Back in the 1960s, when headhunting crossed the Atlantic and began to make inroads into the UK market, a fair number of the people who went into the business were executives who may not have been particularly successful in their chosen fields but who had extensive contacts - made and maintained largely through their patronage of bars and clubs. Their method of headhunting was. in effect, just an extension of the old boy network which had been in use for years.
There was, however, also a more professional approach to executive search. On being briefed by a client, the search consultant would undertake research into the sector in question and compile a target list of companies in which candidates were likely to be found. Then, often after discussing the target companies with the client, further research would produce a list of named target individuals, people holding appropriate positions in the target companies which made them likely candidates for the job in question. These candidates would be discreetly approached, initially by a telephone call, and - if there was mutual interest - a meeting with the consultant would be arranged.
Given the competitive nature of modern business, it is hardly surprising that it is this more professional approach which has prevailed. David Shellard, managing director of Russell Reynolds, one of the largest and most prestigious search firms, stated quite categorically, 'The old boy network is dead'. Although he made it clear that he was referring to the top end of the market, many smaller firms operating lower down the market are also very largely research driven.
This situation raises a question of vital importance to the job hunter. If search firms only approach people identified by this targeting process, how do you get a look in if you are either working in a different industry to the one being targeted or, worse still, if you are not employed at all?
Let us begin by exploding yet another popular misconception. What you do not do is to blast off copies of your CV to every search firm listed in Executive Grapevine. In the early days of outplacement, some of its practitioners did encourage this approach. The fact that they no longer do so is only partly due to the cost to the outplacement firms in terms of stamps and stationery. The plain fact is that bulk mail outs to headhunters simply do not work.
Researchers and databases
In order to understand why bulk mail shots to search firms are a waste of time - and to discover what does work - you need to know a little more about the way the modern headhunting industry operates.
As the search business became more heavily research based, some simple economics came into play. Since consultants' earnings (including performance-based incentives) can run well into six figures, search firms started to employ full-time researchers - who could be hired for a fraction of that kind of sum - to produce the lists of target companies and individuals, and, in many cases, to make the initial telephone calls to prospective candidates. The search consultants could then devote their time to generating business, fronting up to the client on the conduct of the assignment and doing the interviewing.
Hand in hand with the rise of the researcher came the development of the computerized database. This in turn spawned the twin myth that, if you write in on spec to a search firm, your details will automatically be entered on their database and will then be retrieved whenever they are briefed on a suitable opening for you.
To begin with, many search firms only enter on to their databases details of about 20 per cent of the candidates who write in. Those 20 per cent are the ones they reckon may be useful to them, either as candidates or in other ways. The rest get a polite letter which probably ducks the issue of whether they have been entered on the database with some ambiguous phrase like 'We will be in touch with you if we have anything of potential interest.'
The second part of the myth is that the database is used to find candidates for jobs. In practice, no more than about 5 per cent of search assignments are filled from candidates who are already on the database. The rest come from original research, which includes both desk research and the use of sources.
Sourcing and sources
Researchers are remarkably resourceful, some would say devious, people. In order to identify target individuals, they will subject switchboard operators, secretaries and other staff in target organizations to tactics that range from sheer cheek through con tricks to, if need be, maneuvers that verge on industrial espionage. There are, however, more straightforward means too - namely the people known as sources.
If you have ever had a call from a headhunter that went something like, 'I wonder if you might happen to know anyone who would be interested in a position ...' and wondered whether this was just a roundabout way of asking whether you would be interested in the job in question, the ambiguity was probably intentional. They may have been interested in you, but equally it could just have been your contacts they were after.
Often, however, sourcing is done far more overtly. Most headhunters have a network of contacts whom they can tap when the need arises. Far from objecting to being used in this way, sources actually tend to like it. To begin with, there is an element of flattery involved. By asking for your help, the headhunter is acknowledging that you are a well-connected individual who knows a lot of the key players in your particular business. Then, of course, there is always the thought that the headhunter just might, one day, return the favor by coming up with a plum position for you.
