Companies cause harm when they fail to accurately target the compensation for an open position. Too often the thinking is “let’s play it safe and target the compensation lower and only raise the compensation if we find the perfect candidate.”

I understand where this comes from. Companies battling internal pay restrictions find it difficult to target compensation at market rates. It’s easier to target low and make the argument for higher pay when you have a great candidate in hand. As a recruiter I see this all the time. The crazy thing is – a target compensation that’s too low, forces a company to rely on luck to bring in a candidate who can push the compensation where it needs to be. Most often the result is a prolonged search and candidates who are not as strong as they need to be.

Then again, I’ve also seen the following situation. A position is targeted at $175k base with a 20% bonus. A perfect candidate is identified who’s already making more than that. Too good to pass up, the candidate is reeled in with a package that miraculously appears out of nowhere. A $205k base and a 30% bonus (guaranteed for the first year), and a generous sign-on bonus. While I’m happy they landed a “star” candidate I’m perplexed why we couldn’t leverage that compensation during the search itself.

Typically, quality candidates who command a higher compensation never materialize. Why? Because even though the company was potentially willing to pay more, the lower target compensation kept better candidates from pursuing the job.

Though well-intended, the common approach to targeting compensation is among the most detrimental actions taken during an executive search.

The best outcome occurs when the compensation has been well researched and targeted within the bulls-eye, which is within the market range for the quality and experience level you’re seeking.

Beware of unintended consequences

When it comes to targeting compensation, there’s usually a heavy reliance on guess work and feeling comfortable with the idea of moving the compensation up at a later date. This approach often leads to unintended consequences.

1) Self-fulfilling prophecy. You end up with less than a star and are thankful for keeping the compensation low. “Imagine if we would have paid a “star” rate for this decent but average hire”? It’s likely the average compensation attracted exactly what you deserved. A better approach would have been to target the compensation accurately and putting all your effort in to thoroughly evaluating the candidates to ensure they were worthy of the compensation.

2) Relying on luck to interest star candidates. With a less than competitive compensation, a unique circumstance must exist to interest star candidates. For instance, the position is located in their home town and they’re interested in being closer to elderly parents; they’re currently out of a job and willing to consider jobs they otherwise would not (if anything better comes along the candidate disappears); some unique aspect of the job or company that appeals to someone enough to at least check it out, etc. At the very most only 3% of star candidates might have some reason to take a closer look when the compensation is pegged too low.

3) Missing out on star candidates. How many star candidates might you have seen if you had pegged the compensation accurately from the start? If you’re going to end up paying for a star – why not use that leverage from the very beginning to draw in star candidates.

Raising red-flags.

Compensation that is not market-competitive creates red-flags for talented executives. It potentially tells them the company:

1. Isn’t looking for top players
2. Doesn’t value the position
3. Is willing to compromise on quality
4. Is staffed with equally compromised executives in other positions

Little tricks don’t work.

One way companies try to avoid raising red-flags is to withhold compensation information altogether until the very end. But this is a red-flag in and of itself. Unfortunately, star executives don’t like to play the game where they’re told the company is willing to pay what it takes, but won’t share what their general thoughts and expectations are.

What does it say about a company that’s unwilling to share important details, but expects candidates to bend over backwards in sharing their information? Mediocre players will take that treatment, star candidates won’t.

The importance of hitting the compensation bulls-eye

Clarity about the compensation required to attract the right quality candidates, appeals to talented executives. It sends the message that you are looking for top players, do value the position, are not willing to compromise on quality.

Look at it this way. Companies don’t merely take the word of a candidate about their integrity. Companies look for evidence. They watch the candidate’s behavior and actions. In much the same way, good candidates do the very same thing. They look for evidence, among which, is if the compensation is commensurate with the market rate for such talent.

If, as a company, you consistently land the quality candidates you are searching for with a compensation that is within 10% of the original target compensation, you are hitting the bulls-eye. Bravo!

If, as a company, you end up paying more than 10% above the original target compensation, you have sacrificed good candidates in the process. Regardless if you end up with a good candidate in the end. You’ve definitely missed out on quality candidates because the compensation was not properly established at the beginning of the search to attract such candidates into the process.

Tips on hitting the bulls-eye

1) Have a clear understanding of the quality and experience level you want and need in a position. The greater your clarity, the greater the likelihood of landing the candidate you envision.

