My apologies for being away from the blogging realm for a brief period. The Executive Search business is picking up a big head of steam on multiple fronts and it has simply consumed most of my time. But I'm back on track and look forward to sharing insights and ideas on recruiting.
James McGovern has posted a few items of late regarding Enterprise Architecture and how this particular profession is managed by recruiters and executive search professionals. He has also taken me to task personally to define 'talent' as a need within an organization.
I believe that I am unique in the sense that I am an Executive Search professional that dedicates his time to identifying and placing Enterprise Architects; especially those that have a strong understanding of SOA principles. James (I hope I'm not being too forward using first names) claims that he is typically the first one contacted for EA positions due to his high accessibility on the internet (blogs, LinkedIn, etc.). Well he is certainly correct that one's ability to be found on the internet creates a higher probability of being contacted by a company or a recruiter. I highly recommend to everyone that is interested in exploring the career marketplace that they do everything they can to increase their presence utilizing the same methods that James does...blogging, LinkedIn (posting your profile as well as asking/answering questions). Blog Roll links are also very helpful for increased exposure (any help here James?).
But what James should be very careful of are those recruiters that are simply contacting him because the two words "Enterprise Architect" happen to be in his title. I personally have never contacted James for a job opportunity even though I am currently working on multiple needs for this type of candidate. My lack of contacting him is driven by two factors: First of all, and most importantly, his employer is a client of mine and I will not ravage the company that I work to build. This is a professional ethic that I hope most recruiters follow. Secondly, I simply have not had a position that fit James' profile. Now I don't profess to know his background backward and forward, but I know enough from his internet presence to understand his general profile. This second point, however, is rather moot due to my previously mentioned client relationship.
But the overall point I am attempting to make is that those recruiters or companies that are contacting him based on his title are more lost than they will ever know.
I understand his point regarding competitive compensation:
"The phrase, competitive compensation tends to mean mediocrity where they don't pay below the line, nor will you be highly compensated but will simply end up in the middle of the pack"
This is an overused term by recruiters and probably deserves some better clarification. Recruiters are often hesitant to post an exact dollar figure in their recruiting efforts for fear of scaring away potential candidates with either too high or too low of a dollar figure. Hopefully better information is being given to the candidates upon their initial conversation with the recruiter, but I must admit that I am as guilty of this practice as anyone. I will endeavor to revise the policy of my staff (myself included) in at least posting more definitive information regarding salary, bonuses and other monetary and non-monetary perks.
Part of the conversation vs. interview dilemma is a tough hurdle to overcome. As you'll read in his post, James had a great 'conversation' with an SVP that attempted to directly recruit him. In this case, James was a known entity to this SVP due to the efforts that James had gone through to make himself visible on the net and through other mediums. But when the client or recruiter is exploring the unknown, then many times the need for more of an 'interview' approach is necessary at first to gain some perspective. All interviews will go much more smoothly if approached in a more conversational tone. Would you want to work for a firm that just peppered you with questions for 2 hours? I think not.
Recruiting is truly an art that we should all strive to perfect. This is most important with clients that are looking to hire top talent.
While the Webster dictionary has two main definitions for the word, they both seem to work well:
1. The natural endowments of a person.
2. A unit of value equal to the value of a talent of gold or silver.
Any way you slice it, talent is a measure of value. For our purposes, it is the value that one brings (or can bring) to an organization. The organizations that understand the importance of this value are the ones that will succeed. Too many companies are focused on their short-term goals (project-based needs) and are not paying any attention to hiring individuals (or existing employees) that can grow in their company. Building a talent factory is a difficult process and cannot be done merely by attempting to match candidates with key words on a job description. I'm sure James is smart enough to understand the difference when he is contacted.
