Please think of the excellent people you know who might be interested in hearing about these outstanding opportunities.  
 

Simply click the logo to become a member of these growing professional networking groups on LinkedIn!
 

The Defense Executive Network

The Aerospace Executive Network

The Aerospace & Defense HR Network

You discover a frayed wire on the thick electrical cord feeding your home air conditioning condensing unit - the big box outside (rodents love to chew on wires and insulation). But you don't have an electrician you regularly use, and you are too busy to call around to find one, so you pull a MacGyver/MacGruber, and use an unfolded paper clip, some chewing gum and duct tape, to make a repair. A week later, when it is 90 degrees out, you hear a pop, your lights dim, and your A/C stops running. The next day, the A/C repair guy says you blew out the compressor, and by the way, your condensing coils are shot, and you need a new A/C unit for $3000. Oh, and a new $30 connector cable to replace the one that the rodents chewed through - you remember, the $30 cable you could have replaced last week. This type of thing happens to homeowners all the time.

How about in business? What about the rodents chewing through the circuitry of your company, and causing your "machinery" to pop and hiss, and not work properly? Many employers who have unproductive people on the executive team also make MacGyver repairs and hope for the best. We give them another chance, or a warning. We surround them with people who can pick up the slack. Or, even worse, just do their job ourselves. We get into fire-fighting mode, and then don't even have the time to do "preventive maintenance." After all, it is a lot of trouble to find replacements. And expensive. Or is it?

In air conditioning, plumbing, and electrical wiring, preventive maintenance is often available for 10 cents on the dollar compared to costly repairs done after the item actually breaks. You could spend $200 (including labor) to replace a cable and save $3000 on a condensing unit.

The comparison in business is the cost of a bad hire compared to making the right hire in the beginning (or moving quickly to make a strategic replacement). In companies, CEOs often downplay or rationalize the harm done by a bad employee. Customer dissatisfaction, lost sales, reduced market share, inadequate processes, late deliveries, bad morale - these are byproducts of bad hires, and the intangible cost of these can be many times the actual cost of the bad hire. You could hire a $150K executive, and lose $2 million in the aftermath. And repairing a bad hire isn't like repairing an A/C system. A new A/C system is up and running the next day. A new executive can take months to find, months to get acclimated and months to become effective. And, in the meantime, you are still fire-fighting instead of being a strategic leader. Time is money - more money lost to the bad hire. Hiring expert Brad Smart (Topgrading) says it can be as much as 14-28 times the salary in lost opportunities and other fallout from the bad hire.

Prevention of bad hiring is simply "Good hiring". Good hiring practices include: casting a wide net to find the best candidates, creating a performance based position profile to outline clear tangible objectives, and screening candidates to their ability to get the job done for you. You can do this yourself if you have good talent acquisition processes implemented, or you can hire a professional to do it for you.

Is good hiring expensive? Not compared to the ultimate cost of a mistake.

Does it take more time? Not compared to time to get rid of a bad hire and get a replacement up to speed.

Can you afford the $2 million in "damage" that could result from ignoring "preventive maintenance?" You can let the rats chew through your wiring, or you can call the exterminator and the electrician, and get rid of the rats and replace the cable. 

Passive candidates - those that aren't really looking for a job - have become the holy grail of recruiters. When someone is doing his/her job really well, has their head down working hard, and isn't looking for a new job, they are regarded as a much better prospect to do well in a new job, especially at the executive level.

Active candidates (aka "Applicants") - those that are actively applying for jobs, have their resume circulating, and are networking with friends to find opportunities - are regarded one notch lower on the quality hierarchy; although if they are still employed, it raises their stature a bit.

So if passive candidates are regarded more favorably, do employers actually alter the talent acquisition process to manage these types of candidates differently? Not really. They expect someone who isn't looking to behave like someone who is looking.

An active candidate will do pretty much whatever the employer needs them to do. Show up on short notice? Sure. Extra phone interview? No problem. On-line personality profile? Check. Long list of references? All ready to go. Fill out your multi-page questionnaire? Already done. Carve out a full day to meet 8 people at your office? Can't wait!

The recruited candidate may be willing to do all these things, but the smart employer incorporates a bit more "recruitment" into the process to make it more palatable. Passive candidates appreciate your taking into account their busy schedule, minimizing their time away from work, and not asking them to jump through every hoop (like providing confidential references) until they have been identified as the finalist for the job. They very much appreciate an even exchange of information. They'll be happy to update their resume, even fill out forms and write up a piece on why they are qualified for the job, BUT, they will be much more motivated if you take the time to outline the challenges of the job, the opportunities for growth, why your company is a great place to work, etc. Also, give them the courtesy of verifying whether your salary is even remotely appropriate to attract them, before inviting them in for an interview.

Passive candidates are often interested in exploring an opportunity if it sincerely represents something clearly superior to what they are doing now. It is your job (or your executive search consultant's job) to show them how and why your opportunity is superior, and to ensure it really is a positive step for them. One of the most common complaints of passive candidates is that employers and/or mediocre recruiters have wasted their time, on a job that wasn't really a fit. You can bring in an active candidate based only on a resume, because they are willing, but to bring in a passive candidate requires a bit more dialogue and "selling" of the opportunity.

Most of our work comes from clients who want access to the passive candidate pool, so we are keenly aware of how to attract these candidates. They love lots of information, and they appreciate being properly screened to ensure a fit. The employer who wants the passive candidate to be responsive will be well served by meeting them at their model of the world instead of expecting them to behave like any applicant. The Art & Science of recruitment requires an approach from employers that is modeled on the needs and expectations of the talent. 
 

 Author Lisa Gansky