2) Conduct an informal compensation survey to determine what “ideal” candidates are currently earning. A survey of “ideal” candidates gives you hard-data.

3) Add in the benefit of goodwill and the cost of any hardships. For instance, cost of living, housing costs, tax rates, etc. must be considered. A $200k salary in Manhattan, Kansas is different than a $200k salary in Manhattan, New York. It’s typical for companies to overestimate goodwill and underestimate the negatives.

4) Base your target compensation on what you’re actually seeking in terms of quality and not based on a two tier approach, where the compensation for the ideal candidate is hidden until one appears.

5) Internal equity and other in-house considerations may play a role in targeting the compensation. As best as possible, align the internal parameters with the demands of the market place, to ensure you get as close as possible to where you need to be.

I’m both perplexed and amused by the number of queries I’ve received in recent months from business journalists writing articles on how to on-board new hires into a company’s existing culture. The premise is that cultural misfits are inevitable and the inherent challenge is to turn misfits into good fits. Kind of like focusing on risky treatments for a disease that’s easily preventable. Why they don’t want to focus on preventing the disease is anyone’s guess.

Fit happens, it’s not manufactured

To me it’s obvious that the best way to handle “culture” integration is to hire people who fit your culture to begin with. I know this is less sexy than a comprehensive on-boarding program. But, why assume the risk of bringing people on-board who may fail to integrate culturally, when you can avoid it?

Corporate on-boarding has it’s place

This is no attack on the evolving practice of on-boarding. I believe on-boarding to be a valuable service to help speed the integration of executives into a company – but it’s best when focused on helping create a rapport with co-workers, providing insight on the operating dynamics, and speeding up the general learning curve so that new hires can be productive more rapidly than if left to their own devices.

But culture is altogether different. If you’re compatible with the prevailing culture your cultural integration will occur quickly and quite naturally. If you are incompatible with the prevailing culture, an on-boarding program will do little more than help cover up the disparity for a while.

Culture is not something you can learn in a week or two. If team work and integrity are core to your company’s culture – you have to look for these things in your candidates and not hope that an on-boarding program can teach these qualities.

Three simple steps to recruiting candidates who fit your culture.

1) Identify the core characteristics that define your company’s culture. You can’t begin to determine culture fit with a candidate, until you can define your company’s own culture. Isolate the key characteristics that define your culture and then prioritize them as best you can. Typically you will identify two or three core characteristics essential to fitting in with your company’s culture and a few less crucial characteristics that cement the culture fit.

2) Identify the behaviors and actions that best exemplify the characteristics you are looking for. Candidates should embody what you are looking for. Behaviors, in particular, are like “markers.” What kind of behaviors would you expect from somebody who embodies the characteristics you are looking for? List these key behaviors.

3) Assess candidates using behavioral interview techniques and thorough reference checks. The most effective way to ascertain key characteristics is to look for the behaviors you identified by creating open ended, behavioral questions that encourage candidates to express themselves with specific examples of how they did or would respond in certain situations.

A second important evaluation tool is the use of references. Tapping the knowledge of former co-workers and superiors provides important insights. Who better to know the characteristics and behaviors of a person than the people who have worked for years with a particular candidate?

Assessing culture avoids on-boarding risks

Many hiring managers wrongly believe that liking a candidate or having a good rapport with a candidate is a sign of a good fit. It’s not. I know this all too well. It happens I really like Porsche Carreras, but with a baby daughter and a wife who’s well aware of my history on Germany’s autobahns, a Porsche of any kind is not a good fit with our family. Don’t mistake “liking” a candidate as proof of a good fit.

A simple, objective process is more accurate. I’m not an advocate of complex solutions when they’re not needed. When it comes to assessing a candidate’s culture-fit, even a modicum of attention focused on this subject and a simple process like the one described above can greatly improve the odds of landing a good culture fit.

I was recently reminded how important the simple act of keeping candidates informed really is. A talented corporate Vice President I’ve known for many years is currently on the job market. He’s voiced his frustration with companies that show great interest and then at some point just seem to fall off the face of the earth. Shockingly, this is a common experience, because it’s something I hear from executives all the time.

