executive recruiting Archives

We get hired to build early-stage executive teams by our clients every day. So we’ve seen our fair share of “team-building,” and much of what follows is likely intuitive to many.  It is a combination of our experience and the collective wisdom of more than two dozen early-stage venture capitalists in the North East who we asked the question, “What does a ‘bankable executive team’ mean to you?”

Consider these criteria common denominators, or universal norms for investability. They are by no means exhaustive or complete, as each investor has his or her own individual criteria he or she leverages in selecting portfolio companies.

First, some qualifiers.

¨      Different stages require bankable teams with different profiles: angel versus early stage versus later stage mezzanine/pre-IPO.

¨      Different value kernels drive greater emphasis on one part of the executive team or another.  For a deep science company in biotech, the chief scientist is going to carry greater scrutiny by investors.  This also holds true for a software or hardware company where the technology leader will carry a greater weight.

¨      Investors tend to look at where the risks lie-technology risk or market risk for example.  Something referred to as “execution risk” is all about the team being able to execute on the plan.

¨      Almost all VCs want to see a strong core team consisting of a serially successful CEO, a chief technologist with domain expertise in the area of the company’s product focus, and a veteran sales leader with a relevant rolodex and experience building a team that can score early customer wins.

¨      A strong board of directors, advisors, or scientific advisory board can help immeasurably, although won’t make up for significant lack of experience among the rest of the team.

However, the above is like describing human anatomy as two arms and legs, a head and a torso.  To drill down to more specific details, the grid below outlines the bankable team by function, team, and other characteristics.

The overwhelming preference by investors regarding “bankability” is an “experienced team.”  The majority of VCs we talked to cited their number one concern as experience; those deals that get a ‘hard look’ have this fact in common.  When asked what percentage of all business plans they receive have requisite experience on the team however, the number is well under half.   And we all know that deals get done with first-time teams, even in this difficult financing environment.

Some of the other characteristics-when combined in the right amount and order-that are considered important criteria when an investor looks at financing a start-up team are listed below.

One VC actually tried to capture the essence of a bankable team with a mnemonic-FIRVOC: More…

The last time I saw some confusion around why an executive was making a change in industry was back in 1997 to 2000.  This was the dawn of the “internet age.”   Executives were leaving traditional industries like financial services, management consulting, retail, and even manufacturing, because there was a new thing called the Internet that was going to “change the world.”  In the earliest of those  years of 1996 and 1997, there were the early adopters.  These executives were truly missionary.  Money hadn’t been made yet in the Internet sector, and trails hadn’t been blazed.  Those early pioneers had caught a glimmer of a powerful disruptive technology, and were keen on experimenting with it, with the aim of changing the world as we know it, and how things get done.

There are some industries that have always been missionary, and have attracted a consistent flow of executive talent toward them.  The education industry attracts innovators who want to find a better way to sculpt and expand the minds of our children and young adults.  The  medical devices industry wants to help innovate tools and components that will allow us to repair our bodies, or extend their useful life.  The biotech industry wants to find new ways to pinpoint the reasons and sources of disease and develop novel ways to cure them, whether seeking the cure for cancer, cure for Alzheimer’s, or other terrible human disorders.  Cleantech is likely the newest addition here.

The reasons executives decide to change industries are many.  One popular reason is “I’ve done well, now I’d like to do good.”  You see this often in the investment banking industry, where wealth can be made, but “doing good” is rarely part of the equation.  Therefore, frequently these and other similar executives achieve doing well and doing good in a “serial” fashion, when Maslow’s hierarchy of needs kicks in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs ).

