New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman has written an Op-Ed piece that should give all those involved in talent acquisition pause . There is "actually a critical, but unspoken reason for the Great Recession". That reason has coincided with the mortgage crisis and the subsequent meltdown on Wall Street and in financial markets wrapped around the world. At the same time Americans were spending more than we ought on houses we couldn't afford, we were not investing in the one thing that could help us maintain our global competitive advantage:education.

In fact, many see our Nation's sub-standard education as the primary reason for the downfall of our global competitiveness. Strategic thinkers with high-end analytical, problem solving skills -- those who invent new ways to old jobs or who create new services or who attract new business -- are fairing far better than highly educated engineers, lawyers, and accountants focused on more routine tasks tasks that increasingly have been outsourced overseas. Consequently, the frightening realization is this: college educated, task-oriented workers will likely never get their jobs back. Those jobs are gone. But there are numerous lucrative jobs that go unfilled with U.S. workers simply because we have refused to grow our own through education -- the immediate case-in-point that springs to mind is that of health care workers.

We've got one segment of our population that is undereducated who either dropped out of high school or did not graduate from college (about 72%) -- -- and another part of our population that needs to be re- college-educated. So while we think about solving the problems that originated with sub-prime mortgage, we have to understand that a sub-prime education helped get us where we are today. From where I sit, the opportunity cost of not investing in an affordable education for all Americans is far greater than the cost of doing the right thing.

Retained search firms frequently provide guidance to prospective clients on how to select a search firm. But a number of their assertions have gone unchallenged, much to the detriment of employers that have been hoodwinked into paying far too much for too little in return. Well over half of all retained searches fail to complete and it is estimated that 40-50% the executives who are recruited don't make it past their first year. Clearly, something needs to change. I suggest we begin by exposing some of the myths regarding what an employer should look for in selecting a firm.

Myth #1: Find a search firm that specializes.

On the face of it, specialization seems to make sense. Clearly, you want a firm that understands your business and its players. But there are many ways to come by that wisdom. Moreover, seeking industry specialization is like tying your feet together at the beginning of a foot race. Industry specialization cripples your search efforts because it sets up client blockage: any search firm that specializes in your industry will be unable to recruit from all of your ideal target companies because a number of those companies will be clients of the firm. Of course, the search firm will promise to tell you if there is a conflict, but why should you believe them? They have intentionally pursued a model that sets up a conflict of interest. In other words, it doesn't bother them enough to do something different and do the right thing.Why don't they make a commitment to serve just one major client per industry? Bain & Company did that to leave no doubt in their clients' minds that Bain was loyal. It is a commitment that we have decided to make. Rather than specialization, buyers of search should seek loyalty instead and choose a firm that takes pro-active steps to prevent conflicts-of-interest.

Myth #2 - Choose a retained firm that charges 30% of first year total compensation plus expenses.

Retained search firms, on average, charge 30% of annual first year total compensation of the candidate they place plus expenses. While it isn't technically price fixing, it is sure seems as if the search firms got together and colluded. In fact, if you actually stop to think about it, retained search firms have significant motivation to enforce their exorbitant fees. For executives whose total compensation exceeds $300-thousand, search fees top $100-thousand and beyond. Retained firms get paid that whopping sum whether the search lasts a week, a month, or a year. In other words, the fee is completely disconnected from the actual work that they do. Certainly, it is time for some other pricing options, such as a pay-as-you-go monthly retainer for as long as you need. No more, no less.

Myth #3 - Find a search partner that claims to have extensive network to tap for candidates.

A good search partners works their sources the way a reporter does. (As a former award-winning investigative reporter, I know a great deal about the care and feeding and sources.) But do not assume that a search partner will be able to recruit a candidate simply based on a preexisting golfing or country club relationship. Conversely. do not assume that a candidate will refuse to engage just because they're hearing from a recruiter for the first time. Either the timing and the opportunity are right or they're not. Executives do their due diligence. In light of the many ways we can reach out and touch a candidate, what seems to matter more is the ability to uncover all viable candidates. You usually don't do that from the 9th hole.

More on the myths in future posts.

It's been a long, hot summer. Dog day afternoon. Far too many gifted executives caught by the undertow of the economy. It is as if we -- the keepers of talent -- have been standing on the beach as we watch companies, colleagues, and loved ones dragged out to sea. But we are the lifeguards, the company-guards, the keepers of the flame and of talent.

When business plans fail, it is talent that drives a corporate turnaround.

For nearly a year, colleagues in executive search have put on a brave face: they've witnessed profits plummet as companies stopped hiring C-level executives. Phone 911. But our comatose economy is showing signs of stirring.