Granted, time is tight. But the simple act of staying in touch with a candidate is not only the decent thing to do, it’s beneficial to you, your company, and your current and future searches. Here, in no particular order, are reasons why:

1.) Every inaction and action is emblematic of the kind person you are and the kind of organization you work for. How you are perceived is very important, regardless if a candidate is deemed right for the job or not. Why? Word gets out. There is no telling the people who will hear how you and your organization treat people. When it comes to recruiting talent, what better “behind-the-scenes” information does a potential candidate need to know than how people are treated by your organization.

2 .) It’s the professional thing to do. As long as a candidate is still in the mix they deserve to know where things stand. If they are no longer in the mix, they deserve to hear it as soon as that determination is made -and not infer it from the fact you haven’t returned their calls for two months.

3.) Keeping a candidate properly informed gives you an important leg up. As executives pursue competing opportunities, your actions provide valuable information about the quality and professionalism of your company and the people that work there. When two competing companies vie for the same candidate it can come down to the smallest detail. Like – the way you treated them during the process.

4.) It keeps the process organized and flowing. Nothing is worse than having calls you need to make piling up. Then realizing you haven’t contacted a candidate in over 6 weeks and having to face the uncomfortable task of figuring out what to say after so much time has passed.

5.) It’s a courtesy that really helps candidates remain sane during stressful times. Most are fine if a company decides to pass. It just helps to know and to check that job off their list. Being kept in limbo can be mentally draining. And, for those who remain in the mix, it helps to know what is going on. Candidates can remain interested for a long time as long as they are kept aware of what is going on during the process.

Staying in touch with candidates throughout the hiring process is important. People will remember your professionalism and courtesy for as long as they will remember the poor behavior of others. In this competitive world, goodwill is worth the effort.

Here are some basic tips to staying in touch.

Timing

Staying in touch does not mean having to contact candidates weekly. The general rule is that contact should be made immediately whenever something pertinent has occurred that changes a candidate’s status. Otherwise, if it’s a matter of keeping a candidate informed as other candidates are being evaluated, then touching base every two to four weeks is fine. But establish clear intervals for touching base.

Forcing regular contact will also encourage you to deliver bad news sooner. Why? Because you don’t want to have to continue calling candidates who are no longer under consideration.

Method

Typically any definitive news should be delivered by phone or in person and not left to an email. If a person is to receive an offer or is no longer being considered an email is just not enough. Otherwise, if it’s a matter of keeping ongoing candidates informed of where things stand, emails are a quick and appropriate way to stay in touch, though a phone call is always a nice touch.

Sometimes it’s easier for a busy hiring executive to field a quick call than it is to find time to make the call yourself. In such cases, it’s reasonable to suggest that candidates call or email you at regular, predetermined intervals in order to check in.

Candidates love to know they have your blessing to contact you. Otherwise they might spend hours wondering if it’s alright to contact you and slowly get upset that you haven’t contacted them yet. This kind of mental dilemma should be nipped in the bud and it’s up to you to set guidelines that make it simple and easy for candidates to remain informed.

Material information

When it comes to what to share with candidates I’ve always been impressed with Vinny Stabile, the SVP, People at JetBlue who simply suggests telling candidates the truth. It’s amazing how the simple truth is usually the best way to communicate with candidates. It’s not about sharing a high level of detail, though it helps to provide enough detail to make the situation logical and understandable.

If there is another candidate who can’t be interviewed until four weeks from now, it’s better to share that, than convey something nebulous about needing another month to figure out what you want to do. Given the details, it makes sense and is logical why it will take at least four more weeks, without that information a candidate is left to wonder what is really going on. Is there something they did wrong, or is there something they need to do? Even the most accomplished executives can fall into this trap. This won’t happen if you give them sufficient information.

If another candidate has come to light that appears to possess more of the critical requirements for the job, that too is something most people can handle. “It’s not that you are out of the running, but clearly we need to take a closer look at this other candidate.”

The great majority of candidates will just appreciate being informed of what is going on. And it will pay dividends for you down the line.

Learning Journeys is a powerful and enlightening book. Though it’s focus is primarily on helping people become better mentors and leaders, it’s much more – it’s about self-discovery and personal growth.

