There are many different opinions as to whether or not a company needs to hire the absolute best “A-Player” talent for every single position listed on a corporate org. chart. That said, most CEOs believe their company will perform better if the executive team is populated with the absolute best “A-Player” executive talent available.

Unfortunately, many companies actually fail in their attempts to hire the best possible executive talent. When this failure occurs, in retrospect, many executive hiring authorities feel the process broke down somewhere during identifying, attracting, qualifying, recruiting of executives into their respective roles. The truth is that in most cases the process was broke even before any attempt has been made to engage candidates.

So where does the process typically break down when attempting to hire the absolute best “A-Player” talent?

The process typically breaks down in the preliminary stage where the specific quantified objectives for the executive role in question are actually being defined or failed to be defined.

Typically either the role’s objectives and/or charter have only been loosely defined in concept, but have not been defined at all in detail in terms of the quantified specific business objectives/metrics the role will be responsible for delivering against. In other words, no one has defined explicitly what the role is expected to accomplish/drive in the near term let alone the long term with respect to the measurable impact the role is expected to have on quantifiable business metrics.

Many times all that is known is “We need an EVP of Sales”, or “We need a CFO” as far as the functional concept of the role. The problem with this is it translates into simply focusing only on – what – a prospective candidate has done in their career. This in turn translates into candidate assessment overly focusing on whether or not a candidate does or does not have the required scope & scale of quantifiable responsibility/experience implying they will not be “in over their head” and possess “been there; done that” experience of appropriate scope & scale.

So why is it so important to quantify and define the specific business objectives/metrics the role will be responsible for delivering against? This might seem obvious, but you’d be surprised how often this isn’t done in a deliberate concrete way.
It is important to quantify and define the specific business objectives/metrics the role will be responsible for delivering against because, from a specific objective, you can derive/infer the specific executive capabilities, skills, and attributes that a candidate must possess in order to have a chance at achieving the specific objective. This “peeling the onion” so to speak causes you to focus on – how – a prospective candidate achieved – what – they claim to have accomplished.

Focusing on – how – they accomplished something exposes the prospective candidate’s executive capabilities. Identifying a candidate’s executive capabilities will give you a much stronger indication of their ability to meet/exceed – your company’s – business objectives chartered to the role you’re trying to fill.

Example Business Objective:
* This executive will be required to drive revenue growth in excess of our industry’s growth rate while maintaining planned profitability.
From this you can derive/infer the specific requisite executive capability an “A-Player” candidate must possess.
Example Executive Capability:
* Executive must be able to ensure our organization actively monitors and manages financial performance in both up and down business conditions while driving measurable success.
This required executive capability translates into an interview question:
Example Interview Question:
“How has your ability to ensure your organization actively monitors and manages financial performance in both up and down business conditions driven measurable success?”
Example Candidate Response:
“Fluctuating business conditions would cause me to alter my plans, either to accelerate hiring or promotional activities, or to suspend them. My primary goals were to exceed the industry’s revenue growth rate while maintaining the planned profitability of 26%. It’s interesting to note, I did not look to exceed the profitability goal as excessive profitability would indicate we were not aggressive enough in pursuing maximum growth.”

Expanding on the profitability objective for the executive that own revenue production for the company could translate into the following executive capability:

Example Executive Capability:
* Executive must be able to ensure, through a predictable formal sales process, the “right deals” are pursued and won to maintain margin targets by minimizing/wasting the deployment of company resources on deals that either don’t close or aren’t scalable, repeatable, or referencable.
Again, this required executive capability translates into an interview question:
Example Interview Question:
“Describe your approach to sales strategy, planning and execution, including any “solution selling” methodologies you’ve consistently employed, specifically focusing on how your incremental assess/qualify opportunities has translated into a win/loss close ratio.”
Example Candidate Response:
“I make sure every deal over $250K goes through our strategic selling competitive war gaming session in order to bullet proof deal specific sales strategy, tactics, and execution ownership. This also involves incrementally categorize opportunities based on associated Can We Win, Do We Want to Win, Will We Win ongoing qualifying/assessment criteria through the entire lifecycle of the specific revenue opportunity. Our close rate for deals managed through this process is over 90%.”