Back to our comparison of the Internet craze and today, and how this impacts why executives decide to change industries, during the Internet craze, we were in an economic upswing.  Yet, it wasn’t such a stark contrast as we see today in our current state of economic adversity.  Then, in the late ’90s, there was a much smaller difference between an ability to earn a good living versus create an insane “wealth creation event” via a dot-com IPO in less than 2 year’s work.  It’s wasn’t perceived as binary, “if I’m not in Internet, I’m at risk of being unemployed.”  In today’s market, this is often the reality.  Is the motivation, drive, or reason to look at the cleantech industry altruism, or self-interest in the executive’s value system?  Or, is it possible and desirable to have “enlightened self interest” in a leader who is changing from one industry into one more in vogue like cleantech?  One where the sheer proliferation of terms to alternately describe the industry is an indicator of its popularity–  greentech, renewables, sustainable energy, and other popular terms used interchangeably today.

Now, the vast majority of both growth-stage and mature-stage industry sectors are suffering.  As a result, it pushes our challenge as executive recruiters-or for anyone who’s assessing talent to add to their teams-to determine how much missionary versus mercenary is driving an executive’s decision to make a change.

This teeter-totter of altruism versus self-interest John Doerr popularized in the late 1990s as a Partner at well-known venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.  For a good snippet from Doerr’s thinking, go to blog post http://constructiveventures.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/mercenaries-vs-missionaries-the-next-wave-of-entrepreneurs/ .  For a deeper dive, you can see Wharton article, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=170 .

Today’s executive assessment challenge is to first determine what the mix of mercenary (M1) and missionary (M2) is in the executive’s motivation to change career focus from their current industry to cleantech.  We need to make sure that there is a healthy enough balance, 5X% missionary, 4X% mercenary, and then make sure that this DNA matches that of the existing executive team to maximize the probability the executive will stay through good times and bad.

A derivative question arises at this point-Is it best to mix M1s and M2s together in a team, or select for homogeneity?  If you had a subset of executive team members who were missionary, and another faction who was mercenary, the cohesion of the entire team is likely doomed.  Offsetting too missionary a culture by counter-balancing with a few mercenaries is not a recipe for success.  Rather, there should be a balance within each individual.

The risk of missed assessment?  A fair-weather executive.  Someone who-when the going gets tough, or when a more lucrative, safer, or easier role pops up on the radar-will fledge the existing nest for what they perceive as a more attractive roost. What the next more attractive sandbox will be is hotly debated.  However, in this economy, other than government and eHealth/healthcare IT, cleantech is the new land of opportunity, and it will attract both missionary and mercenary entrepreneurs.   If you agree with any of the above, the challenge is to figure out how to tell them apart.

Footnote to assessing “motivation“: In assessing this decision to make a change, there is sometimes confusion around the use of the word “motivation.”  At times, executives are assessed for their “motivation,” which is referring to drive, not motive for seeking a new role.

How are retained executive search firms assessed?  And how should they be measured?

This is a funny question. And one that can be asked at two inflection points in the search process–

• BEFORE picking a search firm

•    And AFTER a search has been executed/completed

Focusing on the “before” part for now, for most companies the 3 most popular decision factors used to help pick a winner in the “shoot-out” or “bake-off” process today are typically:

• “Relevant Rolodex” or domain expertise. Has a search firm done a similar search in a similar sector recently?

•    Familiarity. Has a search firm worked with a client before?  The implicit assumption is “devil you know is better than the one you don’t.”
•    Price.  Depending upon economic conditions, search firms are as often as not considered “about the same,” and only price is the perceived differentiator.

However, I think there should be a shift in search firm selection criteria.

Let me digress for a moment and talk about the traditional value proposition of retained executive search.  Historically, there have been 4 pieces of value that the search firm delivers on:

1)    Finding or “hunting” the candidate.  In the industry, we refer to it as “candidate identification.”
2)    Selling the client opportunity to the “hunted” candidate
3)    Assessing the candidate for hard skills and soft skills “fit” for the search
4)    Closing the final candidate once s/he has been selected by the client company-the end game, including compensation negotiation etc.