A number of chapters make up each section. Beyond sections on leadership and mentoring, there are ones that cover:

• Seeing Yourself As Others Do
• Developing Self-Knowledge
• Unlearning What You Thought Was So
• Pain Is a Great Teacher

Forty-one different authors contributed to this book; all of whom are noteworthy experts on these subjects and who come from business, consulting, and academia. Individual contributors include Stephen Covey, Dave Ulrich, and Spencer Johnson.

Learning Journeys is an inspirational compilation that can be described as a mini-Ph.D. course in life, learning, and self-discovery. It will resonate powerfully with people who are introspective and who are by nature interested in self-development and life long learning.

This book is a gem.

Have you read a book that you consider “must read”? If so, please let me know by replying to this post. If you do not see a reply box, please click on the title of this post and scroll to the bottom.

I’m often asked what’s the key to recruiting great talent. My answer seems to surprise many people who assume there’s magic recruiting pixie dust. The simple truth is that there are several key steps to hiring great talent and step one is a well defined position.

In our fast moving world, where a running start and cutting corners has become the norm, the importance of a well defined position is often overlooked.

A clear and comprehensive understanding of an open position is crucial for two reasons. First, it helps to shape and focus a company’s search effort. And secondly, it satisfies the need of talented executives to have a clear and concise understanding of a position and the confidence that the company has a solid understanding of the position it’s seeking to fill.

If you describe a widget. You’ll attract widgets.

In most cases, poor position descriptions are the result of an old formula that stresses basic job duties, a list of arbitrary requirements, and a few “wouldn’t it be nice” qualities. Such descriptions allow people who aren’t right for a position to believe they are. While leading those best suited to the role, to pass entirely on the opportunity. Why? The description fails to speak to them with its ambiguous tone.

It’s important to look at an organization chart like a large puzzle, where each opening requires a unique piece to create a good fit. One way to do this is to go beyond the basics duties of a position and focus on the unique aspects facing a particular role. This is where a position description develops the necessary nuance.

Talent is drawn to positions that speak to it.

How is this done? Let’s use an example of a Director, Marketing Communications for a billion dollar retailer. The role is responsible for managing a staff of 45 that provides marketing communication services to internal customer groups.

A typical position description will focus on the primary duties such as managing a group of marketing professionals, overseeing creative, acting as liaison to customer groups. Requirements often are simple arbitrary prerequisites, such as a minimum 10 years of marketing experience, previous experience managing a staff of 20 or more, etc.

You might realize this description is more effective as a sleep aid.

Look what happens when you when dig deeper and ask, what are:

• The challenges this position will face, both functionally and organizationally.
• The unique organizational dynamics within which this person must operate. (How are decisions made and executed in this company?)
• The personalities and individual styles he/she will be working with and against.
• The resources over which the position will have direct control and those that must be shared.
• The specific expectations for the position and the desired outcomes over the first 12, 18, 24 months.
• The values and motivations that are driving the company, division, and department.
• The three year history of the position and the group, including strengths and weaknesses, as well as recent failures and successes. (How did they get here?)
• The morale within the company, division, and department.
• The defining culture within the company, division, and department.

Depth, Shape, & Clarity.

After going through this list, you’ll certainly identify numerous additional duties and responsibilities that give the position greater depth, shape, and clarity. From these new duties you’ll also recognize important new requirements that will ensure a better fit.

See how our Marcom position is redefined with just a few insights:

1. Three different Directors have held this position in the past 24 months.
2. Morale is low and a number of key staff members have resigned to take positions with other companies, leaving the remaining group overwhelmed.
3. Internal clients have lost faith in the group and circumvent their own Marcom organization for external vendors.

These new factors expose a number of yet unspecified responsibilities, such as:

• Turning around an organization suffering low morale and several key departures.
• Developing sound solutions to urgent operational deficiencies.
• Providing leadership to an organization in need of strong guidance and mentoring.
• Instilling a sense of calm and consistency to the department.
• Providing honest communications so as not to over promise and under deliver.
• Building bridges and developing trust with internal client groups and creating renewed confidence in the department’s ability to provide both high quality and timely service and support – while also providing an honest timeline of capabilities as the department ramps up its abilities.
• Staffing open positions with strong candidates who fit well into the group and who can deliver quality work, increase the department’s bench strength, and help improve overall morale.

These new responsibilities also help a company better define essential requirements that are more succinct than the broad requirements generated by standard job descriptions.

A position description that “pops”.