By beginning the process of filling a new executive role in your company with quantifying and defining the specific business objectives/metrics the role will be responsible for delivering against, and then deriving/inferring the associated requisite executive capabilities, you can then develop very focused probing interview questions to draw out a prospective executive candidate’s resonant executive value proposition associated with – each – requisite executive capability an executive candidate must possess to excel in the role. This will give you a much clearer picture of what you are investing in when considering bringing a new executive onto your team and give you a much better indication of an executive candidate’s ability to excel in the critical role you’re trying to fill on your executive team.

Article Source: http://refer.debrawhite.co.uk/Ic

About the Author:
Ron Bates is an expert in mission critical retained executive search. has been referred to as “the most connected man on Earth” with +31,000 direct contacts on on-line professional networking platforms. Find his Internet Presence: Case Study – Recipe for Success at http://www.search-advantage.com

The country’s brightest female students are rejecting careers in the City as they see the Square Mile seen as unethical and rife with discrimination, a survey has shown.

Source: Recruitment and talent management: News from People Management 22 March 2010

"Employee Engagement"… is the new Buzz Word(s) of the day. A recent "Google" search reflects over 800,000 potential hits on sites offering wisdom or potential surveys on Employee Engagement especially for Gen X and Gen Y employees.

Before a reflection and sharing data on the new Present Environment, and Future Ramifications, allow me a moment to reflect on the past… Many of us in Senior Leadership positions have suggested that our employees are our greatest asset. In many organizations, it may be a case of words speaking louder than actions.

Leaders of the Past

I think most Leaders would subjectively agree that employees are more likely to produce in an environment where they are generally satisfied and comfortable. But many Leaders often fall short on two major assumptions. First, we have a tendency to define "satisfied" in traditional terms of financial compensation/benefits, and second, we have a tendency to interpret employee perceptions through "our" traditional frames of reference. Maybe it is not your fault, or even to be expected as we are all products of our traditional cultures. But concepts such as "Trust" and "Feeling Valued" by employees are clearly replacing pure money as catalysts for dis-engagement and turnover. Many Leaders just don’t recognize or understand the shift in employee values because it forces us to change the way we perceive our organizational effectiveness.

But perhaps most importantly, historically it has been really difficult to quantify any correlation between workplace environment and financial return. And since we have been trained over the last 75 years to judge success based on ROI, and the efficiency of the "process," if we cannot measure the return on people engagement, it becomes a good idea, but ultimately, a low priority. Traditional Management Theory, taught most of us, "measure it, or dismiss it…" Thus training budgets are usually the first to be cut, especially training for critical soft skills, Leadership, and I am not even going to discuss senior management’s "old school" perception of training related to Culture.

All of that is changing, and changing fast. The statistical data is overwhelming. Recent research led by Gallop (Q12) and many other quality surveys, including those by ISR, are changing the priority of workplace environment, especially an environment where the employees feel as though they are "Engaged" in the Mission. I believe this can be a tremendous future advantage companies or organizations with the courage and foresight to look inside their organizations for a long term sustainable competitive advantage.

So how do we define this Buzz around Employee Engagement? ISR Global Research Director Patrick Kulesa defines Employee Engagement as: "Committed, Believe in the Values of the Company, Feel Pride in their Employer and Go the Extra Mile – and Business Results."…

In short, engaged employees feel as though they are truly valued at work. Engaged employees feel as though they directly contribute towards the Mission, and enthusiastically communicate the value of their organization. Recent data reflects the transformation from warm and fuzzy directly to the bottom line. But understanding the radically different set of values of today’s employees is a necessary catalyst for engagement success.

Leaders of the Present

For those Leaders looking for support data: 2005 ISR Study (over 600,000 employees worldwide) revealed that those organizations with High Employee Engagement realized a 5.75% difference in operating margin and a 3.44% difference in net profit margin versus low engagement companies. The Gallop research reflects only 29% of the three million surveyed employees felt engaged, 55% not engaged, and 16% actively not engaged via an interview with Co-Author Curt Coffman, First Break All the Rules. Gallop estimates that this last 16% of actively not engaged employees cost the American Economy over $ 350 Million per year in lost productivity.

