Put the right player in and your team wins

We recently interviewed 20 corporate leaders who acknowledged that their next failed hire won’t be their first. As C-level executives, corporate recruiters and search consultants, they all know the right steps to find great, new leaders. Recounting their recruiting missteps was not pleasant, but it certainly was instructive.
The thrill of the hunt has proven to derail some of the best recruiting processes. Enamored of a candidate’s pedigree, or over-selling the opportunity to them, have led to bad hires. On the other hand, there were instances where the hiring executive failed to stay involved in the process to assure focus, or failed to involve other executives who would be critical to the selected candidate’s success. Each of these was cited as a reason for some memorably bad hires.
Heavy reliance on a known candidate, or one referred by an acquaintance, were viewed as quick or easy routes to selection. They proved to be both. But without normal scrutiny the results were often abysmal. Scrutiny was omitted, “gut feel” was ignored. Also missed were candidates’ early concerns about their family’s relocation, and glossed-over clues from references.
There are some great internal recruiting departments that generally produce solid results. But it was recounted that they have been more likely than an outside search consultant to sacrifice objectivity.
Sometimes it’s a case of a great athlete playing the wrong game. In too many placements, corporate leaders recounted the hiring of talented, knowledgeable, successful people who then found themselves lost in a strange new culture (beliefs, practices, behavior, customs and history).
One CEO recalls his company’s captivation by a candidate’s intelligence, industry experience and track record, ignoring the cultural mismatch that was eventually destructive. More than one of our executives still regrets having done a poor up-front job defining company culture so that they could have avoided the wrong candidate. Another added that the use of a formal assessment tool could have been helpful.
Once on the job, those new executives who were inadequately matched to the culture had difficulty collaborating with peers, marshaling the support of subordinates and establishing their own credibility. They clashed with bosses or boards. A former CEO, now a consultant, cites the new hire who was intentionally engaged as a culture misfit to quickly and single-handedly change a flawed culture. He failed.
Many wrongly assumed that an executive successful in one culture could easily adapt to a new one. This assumption commonly ended in termination or resignation, often within six months.
Sometimes it was leaders or their recruiting departments who ignored this variable. One executive recalls the search firm that didn’t take the time to understand his culture.
When the right candidate was selected, there were stories of failure from inadequate orientation – assimilation, guidance, coaching. There was also regret where there was no “new boss program” for developing the new executive’s relationship with his subordinates. One new executive arrived unprepared to be viewed as the interloper in the eyes of the employee(s) who didn’t get the job that he did.
These are actual examples of great hires undone by lack of assimilation. How about inattention? In one instance the upheaval caused by a family’s relocation was ignored. In another, the hiring executive failed to pick up early signs of derailment (the new hire’s lack of curiosity, drive or engagement). The delay of other essential personnel changes or the new executive’s own failure to build multiple constituencies were other sources of crisis. One executive cited an instance of a search firm’s failure to follow-up the placement.
These were some of the pitfalls cited by our executives as having driven the failure of their good hires. Did each of these failures effect the organization? As one executive observed, “everyone is watching.”
In light of these land mines has anyone succeeded? Sure. Reliable surveys tell us that after 18 months, 60 percent of new leaders are still on the job. Unfortunately that’s a 40 percent failure rate – an expensive 40 percent. Costs of a failed hire mount through direct, indirect and duplicated costs often totaling two to three times the annualized base salary.
Successful placements come with clear candidate profiles and job expectations. They are supported by a disciplined hiring process that includes: objectivity; trained interviewers; the involvement of stakeholders; attention to culture fit; and disciplined on-boarding and follow through.
The ultimate vaccine against hiring failure, of course, is to minimize the need for outside hires. But employee development and organization planning are subjects for another day.
We appreciate the experiences that were shared by our 20 executives. As they continue to build and transform their organizations, they may yet encounter another failed hire. They themselves may be a failed hire. Keeping these failures to a minimum for them, and for us, will require our disciplined attention to what must go right – and our recognition of what could go wrong. •
Stanley H. Davis is executive vice president of TowerHunter Inc., a national search firm with offices in Providence; Washington, D.C.; Phoenix; and Wakefield, N.H.