Our practice is picking up turnaround searches from vast financial institutions who have had their playbooks rewritten, and who have regulators as referees. For other clients, we're conducting confidential searches to replace senior executives who are not matching force with the increased demands of the economic downturn. Helming a company that is downsizing or controlled by regulators isn't easy or pretty. But somebody has to do it. Frequently, that somebody has to be brought in to save the day.

Recruiting into companies as they reorg and restructure is like switching out the engine of a 747 in flight. It is like playing football, only the playing field has goal posts on roller skates. These are the times which try corporate souls and test the mettle of top search consultants.

But the neat thing is this: The strong will survive. In fact, they will thrive. Increasingly, we are diving in to rescue companies and colleagues. We will breathe life into the executive suites of the companies we serve -- stat -- which in E.R. parlance is short for statim, the Latin word for immediately.

I recently posted a Q&A on LinkedIn asking "What have job candidates done or said that blew their chances of getting hired?" and received an astounding 40 answers. I could not believe the weird stuff that recruiters and hiring managers said that candidates had done during their interviews. It seemed to be something that recruiters and hiring managers wanted to talk about . . . A LOT. And so with that I've launched a new website called TJNTIY (they're just not that into you).

I figured a little levity could go a long way to get us through economic hard times we all face. In anecdote after anecdote, you get to hear how hiring managers assess and ultimately decide against a candidate who could have been you or me. That insight, I hope, will help candidates not make similar mistakes during their next job interviews. TIY postings, on the other hand, will provide real-world examples of things a candidate can say or do to get hired as in "they're . . . into you". And last . . .we also invite the anecdotes about the clues from a potential employer that, when decoded, suggest they're just not that into you.

So please come. Read. Laugh a little. And then share . . . (those who are not logged in can post anonymously to the site.)

See you online!

Have you ever found yourself at the end of a day, week, or month and wonder where the time went? Seriously. One moment you were at the beginning. The next moment . . .its as if Scottie beamed you up to CBD (close of business day). You review all that you did in the preceding hours and realize you could not have worked any harder. If you did, you would be dead. (Seriously. Your co-workers arriving the next morning at work would discover you sitting bolt upright in your chair, head tilted back, and mouth agape - as if your last words were not words, alas, but a silent scream.)

I don't know about you, but I've got 371 emails in the inbox I'd cleaned out less than 24 hours ago. It's like I've got randy rabbits in there making baby email bunnies. I've got 4 phones to my name, each one with voicemails demanding my attention. Throughout the day, luminaries and clients all want a piece of me. (The economy is actually working for us as employers seek better value in the search firms they retain.) And then there's the social networking, the blogging, the speaking engagements, the video and photo shoots, not to mention the fact that I head my own firm as CEO with all the requisite fiscal and leadership responsibilities that come with it.

So what's a recruiter to do? What's anyone in talent acquisition to do to meet the growing demands of our 24/7 world when you have so much you want to achieve and so little time in which to do it. I have two words for you.

Clone thyself.

Big, fat companies have been cloning themselves for years. They call it outsourcing. If the outsourcing extends beyond the boundaries of these United States, it is called off-shoring. But for individuals, I am referring to a personal assistant, in this case a virtual one. Celebrities have enjoyed the benefits of personal assistants for years. They can serve as your own personal concierge, taking care of whatever business needs tending to that can be delegated. It takes some planning and management, but as Edward Savio points out, the rewards can be enormous. It's a way to drive your performance to new heights by getting twice as much done as you did before. You get around to doing stuff you should have been doing that wasn't because you didn't have the time. You get time for work/life balance. And because you are making oh so much more money, you get to give back and pay it forward.

Of course, The Good Search is positioned to serve as a natural extension to internal search teams. In essence, we help recruiters clone themselves whenever their bandwidth is maxed out or whenever their time is better spent managing relationships with hiring managers and ushering top candidates through to offer. Clients retain us for a single executive search engagement a month at a time or to deliver candidates across a range of openings. . .we keep it easy, flexible, and affordable. And that's the approach you want in your virtual assistant.

Typically, the corporate solution for an overworked executive is to provide an executive assistant. But, honestly I believe virtual assistants offer greater flexibility. You can task them with personal as well as professional responsibilities. You can have them work overnight while you're asleep so that the task is complete by the start of your business day. You can have them manage a team of helpers . . . The increases you see in your productivity and income should more than offset the cost. In fact, I know some top executives who use a virtual assistant in addition to the executive assistant they have at work. Moreover, one keeps his personal assistant a secret -- better to keep 'em guessing on what his secret is to accomplishing so much more than everyone else. ("Does George ever sleep?")

So the next time your "To Do" list is longer at the end of your day than at the beginning, simply clone yourself. You and your newfound you will be glad you did.