Now, back to how search firms are selected.  The above criteria emphasize and value things like candidate identification.   At one point, this was a very important selection criterion to make sure the right search firm was picked for a search.  At one point in the history of executive search, headhunters would spend decades amassing a proprietary Rolodex, mapping the industry and what talent was harbored where.  This was hard-to-come-by information, usually only amassed via “gumshoe” work, calling and talking to the industry on a constant basis.  However, in the last 10 years, and 5 in particular, there has been a huge shift at the executive levels.  There has evolved a set of technology tools that has allowed unprecedented transparency into who is where at any given point, tech tools like ZoomInfo and LinkedIn to name just a few.  So, with access to these tools and the modicum level of investigative interest and time, finding as a value proposition for executive search selection has become commoditized.  The “black book” that recruiters worked hard to build and protect has effectively been published on the Internet for each and every executive level in virtually every industry.

So if “finding” is no longer the lynchpin for search firm selection, what does that leave? There are still the other three values a search firm brings-ability to sell the opportunity, assess the candidate, and ultimately procure the candidate of choice the company selects via the final interview processes and endgame negotiating.

It would be really interesting to see a search firm selection process be shifted to an evaluation of two of these three areas, plus an addition of three new metrics:

• #1: How does a search firm “sell” the search to prospective candidates? What is the search firm’s “pitch,” how well does the executive recruiter present the opportunity, its nuances, and a compelling story. Good talent is usually not looking to move. And good talent is usually fairly happy where they are, and valued where they are. So, a good headhunter needs to present an even more compelling reason to persuade an executive to look at a new opportunity. A prospective client could ask the search firm for the marketing documents the executive recruiter has written and used from past searches and evaluate them as to their compelling nature. A client could even ask for samples of emails or voicemail “pitches” that have been used in the past, and what tools a search firm uses that uniquely differentiate a company’s executive need.
• #2: How does a search firm “assess” candidates? We feel that assessment is the new “black book” value proposition of executive search. Prospective client companies could ask search firms for how they assess candidates? What tools do they use, what key success factors does the search firm interview for in all executives, and what unique success characteristics would they interview for specific to a given position and company profile. What assessment information is passed along to the company? What does a candidate interview summary “write up” look like? And how much assessment is really delivered in the write-up, versus a simple repackaging of resume and background information? Also, how are references done, and samples of references completed to get a sense for what the search firm is looking for in its referencing process. A really interesting article written about how search firms work, and in particular, how search firms assess candidates, can be found in the PhD research of Monica Hamori, PhD candidate at Wharton. It’s a very interesting read — http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/332669-1.html. Unfortunately, Ms. Hamori’s conclusion is that candidate assessment is done very differently from search firm to search firm. Most notably, she identified that candidate assessment is done differently from partner to partner inside large search firms, with no assessment standards or processes.

As for the three new search firm selection criteria, I’d suggest clients add these three to the two above:
•    #3: Pre-search “discovery” process.  What does the search firm do to uncover all there is to know about the company, the culture, the position, the internal and exogenous factors, and most importantly, the chemistry success equation with the hiring authority within the company to whom the position with report.

• #4: Post-search onboarding and “stick rate.” What does the search firm do to ensure success of the candidate in their new role? And what is a search firm’s “stick rate,” or success rate in placing executives in new companies who then stayed for some period of time rather than bouncing off, suffering organ rejection from the host organism company who hired them? This could even include a redistribution of the executive search fee structure. Wouldn’t it be far better alignment between client company and search firm if both were incented to nurture a new executive’s success in the role? Perhaps a deferment of part of the fee for service if onboarding coaching were employed, with a delayed “final payment” at the end of a year of service, on actual bonus paid “above targeted compensation,” rewarding the search firm for above expected performance achieved by that executive.
• #5: References. Client companies should do a better job referencing the search firm. So much can be learned from how a search firm performs references. Who they check references with, how references are performed, what questions are asked, are references aggregated or attributed to specific reference givers, or? How many references are performed? Are any references performed with those who were not provided by the candidate? Are background and credentials checks performed on the finalist candidate(s)?
  Somehow, if these 5 selection criteria were used to evaluate potential search firms, my hunch is, as often as not, a different firm would be selected. And a better ultimate executive candidate for the retained search in question.