It is primarily for sources, rather than candidates, that search firms go to all the time and expense of maintaining databases.
Shapes and sizes
Before turning to the way in which you, the job seeker, should approach executive search firms, we just need to look at one further aspect of the business: its structure and the players within that structure.
Although the leading firms - Russell Reynolds, Spencer Stuart, Korn/Ferry, Heidrick & Struggles and so on - are the largest and best known, there are literally hundreds of smaller organizations too, any one of which might be handling the appointment for which you could be a strong contender. Some of them, particularly the medium-sized firms, are - like the leading players -generalists, covering the whole range of disciplines and business sectors. Others, including many outfits with just two or three consultants, and even a sprinkling of sole practitioners, make a living by specializing - more often by business sector than by job function. How they manage to do this without breaching the off limits code which prevents headhunters from targeting employees of companies which are, or have recently been, clients need not bother you too much as a candidate.
The top firms tend to attract the blue chip clients and, as a result, only to be interested in candidates of the same caliber. The criteria for being on a target list or for a speculative applicant being entered on to the database, tend to include a good degree, the appropriate professional qualification, and a career which both demonstrates clear progression and includes company names which are the most highly respected in their particular industry.
Fortunately for those who do not quite match up to this image, simple mathematics dictate that only a minority of job vacancies can be filled by upper docile candidates. The smaller firms may well be more fertile sources of opportunities, not just because they are handling clients with less demanding specifications but also because you stand a better chance of targeting yourself at an organization which specializes in the area where your particular experience and strengths lie. Furthermore, because the niche firms make greater use of sources, you are also more likely to be picked up by this route, provided that you work hard on your own networking.
The bottom line
The one point you must never forget, though, is that, whatever their size and regardless of whether they are generalists or specialists, all headhunters have one thing in common: it is the clients who pay their fees, not the candidates. They are in the business of finding people for jobs, not jobs for people.
What is more, as in any other viciously competitive sector, time is money. In fact, since most headhunters are incentivized on performance, they are even more aware of the value of time than many other businesses are. The corollary of this is that the last thing you should ever do is to waste their time.
So, to move from their bottom line to yours, how do you establish and maintain the most productive relationship with headhunters?
- The best time to start is before you actually need a job. If you are involved in hiring senior staff, be sure to meet the search consultants your company uses. Do not just leave it to the HR people. If you are approached as a source, be as helpful as possible. It is easier, subsequently, to obtain help from someone who 'owes you one' than from someone who owes you nothing.
- When you do need a job, avoid bulk mail shots. Target carefully those search firms which are likely to regard you as a relevant candidate. If necessary, ask a few people for advice on the right firms to go for. This can be part of your net-working.
- There is no harm in asking for a meeting, but remember that the search consultant's time is money. When you do get a meeting, keep it brief and focused. If possible offer something in return, like snippets of news about your sector. Needless to say. information on companies which might be hiring (but not, of course, for a job you would want) is the most prized. In the absence of a positive benefit to offer, at least flatter the consultant by asking for some specific advice.
- In practice there are so many job hunters trying to get to see headhunters that, unless you are an existing or potential client, you will probably succeed only if you can get an introduction via someone with influence. If you do not already have contacts who can make this kind of introduction, try creating some through networking.
- After a meeting, observe the courtesy of a thank you letter but do not pester the consultant with frequent calls. Apart from wasting the headhunter's time, you will also be causing embarrassment if there are no jobs available.
- Be realistic in your expectations. Each search consultant handles only perhaps 12 to 15 assignments a year. Even with careful targeting, it is unreasonable to expect opportunities to grow on trees.
- When search firms put your details on their databases, they enter only selected information under standard classifications, e.g. up to three industries in which you have worked, and a similar number of functional headings for experience. Make their job easier, and reduce the risk of errors which might adversely affect the chances of your details being retrieved against suitable vacancies, by highlighting key information on your CV.