Seriously. I want to hire this kid. And the agency that's driving the Born to Consult campaign for Deloitte. And Deloitte. The company is ranked No. 9 on Fortune's Most Desirable MBA Employers list. And upon viewing the video, it's easy to understand why. They get it. The advertising campaign is designed to capture the attention of the mid-20s MBAers who spend most of their waking hours online. (A tip of the hat to The Recruiting Animal whose tweets brought the video to my attention.)

Deloitte's Mini-Me seems an edgier, smart aleck version of the original Oscar Meyer kid. (According to one YouTube user, the "My bologna has a first name" boy is Andy Lambros, a Greek kid from Long Beach, CA -- though not so much a child anymore since the video dates back to 1973:

If you want more of the Deloitte kid, run through the Q&A at the Deloitte portal. It's so good, it kind of makes you wish you were an accountant . . .

Scenario: What to do if your hiring manager is making your search a living hell.

With few exceptions, a senior level executive (hiring manager) is not a recruiter by profession. As a result, he or she may be under the mistaken impression that ideal candidates can be found lined up at your front door step ­– especially in this economy – when, in fact, the opposite is more likely to be true. The flood of applicants is actually making it even harder for many of our clients to find the right candidate. But that doesn't seem to matter as you attempt to explain why you haven't materialized a candidate out of thin air. You watch on as your senior executive's jaw muscle flexes and as his complexion turns a shade of crimson you've never before witnessed. Your grip tightens around the arms of the office chair in which you sit as you begin the silent countdown . You are confident he's going to blow.

• Do not take argumentative attacks personally. Try to picture stepping aside as incoming volleys go past. Remain mindful.
• You don’t have a “problem”: you have an “opportunity” to improve recruiting results.
• Realize the manager may be acting under duress as a result of pressures stemming from the economy and may lack the skill sets necessary to cope.
• To gain his trust, increase your transparency: detail every thing that has been done on his behalf. Analyze what has and has not worked. Then make recommendations. In doing so, think out of the box. Innovate.

To prevent problems in the first place, I recommend that you or your search firm build search bullet-proofing into your search process:

• Test the requirements of the role. “If I found a successful candidates with seven, not the required eight, years of experience, would you rather I not present them?”
• Test the competitiveness of the role. “Are you confident this opportunity is competitive when compared to similar opportunities elsewhere?” If the hiring manager says he doesn’t know, then that’s an opening for a dialog.
• Proactively scan for problems that may interfere with your search success and immediately document those disconnects in a report. Even if the hiring manager doesn’t take action, you now have proof you did your best to try to resolve the issue.
• Request immediate feedback on candidates and underscore how doing so will benefit the hiring manager.

As the economy worsens, those in talent acquisition may feel it safer to keep their heads down and not speak up to deal with a problem searches and irritable hiring managers. However, by speaking up and by solving problems, you become more valuable to your organization.

Visit http://www.thegoodsearchllc.com for our whitepaper, articles, and to brainstorm with our team.

Suzy Welch's new book, 10-10-10 A Life-Transforming Idea, is a study in decision-making, which is why executive search consultants should take notice as well as the C-level luminaries that we recruit. A candidate's career is not simply a collection of skills and acquired experiences, but rather serves as evidence of candidate's ability to decide his or her own fate. Great recruiters learn to look for a story arc in candidate's career. Ideally, the career path should, on average, ascend ever upwards in as series of steps in which greater responsibilities are assumed and greater challenges are overcome. There should be valleys among the peaks (a complete absence of valleys suggests a cooking of the career books). Moreover, life's lessons and priorities, its plots and subplots, are important parts of the story as they speak to character and backbone.

Suzy is the former editor-in-chief of the Harvard Business Review and is a work-life columnist for O The Oprah Magazine. She is married to the former Chairman and CEO of General Electric Jack Welch with whom she co-authored the New York Times bestseller Winning and of The Welch Way. Suzy teaches us that in our complicated multi-tasking world of conflicting priorities, too much information, and far too many options, decision-making is often crazy-making at times. As a result, we put off deciding, which, as the standard default option, is most decidedly a decision with consequences. That is how we end up in the uncomfortable places that we end up. Frequently, it isn't by design. It is by avoiding difficult choices altogether, which is an illusion because they cannot be avoided. There is a tremendous price to be paid: an opportunity cost.

Suzy proposes a simple rule of 10-10-10. We must ask ourselves what are the consequences of our actions in 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years. She doesn't mean specifically down to the last minute, month, and year. It could be 8 minutes, 14 months, and 11 years. Rather, we must consider the immediate, short term, and long term costs and benefits regarding what we are about to do.

