Headhunters | Why They Fail and What to Do About It
Why Headhunters Fail
Most headhunters are not candidate sourcing or recruiting research experts. Headhunters would rather focus on “more important” things like reeling in the next client. There’s a reason. Headhunter compensation is closely tied to how much business they bring in. So search firms hire retained search partners who are strong in sales. Headhunters are rarely research experts. And, in the Age of Information, that’s a problem. The lack of research expertise causes search to fail.
Executive headhunters often delegate recruiting research to someone else. That someone else is usually a secretary or junior associate right of college. That’s why most search firm “researchers” lack serious research expertise. Lacking expertise, they don’t know how to find the best candidates. As a result, headhunters fail.
How do we know this? When headhunters hit the wall, their client companies come to us for help. We have witnessed the work of the headhunters who have come before us. It isn’t pretty. In every failed search, the recruiting research was haphazard. The executive mapping was riddled with holes. The candidate sourcing lacked discipline. Worse, in every instance, headhunters missed top candidates standing in plain sight.
The Rise of Anarchy in Candidate Data
There’s been explosion of data on candidates, companies, and industries. The data are scattered like buckshot across the Internet. Information about passive candidates is tucked away in myriad databases. The information is not visible to search engines. You cannot google it. The information lies hidden deep within the Invisible Web.
IDC estimates the amount of digital data will grow 40% to 50% per year. By 2020, IDC predicts the number will have reached 40,000 EB, or 40 Zettabytes (ZB). The world’s information is doubling every two years. By 2020 the world will generate 50 times the amount of information and 75 times the number of information containers. In fact, Michael Walker, the Managing Partner of Rose Business Technologies, describes the what we’re witnessing is the Rise of Data Anarchy.
Data is the Forest: Candidates are the Trees
It is counter-intuitive. But the more candidate information there is, the harder executive search becomes. Headhunters lack the skills needed to separate the signal from the noise. In fact, most search firms have not altered their processes in more than half a century. They simply have not dealt with the rising tide of information.
Headhunters can’t see the forest for the trees. So many amazing executives are but a Google search or a LinkedIn connection away. But as awesome as those executives seem, they are not candidates — at least not yet. The heaving lifting of “candidate development” remains. You must still determine whether a prospective candidate is qualified, interested, able to relocate, and, yes, sane. In other words, headhunters cannot download a list of the best candidates. But great recruitment researchers can produce such a list.
Eureka, I Found It
Headhunters need a “eureka” moment. They need discover there is treasure to be found in all that rich data. Think Nate Silver. (You can check his Oscar predictions here.) Or think Peter Brand, played by Jonah Hill in the movie Moneyball. Headhunters should stop limiting sourcing to the standard recruiting research sources. Instead, consider what data might tell you who the best candidates are. Baseball has batting averages that measure performance. Every industry has its own statistics. Every industry has RBIs (Runs Batted In) and ERAs (Earned Run Averages). Crunched in the right way, those statistics can lead to incredible game-changing hires.
What to Do about It
So next time you need an executive headhunter, look for one that resembles Nate Silver. Look for a nerdier version of headhunter. Alternatively, partner with a recruiting research firm with advanced data expertise. That is how to avoid headhunters who fail. Seek search firms and research firms who are proponents of smarter search.