- Remember that you cannot be seen if you are not visible. Make your own luck in terms of coming to the attention of headhunters and their sources by networking actively, and by taking all other opportunities to raise your visibility.
While most executives are flattered to be approached by a headhunter, many tend to look down their noses at agencies. Is this justified? Or do you risk missing out on a potentially valuable source of job opportunities? The answer depends not only on how senior you are but also on the discipline, and business sector, you work in.
Agencies have traditionally tended to operate at the high volume, fast moving end of the job market. Whether they have been placing secretaries, computer staff or recently qualified professionals such as accountants and solicitors, they have been dealing with people who tend to find a new job quickly. The agencies' own staff, often earning a significant proportion of their income through commission, and having to compete with other agencies for contingent fees, have been unwilling to waste precious time on candidates who might take months, rather than weeks, to get placed.
This situation has, however, been changing - and not just because of the effects of recession or the need to find new opportunities for growth in a saturated market. In the process of filling more junior positions, agencies have forged relationships with top level decision makers and, when a more senior position has come up, they have sometimes been given a crack at it. In some cases such positions are filled by client-paid advertising, bringing the agencies into direct competition with the executive selection firms. In other cases, they have been filled from the agencies' registers. This method has several advantages to the client: it is faster; the agency's fee is contingent on success rather than being based on guaranteed stage payments; and there are no expensive bills for advertising.
Jeff Grout, managing director of accountancy recruitment specialists Robert Half, stated that although the vast majority of positions handled by his firm are in the £20,000 to £40.000 range, they do consistently get the opportunity to handle smaller numbers of positions in the £40,000 to £70,000 bracket.
Operating register search at these levels does, however, have the problem that agencies tend to end up with large files of candidates to be matched against relatively few jobs. This is in contrast to the lower level work where, because there are more jobs to fill and people get placed more quickly, it is easier to keep files to a manageable size.
An exception to this arises where the field of candidates is so small that there is no danger of databank indigestion. In these specialized areas register search may be regularly used at much higher levels than it would be where candidate volumes are greater, and niche agencies have established themselves to service this opportunity. Treasury appointments are just one example. Nigel Hopkins Associates, who specialize in this sector, regularly handle positions at packages of up to £70,000, very few of which are advertised.
Agency Use, and Abuse
Some of the rules that apply to dealing with agencies, for example those that relate to obtaining and handling meetings, are the same as those for dealing with headhunters. There are, however, a few additional points to look out for.
- Unlike most headhunters, agencies work on contingent fees and there is consequently a direct incentive for them to help you find a job. Make full use of their expertise. As Alan Dickinson, managing director of Michael Page Finance explained, 'Organizations like Michael Page can help candidates to market themselves. Our consultants know what companies are looking for and can therefore advise candidates on which elements of their experience to highlight.'
- Remember, though, that - if anything - agency staff have even more demands on their time than headhunters. After your initial contact, do not call them more than once a month.
- When you do call, do not ask if they have a job for you. If they had, they would have called you.
- Even if you are getting frustrated by the time it is taking to find a job, do not get aggressive with agencies. They are far more likely to try to bend a client spec for a co-operative candidate than for a stroppy one.
- Since they only make money when they place you, give them the benefit of your market research. Suggestions you make may just spark an idea which enables them to market you to one of their clients.
While headhunting operates in much the same way in most developed countries as it does in the UK, there are legal restrictions in Germany which result in a higher proportion of senior jobs being advertised and which also mean that there is no point in you attempting to contact headhunters on spec with a view to getting your CV on to a database.
Agency operations are also restricted in both Germany and France. In Germany the former state monopoly is being relaxed but in France the National Management and Professional Staff Agency has the field to itself, private agencies existing only for low level temps, such as secretaries.
Take care also to check out the situation with regard to fees. In the UK it is illegal for an agency to take money from candidates for finding them a job, but this is permitted in at least some states in the US, even though the more ethical operators would not dream of it.
"The first batch of calls you make will be to people you know quite well already."