Suzy's rule, of course, can be harnessed to assess leader's decision-making abilities by examining the implications of his/her decisions over time. A resume is a time line. So too is a corporation's financial statements to the SEC. Did she go for immediate gain and ignore long-term risks? Did he fail to see a threat that emerged a half year or year down the road? Decision-making is an expression of an executive's murky or crystalline vision. Suzy has given us new clarity as we contemplate the futures of our candidates and ourselves.

Most of us have friends and love ones who have been recently downsized -- corporate-speak for being handed a pink slip and shown the door. Few are immune from this dispiriting trend from the senior-most executives to entry-level workers who were the last in, and, regrettably, always among the first to go. For those who are laid off and for those left behind, the event is disorienting. One day the job was here: the next was gone as if Ashton Kutcher woke up from a night of partying to exclaim, "Dude, where's my job?" Next month, I'm serving as moderator of the International Association for Corporate & Professional Recruitment's live phone-in discussion panel entitled "The Challenges of Downsizing". The teletopic will take place on June 10, 2009 from 11:30-12:30 Eastern and designed for professionals involved in talent acquisition and retained executive search. (To register, visit www.iacpr.org.)

Clearly, downsizing is hitting every corporation in every sector of the marketplace. The experience is traumatic for those making the decisions and delivering the news; those losing their positions; and the individuals left behind, taking up the slack and worried about the future. The IACPR has put together an impressive panel of experts In an effort to answer questions on the myriad of challenges – and how to effectively support all those impacted.

Joining me will be Joyce Bradley, the SVP/General Manager of the Greater Philadelphia Area of the talent management solution firm Lee Hecht Harrison; Allison Cheston, a Career Strategist with Allison Cheston & Associates; and Ann Scott ,an Executive Agent with Scott Executive Agent. The presenters will examine on the many challenges of downsizing – before, during and after the event. In addition, they will provide helpful tips about what recruitment professionals can do to help ease the transition and prepare executives for a job hunt.

The issues to be explored include the following:

• Business unit heads are often the ones responsible for delivering the bad news – and often, too, the most unprepared. What should supervisors know beforehand? What is the one best piece of advice they can give to individuals when they first learn they’ve lost their jobs?
• What are the most effective resources and support to offer those who have been downsized – and still stay within corporate budget restraints?
• It’s a tight job market. What is the best way for job seekers to differentiate themselves? And what are the most common mistakes job seekers make?
• For some, now might be the best time to re-assess their careers – and go off in a totally new direction. How hard is it to make a major career change? What should you know before you start? What if you’re not ready to take on another full-time position?
• The executives who remain are the ones you want to keep. How do you successfully communicate where the company is headed and ease the stress, especially if their workload has now doubled and job satisfaction is at a premium?

In my capacity as CEO of The Good Search, I serve as a trusted advisor to top executives and to some of the most powerful and successful companies in the world. I'm also a board member of the IACPR. Joyce Bradley has helped companies plan an effective downsizing strategy and manage their transition process from start to finish – including ensuring that retained executives remain productive, committed and focused. Allison Cheston connects mid-career executives with work that is fulfilling, flexible and best uses their skills and interests and repackages clients to provide them more traction in the job market. Ann Scott is recognized for providing totally candid and honest feedback to candidates, which helps the prospect establish realistic goals and take appropriate actions.

Scenario: What to do if you have to layoff and hire at the same time

Layoffs are occurring with increasing frequently in the current economic environment. However, that doesn’t mean those same companies have stopped hiring. As companies brace to withstand the cold economic winds that blow, they frequently need to hire critically important talent at the same time they let other people go. Yet, to do both so publicly risks accusations of being cruel and unfair, if not Machiavellian, to recently downsized employees.

That is why so many companies canceled their parties this past Holiday Season. It just didn’t seem right to celebrate when so many valued team members had just been let go. It is at these critical junctures that search firms offer a much needed veil of confidentiality and discretion to fill the openings that occur during periods of corporate downsizing.

If you must hire while you layoff:

• Avoid having your company’s recruiters conduct the search. Caller ID and call backs will make it impossible for you to keep the search off-radar.
• Avoid retained search firms. The cost of a single retained search can easily pay the annual salary of a staff member you just downsized.
• Avoid contingency firms. They are nearly as costly as retained and their transactional approach does not offer the discretion required.
• Search firms that offer unbundled services offer the most cost-effective solution, however make sure the service offers high-touch concierge-quality care.

As long as your company is in business, it will need people to get the work done. But challenging times call for a more strategic approach to recruiting positioned ahead of the curve. Downsizing alone is a drag on a company’s brand as an employer-of-choice. It is important not add fuel to the fire by being insensitive to how your actions might be interpreted by those who were just shown the door.

For more information, check http://www.thegoodsearchllc.com