There are two critical potential danger signals for Leaders of today. First, of the 55% that are not engaged, they are typically not negative towards the organization in any way, almost a sleeping danger or cultural liability. And secondly, national statistics reflect a direct correlation between the length of time an employee spends with an organization and being more likely to become not engaged. For many of us, we are never as excited as we are in our first week of work. We join our organizations believing we can make a difference in the lives of our customers and co-workers. Then in some most companies, over time we feel less valued, or as though we have less of an active role in contributing to the value related principals that attracted us in the first place and then our engagement declines.

Author Leigh Branham suggests, "According to more than 80% of employees, it’s not that there’s greener grass on the other side of the fence; it’s the preponderance of negative factors in their current workplaces-from poor management practices to toxic workplace cultures-that essentially push them toward the door." Or in fact Cultures that move employees lower on the engagement scale. As many seemingly successful companies have lifetime employees, we cannot assume that they remain engaged in our "Holy Grail", Customer Service, or dedication to the Mission, either internally or externally.

Engagement Test

In addition to investing in employee satisfaction surveys (highly recommended considering the national data) to measure employee engagement, I might suggest another test. What if we were to look at the five most significant ideas in the last year, that moved our Teams ahead of the curve in terms of "Improving the Lives of Clients or Co-Workers," (internally as well as externally)? How many of those five ideas came from within our organizations? How many of those five ideas originated from "engaged" hourly employees striving to make a difference in the Service-Centric or Mission-Driven Culture? Can you identify five?

Future Leaders

The most effective way to engage employees is to involve each of them in the culture. Leaders need to be consistently talking and listening about Service Values and Service Missions to employees offering them an opportunity to share ways in which they contributed towards the Mission, then acknowledge and reward or recognize them. This is what author John Kotter (Leading Change) refers to by continuing to build the coalition, and celebrating short term wins.

But most critically, it is imperative for Leaders to "Walk the Walk." Actions speak far louder than words when leading by example. I am encouraging Leaders to look in the mirror when it comes to consistency in programs, incentives, and engagement as it  directly contributes to the Service Mission. In my hundreds of interviews with Managers and Employees, I am often drawn to the "inconsistencies" identified by employees that have yet to be recognized by Leadership. If you ask and listen, they will share… These inconsistencies can be a significant cancer to any potential cultural shift to increased employee engagement.

The rules of Leadership are changing rapidly, not simply evolving. The powerful contribution to the bottom line and conduit for growth that is a direct result of Employee Engagement critical for all of us in the future. Engaged employees will create more loyal Customers and Employees, creating more opportunities for growth.

Many of us in Senior Leadership positions have suggested that our employees are our greatest asset. I encourage you to find new ways to engage your employees in the effort to live your "Holy Grail" and put actions way ahead of simple words.

Michael Muetzel

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Muetzel

Author of They’re Not Aloof…Just Generation X, Unlock the Mysteries to Today’s Human Capital Management

Mike Muetzel is a nationally recognized Author, Keynote Speaker and Leadership expert. His work has been featured in the national media including, The Associated Press, Bloomberg Television, Boardroom Magazine, The Manager’s Intelligence Report, The IBM Small Business Advocate, and The Boston Globe to name a few.

He is often referenced as a national expert on the unique characteristics of today’s employees. He has an extensive corporate background including nine years with Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation where he sat on the Executive Committee. His prestigious clients include Fed Ex Freight, Kohler, Hilton Hotels, Motorola, Wyndham, Keebler and The Federal Aviation Administration among others. In addition, he is a former member of the faculty at Clayton State University, School of Business. University. In the words of Best Selling Author Ken Blanchard, "Mike understands what will make companies tick in the future, it’s about maximizing the potential of your people…"    Visit http://www.unlockthemysteries.com