What was once an ordinary non-descript position profile, now becomes a highly nuanced description, which is more accurate and well-defined. Most companies are averse to such honest descriptions, fearing it will scare off candidates. In fact it’s just the opposite – it speaks powerfully to candidates who fit the bill and are drawn to such challenges, while attracting fewer candidates who are not right for the role. A generic position description is a huge red flag, warning talented candidates that the company has little clue what the position is really about. Stepping into such a role is far more risky than one where the company has complete clarity.

Talent likes challenges. So make the challenges clear.

Talent is not afraid of challenges. They are enticed by position descriptions that accurately describe the unique challenges facing a role and which convey a strong sense that the company is open, honest, well aware of the challenges it faces, committed to the position, and open to the medicine that’s required to fix what ails them.

Don’t fret about sharing details you worry might scare candidates away – always present them as challenges to the position. Talent loves challenges. What you will find is that the candidates who are scared off weren’t right from the start.

Ultimately, a thorough, well defined position is the first step to landing true talent – because talent is drawn to it.

Starting a resume with a summary allows you to encapsulate your career into a few lines and provide readers with a helpful, quick overview. Unlike objectives, which I think are often unnecessary, I do believe executive summaries have a place in a good resume, even though expert resume readers can scan a well written resume and sum up the background as well as any summary.

The most common problem

The biggest problem with most summaries is that they attempt to do too much. Instead of merely providing an overview of a person’s career, people try to use it as an additional sales tool, filling summaries with all sorts of subjective assertions that are not even in evidence in the resume. For example: exceptional leadership and change management skills, or being an innovative problem solver and strategic visionary.

You may think it’s fine to pile assertions into a summary without any supporting details. Wrong! Whenever you write anything that may raise questions or doubt, that’s the place where supporting details need to be presented. Allowing questions to develop without an immediate response weakens your resume. (See the article Lost in the land of make believe.) A summary is often too short to provide sufficient evidence, which is why it’s best to use assertions sparingly.

When a summary is crucial

There are a few instances when the use of a summary is crucial. One case is when a person has a diverse background and a reader may wonder, “What is your expertise?” What are your true strengths? Are you a marketing executive with strong exposure to finance or visa-versa? In such cases, a summary can provide a frame of reference that allows a reader to more easily follow your resume and assess your suitability.

Vinny Stabile, the SVP, People at JetBlue cites an example when he was considering candidates for a staffing role and received numerous resumes from human resource generalists. In many cases, it was difficult to gauge the strength and relevance of their staffing experience.

An HR generalist may have gained significant staffing experience over time, but it may be reflected in only a few scattered lines throughout a resume. A well written summary can pull such experiences together and convey two or three core competencies that might otherwise get lost in the body of the resume.

In this particular case, the proper use of a summary would have made it easier to determine if any of them had sufficient staffing experience to be invited to an interview.

How long is too long?

Summaries should be brief. Ideally one mid-sized paragraph, but definitely no longer than 2 or 3 short paragraphs. In a resume, anything longer is no longer a summary.

Facts are always stronger than assertions

The best summaries are fact based so use details that are not subject to personal interpretation. For example:

Financial executive with an MBA/CPA and 22 years in the hotel and restaurant industry, including experience in mergers & acquisitions, IPOs, and corporate strategic planning. Also includes five years of intense start-up experience.

This is a brief example of a fact based summary. You either have an MBA and CPA or you do not. You either have direct experience in mergers & acquisitions or you do not. You’ve either worked in a start-up or you have not. Fact based statements don’t rely on the subjective judgment of the individual making the claim, unlike communication, leadership, or change management skills.

Unique aspects

Finally, look for any unique aspects in your background that deserve to be pointed out in the summary. For instance, experience with start-ups, highly creative businesses, or fast growing companies are all examples of unique experiences that should be brought front and center. In particular, think of items that make you unique and are also relevant to the kinds of positions and companies you are going after.

Some people might consider these unique aspects to be subjective assertions themselves, but they are much less so than the examples cited earlier. For instance, anyone can claim excellent communication skills, but it would be impossible for an executive with the US Postal Service to claim to be working for a start-up, just as it would be difficult for a coal company executive to claim to be working in a highly creative and innovative business.

Adding these unique aspects puts a spotlight on them and ensures they’re not overlooked during the review of your resume.