Modeling potential ROI from better hiring is actually really easy. Check out these free ROI calculators:
    http://www.previsor.com/resources/calculator

    You can calculate both the $$ savings resulting from reduced turnover as well as the $$ gains from better employee performance. The latter draws upon the decades of research discussed above.

    Hints: Use conservative (i.e., believable to your CFO) estimates to build a defensible business case for new programs. Also, try varying your estimates for one field/assumption while holding the other fields constant to see the specific dollar impact of that variable and really hone your strategy.

  6. It’s my contention that the reason why recruiting (in general) is undervalued in the eyes of many US corporations is because many US companies do not really value ‘human capital’. I appreciate the discussion on the need for valuable human capital metrics but for many organizations, this lack of value is more than just a lack of human capital metrics. Was it in the Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert’s boss said: ‘Our workers are our greatest asset, just behind the copier, supplies and computers.’

    Let me first say, I believe there are a number progressive companies and HR programs that have engaged their workforce, created collaborative cultures, and have become strategic partners with labor by creating true value from their human capital – and it shows and the organizations are true competitive leaders in the global market and will continue to be. These progressive companies are ‘human capital centric’ meaning they are relying on finding, engaging, and retaining their human capital for their success and creation of their competitive advantage. Proof they are human capital centric is that their business strategy, structure, goals, actions, decisions and priorities are tied to human capital management practices. These companies are respected by both capital (investors & stockholders) and labor. I believe you will find, in these progressive companies, the value of their recruiting department is equal to the relationship with the value the company places on its human capital.

    But, the vast majority of US companies still have the old capital mindset where labor is not an asset but rather a liability and expense. I can detect an old capital mindset organization in a minute by their websites, job descriptions, leadership style, compensation, benefit packages and corporate culture. The result of this old capital style mindset where labor is not really valued in spite of the mantra “people are our most important asset” is that it does not see or utilize labor as a true valued asset.

    In unprogressive companies, recruiting – like HR is not a strategic partner or valued advisor. HR is relegated to the role of a mere agent for capital. There is no seat at the table for mere agents – others make the big decisions for HR (and their recruiting department) to execute. Like HR’s transactional role, recruiting is merely transactional instead of being seen as transformational.

    I am thrilled to think we are on the cusp of a wonderful time in history, where global competition, limited resources, need for skilled labor and an upward evolution toward higher value products and services will force capital to finally value one of its most expensive resources – its workers. Once human capital is valued, recruiting will increase in value respectively. When the bell rings and “Corporate Recruiters” get in the ring with “The War for Talent”, let’s hope corporate recruiting departments are up to the challenge levied upon by corporate capital. It’s going to be a dog fight against the “The War for Talent”. If Corporate recruiting faints, there will be many RPO’s who are ready and able to ready to jump in the ring and do the job. Are you ready corporate recruiting?

  7. I agree with the comments here regarding metrics and measuring what we do. Unfortunately, a foundational issue must be addressed before this can be done. You can’t build a castle on sand. HR is one of or perhaps the least metrics driven functions in any company. How can we drive a metrics driven agenda when our “handlers” don’t view it as important or relevant. In one of my roles senior HR leaders met regularly to discuss strategy. As Director of Recruiting I was included in this team. In one session we discussed yearly priorities. I was one of three out of approximately 20 HR VPS/Directors who believed metrics should be a priority for the year. I was the most vocal proponent because recruiting was the only department in HR actively using metrics. The other two proponents also held roles in specialty functions. After many years of experiencing this same roadblock I have come to three conclusions. 1) HR does not want to be accountable 2) HR truly is unsure of what to measure 3)Innovation is typically not a core competency of HR so creation of metrics is difficult for many of them
    We did share recruiting metrics with c-level at the companies where I was Director of Recruiting but those direct relationships often became truncated or discouraged by HR.
    I could offer multiple other discussion veins and examples behind my analogy of not building a castle on sand but will leave this with my metrics example as this is what has been discussed thus far.
    Until we become much bolder and realize are collective strength we will continue to held back and underappreciated.
    fyi-Recruiting metrics is a hobby of mine. Please email me any thoughts or suggestions you have as I’m compiling data. john@hughesvaladez.com

  8. What does it say about us that we seek the approval and external validation of individuals who don’t particularly value what we do? We can use all the metrics in the world to please the arrogant CXOs, and it still won’t matter because PEOPLE DON’T PARTICULARLY MATTER to most of them, as Stephen S. wisely alluded to. You don’t “get” power, you TAKE power, if that’s what matters to you, but IMHO the most powerful position is to not buy into their premises and values, and achieve excellence on YOUR terms. Instead of being a jumped up, jargon-spewing, clerk/bean counter with a fancy title, how about being an excellent recruiter who makes lots of money helping lots of people?

    Happy Y2.01K Everybody,

    Keith “Don’t Call Me ‘Jargon-Spewing'” Halperin

  9. Wonderful thought provoking piece, I applaud this article thoroughly. My recent experience as described in “Our Internal Executive Search Function made us a Business Partner” got me engaged into this mode of thinking. I am amazed at how many organizations operate recruitment in a purely reactive manner. There are some forward thinking groups that work in a proactive mode that in my humble opinion work far more effectively. Many of the thoughts from financial implications of adding key contributers through AGGRESSIVE pursuit as well as well as focusing on high impact areas I am currently banging the drum on. Thanks again for a great article.

  10. Congratulations, John, on an excellent article. However, that being said, what you’ve proposed is, for the most part, something that I’ve been hearing since I got into the recruiting business 29 years ago. I used to think that Corporate Management didn’t really care or was simply oblivious to the realities and benefits of such [innovative] approach to recruitment.

    Fast forwarding to 2010, I now clearly understand why very little progress has been made in the direction you have so eloquently articulated in your piece. This is a mandate which must come directly from the shareholders and all other stakeholders via their organization’s Board of Directors. Until that happens, articles such as yours will only fall on deaf ears, do not more than preach to the choir, and serve no real, meaningful purpose.

    Therefore, in order for recruiters to have a real, meaningful, significant, recognizable, and acknowledged impact in their organization, I propose the formation of a SIG (special interest group) or committee–made up of individuals representing not only our industry but also the various stakeholders who stand to benefit from this innovative approach to recruitment–to effectively LOBBY to all stakeholders (i.e.,Chairman of the Board, Search Committee of the Board of Directors, Heads of Human Resources, Corporate Governance Associations, etc.) for the paradigm shift in attitude we seek from our peers and colleagues.

    Bottom line: Since we’re asking for a radical transformation in attitude toward the recruiting industry, we must, therefore, also be willing to endorse a radical and innovative approach to getting our message out in order to get the sort of effect and result we all seek.

    As I said earlier, anything short of that is the equivalent of preaching to the choir.

    Keep up the good work!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *