Early yesterday morning when Sir Alex’s retirement was still just a rumour, one of my fellow gym goers commented that he was sure that wasn’t an assignment I would want to be mandated on….summarising it as ”an impossible piece of recruitment” compared with usual C-Level mandated.

Is it?

Sir Alex is cited as being one of the best managers ever, he is without question the most successful English football manager ever – but are the traits of a football manager comparable with a business leader? And does the recruitment of a great one become harder, or easier?

Fergie is unusual. He is a great manager and a great leader. Few people are, but that is part of what makes an exceptional football manager, and arguably a great Business Leader. But has the demands on a football manager increased during Sir Alex’s tenure.  It took him nearly 4 years to win any Silverware (1990 FA Cup), and almost 7 years to win the league. Would a modern top-flight club manager be given as long?

…..and would a high profile FTSE-100 CEO be given as much grace?

Further comparisons between Fergie and a FTSE-100 CEO draw other interesting parallels. Sir Alex has seen his salary from £60,000 per year in 1986, to over £7m now (an 11,000% increase), despite his responsibility being nothing like as broad in the business as a CEO (Man Utd have a more than able CEO in the likewise soon to be departing, David Gill, whose salary is barely 25% of Fergie’s).

During the same 26 years, the average FTSE-100 CEO salary has increased from £150,000 to £850,000 (a 560% increase), their average total remuneration having increased from £220,000 to £4.8m during the same time (a 2,000% increase).

So Sir Alex has done ok, and it must be remembered that not only is he not CEO, his business is nowhere near FTSE-100 status, the average FTSE-100 company turnover being well over £10bn with a market capitalisation of over £15bn – Manchester United’s current year turnover is expected to be only 2-3% of an average FTSE-100 at between £3-400m, with a Market Capitalisation of around £1.9bn.

But, and this is where the biggest difference comes from, Football is wholly emotive, and cannot really be measured in financial terms. Sir Alex’s haul of silverware and league titles puts him, in many peoples estimation, far ahead of any Corporate CEO…..his skills having more in common with an Entrepreneur. And you can’t recruit someone to be an Entrepreneur.

The appointee should have an easier ride than his FTSE-100 counterpart too, without the automatic vilification a large company CEO will get (opposing supporters excluded!) despite his earnings being far higher than the fattest of fat cats.

So how would you go about recruiting Fergie’s replacement?

Put simply, you don’t. Many wildly successful people have been ‘replaced’ and seen their successors struggle. Terry Leahy and perhaps less resoundingly, Stuart Rose being two public examples. Taking over from the best of their kind is an impossible task, but that becomes the wrong motivation for recruitment – but a mistake often made.

We start every C-Level mandate with an argument, usually surrounding what is really needed. “We just need another Alex”, is not a viable mandate. You are highly unlikely to find another manager that will deliver 38 titles in the next 26 years. Even finding someone who will deliver 1½ pieces of silver per year is close to an impossible task.

Even mirroring Sir Alex’s style is not the way to recruit. Leaders have the own style, and finding the one with a style that suits best is the challenge.

Fergie’s style has always been controversial.  Kicking a boot at David Beckham, countless touchline bans for over-exuberant/inappropriate behaviour (I can sympathise with that one) and even recently Wayne Rooney has spoken of players’ fear of being subjected to the “hairdryer” treatment, when the manager would bellow in their faces like a “Babyliss Turbo Power 9000”. Not of which are really seen as classic ‘strong leader’ traits.

Sir Alex recently gave a lecture at Harvard on his own inimitable management style. He may be more known for the boot kicking incident, or for installing tanning booths at the training ground to boost his pampered players’ Vitamin D levels (during Ronaldo’s time?), but his lecture showed an uncompromising, tough management style. He advised future business leaders that he wasn’t afraid of giving the big egos a dressing down, and of how he would use unusual stories to rev up the team for important games.

But if you transfer Fergie’s behavior into other environments, or even look at them with politically-correct, 2013 eyes, there are traits that wouldn’t, or shouldn’t work:

Fergie is known for his uncompromising attitude to his players. Behaviour deemed acceptable 30-40 years ago is no longer so (just ask any former Radio1 DJ….) and Sir Alex’s behavior would be seen as bullying today by many, and would see many a manager end up in court.

Likewise his temper. Getting angry is fine it’s human, but a good leader (and a good manager) learns to control that anger rather than resorting to ‘petulant child’ mode….like refusing to speak to the press after a questionable red card. Fergie has got away with is as his players are at the top and have nowhere to go other than down.

But many of his styles are truly transferable. He has always been known for his ability to praise. As he was quoted as saying, there is nothing better for a human being than hearing the words “Well Done” – a minor point that so many leaders get so wrong.

Likewise his ability to inspire. He is famous for using his passions to enthuse his players – his well reported story the day after he has seen Andrea Bocelli using his passion and the paradigm of the Orchestra being the perfect team.

He also has had a very strong team focus, and uses his respect-based authority to control the egos (and Galácticos) in the team, not letting narcissism exist. Everything is done to the long-term benefit of the team, including leaving key players out of matches.

So what DOES make a good football manager? And is that similar to finding a good business manager, or business leader?

The best leaders gain the absolute trust of their players, they put you on your toes whenever they set foot in the room, and have a philosophy, vision and passion that is greeted with enthusiasm and delivered with spirit and belief.

Good new managerial appointments have the ability to quickly understand the current environment and its challenges, formulate (and agree) an action plan, introduce, then enforce it. They need mutual respect with their team, but not necessarily mutual affection. Strong leaders need the ability to professionally distance themselves from their wider team.

The process of locating that perfect next appointment is the same regardless of who or what the appointment is, but with football, clubs often miss the important part. It is who they are, what they can do not what they are.

Football managers are often former players, and many players want to become managers (and many managers still want to be players) but it is not a forgone conclusion that great players make great managers. Management is a skill that can be taught to a large degree, but leadership is more of an intrinsic ability. Both are needed to make a great appointment.

The fact that most managers have been players at some point is no surprise, basic understanding of the player level game is vital – as is basic understanding of the industry a CEO operates within, but only those with natural leadership ability are likely to go on to be great managers. Many former Man Utd players have been linked with management; Keane, Robson, even Beckham but it is difficult to see any of them truly being a manager in the same league as Fergie.

Conversely, look at the class defining football managers, most if not all have been professional players, but few were absolute top class.

Recognising the true management candidates, appropriate for that environment, becomes the skill. Chemistry fit is everything – as it is with corporate recruitment.

The process of finding the next Manager should be straight forward, and echo the way in which HeadHunters find the best talent for their clients. That is for the key stakeholders to assess exactly what it is they need, without emotion; desired changes, desired improvements, and desired objectives – all at organisational and operational level.

Once those basic ‘must haves’ are decided, the chemistry fit becomes vital. What person, personal style and personality will fit. This will be all the more tricky, yet vital with CEO David Gill’s summertime replacement by Ed Woodward (current Vice Chairman, not ‘Equalizer’).

It is at that point that for a corporate HeadHunter that the real work, and hard work begins. Finding the people and getting their interest. For Man Utd, that bit will be, surely, easier. Potential candidates are largely already well known and the pull of being the Manager at Old Trafford will surely be a call few will outright reject.

So who?

I’m no pundit, but even I can see the bones of a potential shortlist.

Jose Mourinho – seemingly the people’s favourite? Gravitas, charisma and results to take on the United mantle but return ticket to Chelsea and opposition within the ranks may scupper.
David Moyes – the smart money? Miracle worker with a virtually non-existent budget at Everton (& PNE before). Real ability to get a team working as well as play the transfer market like a hustler. He’s also ‘available immediately’. out of contract this summer.
Jurgen Klopp – Really smart money? Huge potential, two Bundesliga titles and further thrust into limelight with Borussia Dortmund’s giant killing to secure their place in the Champions League final; offers longevity and style that could/should suit Old Trafford.

Then the former players? Less likely….but emotion runs high.

Ryan Giggs. Always been a Fergie favourite to step up to management citing him as having the ability to step up and ensure continuity in the same way as Pep Guardiola at Barcelona.
Gary Neville. Moved seamlessly into punditry and coaching under Roy Hodgson. Turned management roles down, but could he spurn the advances from Old Trafford?
Ole Solskjaer. Part of the history books following the 1999 CL Final winning goal, and the only contender currently in a management role. Shown potential at Molde with consecutive Tippaligaen titles. Big gamble, but never underestimate such a fan’s favourite. Having lived close to him for many years, he also has the grounded temperament that could work.

One thing is certain, the appointment will be made in a lot shorter timescale than the Executive Search’s comic average assignment length of 24 weeks….. shorter than even my average retained process time of just over 6 weeks. The process will have been running for a long time already, succession planning has been the talk in and out of Old Trafford for years and as soon as the magic #20 was hit, the odds were on for Sir Alex to leave on the ultimate high, and for the succession announcement to be similarly engineered, as it was with David Gill’s announcement in February.

But much as the recruitment of such a football manager could learn a lot from corporate recruitment; so corporate recruitment could learn a lot from Manchester United’s key managerial recruitment process. Plan; don’t just be limited to obvious choices and understand the chemistry fit of the available options.

Post Script – David Moyes, Manager, Manchester United.

So with the metaphorical white smoke rising from Old Trafford, David Moyes has indeed go the nod. No real surprise for football fans, and no surprise from a more technical search perspective.

Sir Alex, who lest we forget is not leaving, but just moving ‘upstairs’, has had a huge say in his successor and has made it no secret that he sees a lot of himself in Moyes – drive, character, team focus and raw determination.

Moyes is also one to promote and develop young players giving them the same expectation exceeding opportunity that perhaps Moyes himself is getting in this appointment.

Some have commented that the appointment too much of a mild evolution? And that Fergie will still (be allowed to) have too much input with a mild-mannered Manager – contrasting with a Mourinho style that would rebuff interference.

Promoted execs not letting go is a huge risk to recruitment processes and risk jeopardising both appointments, and the success of appointees….

….however, an even greater risk is a business without the need for dramatic change, employing a change agent who in turn seeks to stamp authority. If it isn’t broken, don’t try and fix. That must be the mantra at Old Trafford.

Crucially, Moyes will bring the depth of team focus and refusal to accept prima-donnas and general narcissism that Sir Alex has become so famed for. With Mourinho, one could argue that he brings greater narcissistic behaviour then the best of players (his truncated comments to ITV Sport after his teams defeat in the CL Semi-final confirming his true personality?).

…..That said, Mourinho’s energy and charisma would have been an interesting sight on the Old Trafford touchline (and Mrs Chaplin (along with 1,000s of other wives) is certainly lamenting the news that he will not become a neighbor…!)

Moyes is most definitely team first. And for any team (and any business/organisation running as well as ManUtd), that becomes a powerful leadership position.

The King is dead. Long live the King.

Thatcher was a self-declared non-feminist, famously stating “The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison”. And yet, ask one of the still comparatively few women on FTSE350 or Top150 boards about her, and most will attest that she had a huge influence in their progression up the corporate ranks. She showed a generation of Women that anything was possible.

“If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman”

There are plenty of detractors for Lady Baroness Thatcher, never that I can remember has one person caused such polar opinion…..but I’m not going to get into defence, nor attack of her.

However, lets put just one thing in context. Aside from the ‘poor man of Europe’, union led, blackout-rich state of the UK before her election victory in 1979, our country was still a very anti-women environment. The Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Pay Bill only came in the same year as she became Conservative Party Leader, and the London Stock Exchange only allowed women onto its floor 22 months earlier. Even more incredible, as recently as 1974, women were not allowed to rent white-goods from some providers (and most households couldn’t afford to own such things…).

Further context….it took 18 years after Thatcher defied the UK’s most male-led environment to lead the country until a FTSE-100 had it’s first female leader – Dame Marjorie Scardino at Pearson. Whichever way you look at her, she was a game changer in getting women to lead, and aspire to lead.

38 years after The Sex Discrimination Act came into force, female board representation is now common place. Still not hugely common in the top job where we STILL never had more than 5 female FTSE-100 CEOs, but all but 7 of the FTSE-100 now have a women on their board, and over 17% of Top-150 directors are female, not far off double that of just 5 years ago, and up more than 10% compared to just a year ago. Lord Davies challenge to business to get to 25% female representation by 2015 looks attainable.

Or does it?

We’ve learnt this week that female board appointments to FTSE-100 boards have actually dropped in the last 6 months. And not just a small amount, they have almost halved from 44% to just 25% over the past 6 months.

Cynthia Carroll

This at the same time as several high profile females have also left their positions as FTSE-100 Directors, corporate trailblazer Dame Marjorie and AngloAmerican’s Cynthia Carroll being two high profile examples; both replaced by men.

Female FTSE-100 CEOs are now dangerously close to an all time low with just two female leaders current holding office

…and it gets worse.

Pro-Quota supporters highlight the ‘success’ of countries with quotas and/or penalties for businesses failing to reach set levels of female directors. Norway is the overused example. They implemented a legal stipulation for 40% of a company’s directors to be female, and it’s worked…..Except it hasn’t really.

What it has done is see Norwegian businesses fudge the figures to hit an arbitrary set limit. Many Norwegian businesses have used the promotion of (female) senior managers and department heads to notional board status to increase their ratios. Even more common is the explosion of female Non-Exec Directors to swell the ratios of female Directors, especially through the use of ‘Golden Skirts’.

Golden Skirts is the nomenclature given to serial Non-Execs, employed in an almost ‘rent-a-crowd’ fashion to increase ratios. Want to see how ridiculous it has got? Mimi Berdal was Norway’s most famous Golden Skirts. At one point she was a Director of 90 businesses. That’s right 90. All 90 could boast an extra tick of female board representation, but with only 365 days in the year, each business would get less than 1 day per quarter from her. What possible influence can 1 day per quarter really bring? But it satisfied the politicians and box-tickers.

Accordingly to McKinsey’s ‘Women Matter’ survey, almost 80% of female directors in Norway are Non-Exec, with the average number of posts being held by each female director being 8. Easily questionable how much impact those women on those boards can really have.

And even without quotas, it is heading the same way in this country. Although the number of overall women on FTSE-100 boards has increased from 12.2% to 17.3% between 2009 and 2013, the number of female executive committee members has decreased from 18.1% in 2009 to just 15% now. Even the overall number has dropped by 0.1% in the last 3 months.

Both lessons are further reason why quotas will not work, businesses will just get round the issue to tick boxes. Lest we forget, the news has been dogged with businesses ‘getting round’ tax issues. Gender issues will be even easier to manage.

So what will work?

First and foremost, understanding the real issue. Too many of the established Women in Business supporters seemingly spend much of their time selling the benefits of a gender balanced board. This is like selling the benefit of insurance price comparison to an anthropomorphic Russian meerkat; We get it. It is over 6 years since I had a client not actively want to attract women onto their board, and he was a well-known, particularly chauvinistic PLC CEO.  Financial/Cultural/Decisive/Stock-Price benefits gender balance brings are well documented and universally agreed upon.

As discussed in Women in Boardrooms: Supply not Quotas, the issue is supply of willing and suitably qualified execs (not just ‘capable’). Supporters will repeat ad nauseum that there are more than sufficient highly qualified women. They will blame outdated Chairmen for blocking the move, non-gender-balanced nominations committees creating non-gender-balanced board and even point the finger at sexist practices by HeadHunters. All of which I am sure are not totally absent, but they are certainly not a realistic factor. It’s the supply.

Martha Lane Fox – Baroness of SoHo

Business luminaries such as mightily impressive Baroness Martha Lane Fox and the globally renowned Helena Morrissey will point to the recently compiled European Business Schools/Women on Board list of 6000 Board Ready women, a searchable list of, as the name suggests, 6000 Board Ready Women currently residing in Europe. A great tool and a fantastic start, but there are a several issues with that.

• Over 25% of the 6000 are pure academics, not business ready professionals
• Almost 50% of those in business are currently within businesses (or business units) turning over less than €100m
• It doesn’t factor in how many of the 6000 actually want to be a large company board member.

Two other interesting facts:

Helena Morrissey

The numbers of Board Ready Directors needed to populate even just large businesses are huge. Mirella Visser of Gender Balanced Boards estimates the number of exec and non-exec directors needed to make a long term difference in Europe (EU27) to be 25-30,000. Her home country alone (The Netherlands) estimates it needs 3-3,500 female Directors, ready to ascend to the boards in the next 3 years.

Secondly, a flash report by McKinsey, using the same criteria as the European Business Schools/Women on Board used, estimated that there were over 100,000 ‘Board Ready Males’ – giving a ratio of 6:100, 6%. Even Italy betters 6% women on boards.

Supply is an issue…..but it can be addressed.

How?

First we need to stop messing about with nonsense reasons for the lack of female ascension to the board.

Lord Davies, and others, cite the cost of childcare for aspiring female executives as a major issue.

I don’t doubt that is a hindrance to many women in the workplace, but not women with their sights on the top table. Career driven execs of both genders come out of the blocks at an age well before family-planning becomes an issue.

Research by City University London shows that the average age for female graduates to have their first child is 35, for professionally qualified women that becomes 37. By such an age, a potential top-150 Board Director has their career sufficiently underway with a board appointment more than likely already behind them, for family considerations to not enforce involuntary disruption, especially for financial/child-care cost reasons.

Lord Davies, and others, then add the ‘biological issue’ to the argument, that women returning to work after maternity leave are often disadvantaged because of it. Again, majority of potential top company Board Directors will, by 35/37, have their career at such a stage of advancement that such leave is highly unlikely to have a significant effect.

Marissa Mayer – Yahoo! CEO

Of all the female FTSE-350 C-level execs I have interviewed, not a single one has cited any such hindrance to their career. Many may not be totally proud of the fact that they have put their career first, but none has ever felt that cost or existence family was a hindrance. Witness Marissa Mayer if you want an extreme example.

That is not to say that many female (and male) professionals won’t choose to give up a career, or choose to down-shift. And this leads into what I see as being the real issue. Choice.

Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO

Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook (and almost as detested in feminist circles as Marissa Mayer and Lady Thatcher) states “it is often women who stop themselves from reaching the heights of professional success in ways both big and small.”

One of the biggest derailing factors that prevents women getting to the top table, let alone the top job is nothing to do with their suitability, their capability or the benefit they can bring…..it is that they simply don’t want it.

Many women simply don’t need the ego trip of being CEO/CXO compared to men.

Even more common in this age of mass executive vilification, often deserved but even more often simply due to media spin/politics of envy/anti-success rhetoric [we’re getting back to Thatcher….], many women simply don’t want the stress and hassle that running a major corporation brings.

I’ve looked back over my notes from the last 15 FTSE-350 female execs that I have met; 6 FTSE-100, 9 FTSE-250. Only three of the 15 were CEOs, and all three had a long-term desire to move away from large corporates, 2 into pure NED roles, one into smaller more lithe businesses.

Of the non-CEOs, every single one had no desire to become CEO. They didn’t need the hassle, didn’t need the boost to self esteem and saw the positives outweighed by the negatives, indeed only two of them saw their next move as remaining in a FTSE-350 board role, the pull to Private-Equity or even more anonymous private ownership being the bigger pull.

Across the gender gap, of the equivalent males I have interviewed, only two had no desire to make CEO, both currently CFOs and both for the reason that they enjoyed the financial remit too much.

Wind that back to earlier in people’s careers, according to a Telegraph survey last year, at the point of leaving university twice as many males aspire to become a CEO than females. For those completing an MBA, that ratio increase to 4-to-1.

Signs of REAL change.

It is improving though. Female interest in senior roles is improving.  The average number of females long-listed has doubled in the last 2 years, and the number shortlisted has increased almost as much. If we take the real-life example of my placements this year:

• MD, £50m B2B
• CFO, £150m B2C
• Commercial Director, £bn B2B/B2C
• CFO, £30m B2B
• CMO, £125m B2C
• Brand Director, £75m B2C
• HRD, £100m B2C
• HR Manager, £75m B2B
• EA, £100m B2C

6 of the above 9 have been female. All shortlists had at least one female, with no all male shortlists (but 4 all female shortlists). Granted, the bottom three roles are very female dominated in function, but even 50% female representation makes it better than any other year in my 20-year career.

Dame Marjorie Scardino

As a further indicator, I have two roles at final stages this week, both have a female as their strongest contender, one is an all-female final stage. Other senior roles being shortlisted are likewise. Trading Director (3/5 female); CFO (2/4) only the CEO role has a significantly lower female representation (1/5), which is co-incidentally the highest salary.

…..but Lord Davies target is the Top-150 comprising of the FTSE-100 and the largest 50 non-listed organisations, salaries of which start at £300/350k and go well into £7-figures, and that is where the supply issues lay. Tellingly, the three highest salaries and arguably three biggest roles of those above are the ones secured by men.

Even more tellingly, only one of the females appointed has her sights set on CEO, but all three males do. Also telling is that I have also had 3 roles turned down by women, all offering career advancement, all deciding to stick with their current roles, broadly due to risk aversion. No male has turned an offer down.

“Contrary to the opinions of the members opposite, Pennies don’t fall from heaven, they have to be earned here on earth.” Margaret Thatcher, 1979.

We need to increase female desire to climb the corporate ranks and ascend to the top tables of the top businesses.

There is absolutely no question that a large part of that is the gradual shift of culture, environment and structure of executive management teams within large businesses, AND the support/sponsoring/mentoring of female middle & senior managers within those businesses to encourage them to [want to] continue their career progression. Both aspects are well underway, but still need greater focus.

But it is also the aspirations of women that need to be targeted and addressed…..and not just professionals, not even just existing managers.  Younger women, including those still at school let alone those in Higher Education, need inspiration to create their aspiration to enter and lead the business world. To create a sustainable pipeline of real female talent. One of the best inspirations is a number of female role models. We need more modern day Thatchers.

But we need female role models that will directly encourage females. Thatcher, whilst a great role model for women, did very little herself in terms of specifically bringing women to the top, both in terms of her policies and her choice of cabinet.

However, she did bring hunger, resolve ….and rose to the ranks on her own terms, and did so in a time with far greater barriers to entry than exist today. Too many women simply try and become men in order to compete with men. Thatcher famously used her femininity to her own benefit, and ultimately to the benefit of our country.

This is not an overnight solution, it will take a generation to really change the landscape of women in business, the attitude of women in business and the attitude of business towards women. It also needs a culture where women do not fight amongst themselves. As soon as a strong women rises to the top of her corporate game, she is turned on by one side of the female-support/feminist movement – witness the vitriol displayed to Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg, almost exclusively by other women.

A shift in attitudes across the genders will bring about genuinely balances boards. But a key role in that change is women themselves: Their desire to lead; willingness to do what it takes and resolve to get there. They need to be a Lady not for turning.

“I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain”. Margaret Thatcher, 1984.

Times move on, businesses move on and careers have certainly moved on. The average (median) tenure for people’s current jobs in the UK is now significantly less than 4 years, yet only 25 years ago it was almost 10 years. The average number of different jobs held in a lifetime is now 11.8 for men and 10.6 for women (the female ratio increases to be higher than men once you take out the effect of ‘family’).

For young professionals, the stats are even more surprising. Professionally qualified individuals under the age of 35 move jobs, on average, every 2 years 2 months. Once that age profile moves to 35-45 it improves, but only to 3 years 1 month.

If we wind back a generation, the ‘job for life’ was very common place. Wind back two generations and it was positively expected. My father in law stayed with his employer from his very first day of employment, right up until he retired.  My grandfather began working for the civil service at the age of 15 and concluded his employment, in 1977, after almost 45 years….and he took ‘early’ retirement.

We do still see some people getting to 25, 30 and even over 35 years service, but the realistic chance of someone entering the workplace today and staying with that employer for 40 years is almost nil. Is it the people, the businesses, the nature of work or the world in general? Or a combination of all four?

The world is turning a lot faster, in just about every conceivable way. Man’s ability to get around the world is increasing exponentially. Countries ability to shift their economic positioning is accelerating like our forefather would never imagine (See China and Greece as diametrically opposed examples). The world’s appetite for change and development is on an accelerative path like we can’t begin to comprehend – and technological advancements are responding to that desire (or are they fuelling it?)

Businesses are different. Very few businesses genuinely stay in the same, recognisable form for a decade, let alone for a generation. That is a comparatively new phenomenon. Genuine Blue-Chip businesses that dominated decades of this country’s commercial power up until 20 years ago are now few and far between, one could argue that there are no such things as Blue-Chip businesses, in this country at least – save except for the major banks, as controversially proved in the last 4 years. The pace of shift in the make-up of the FTSE-100 is further proof of that.

The nature of work has evolved. 50 years ago, over ¾ of the employed population were employed in what would been deemed blue-collar employment, or unskilled labour. Today that number is estimated at 43%. Blue collar workers are 3 times more likely to be in their job for in excess of 20 years, but that again is falling.

People are probably the biggest element though. Our appetite for change, our hunger for development and our unwillingness to tread-water are like we have never seen, and it is only getting worse. The global appetite and impatience every time Apple launches a new product are again proof of that – despite each hyped build up is less than a year since the last amazing developmental launch of a ground breaking product that by tomorrow will be outdated and to some at least, worthless. After a year.

The ‘playstation generation’ have grown up on immediacy. Instantaneous internet and computer speed, the immediate playback digital music and video provides. They have become used to yesterdays launch being outdated before they hear about it – their attention constantly focussed several phases ahead.  How do you expect someone to do the same job for 20 years when they get impatient over the annoying wait until a video game starts or a streamed movie loads?

Add in modern day human’s transitory mindset – nothing lasts forever, and fewer things are expected to last more than a few years (marriage included!). Virtually every purchase we make is seen as almost disposable. White goods expected to last maybe 5 years, tech products less than that. There are even fewer and fewer younger people staying in the same house/location for much more than this magical 4 years.

Given all of the above, it isn’t difficult to see why the average tenure of jobs is getting shorter and shorter, fast forward 15-20 years when current ‘lifers’ fall off the end of the employment statistics, expect that figure to plummet yet further.

There are however financial and career development reasons for such short job tenures.  The average ‘job for life’ worker can expect their earnings to increase just 2% above inflation/cost of living, this compares to the average pay increase for those moving jobs of 12% over the last decade (impressive when there has been downward pressure on earnings over the last 3 years).  Those getting internal promotions will typically see just an average of just 7% increase.

Two of conversations I had yesterday were with people I placed into similar level finance jobs in the late 1990s. Both with sizable organisations. One has only recently departed that same job, he has had 3 promotions and his exit salary was just 30% higher than his starting salary 14 years ago – in physical terms – in real terms, it is probably no higher. The other individual has had 5 jobs, 3 of which I have put him into. His current remuneration level is over 3 times what it was 13 years ago, and his package value well over 5 times that of 13 years ago. Moving works.

It’s also my fault.

There is a final reason though – the recruitment industry, and specifically Head-Hunters. Professionals taking the decision to consider looking for a new role, and thus asking me for advise on doing so will typically do so when they are naturally ready for a fresh challenge (whether driven by carrot or stick). However, the Head-Hunting/Exec Search sector will approach people well before that time.

This may be somewhat unpalatable from an employer perspective, but our clients want the best – and the best will seldom be actively looking on the job market, and are highly unlikely to be sat on a recruitment business’s active database.

This is also the reason the Exec Search market is growing so quickly, as businesses realise that in order to capture the best talent before they go public, they need to get someone to map, search, approach and lure the best talent for them….and that’s where we come in.

….Alas whilst our actions are driving our clients’ businesses forward every quicker, they are also putting the gold-pocket-watch industry under threat.

How many of those photos do you want your prospective employer to see?

Social media has revolutionized a lot of things. Recruitment and jobseeking is one area that has benefits above more than many, but the risk contained in your digital footprint must be understood.

We all remember Prince Harry’s Las Vegas antics last year. A reminder that in this age of smartphones, coupled with an overzealous/scandal craving media, there is no hiding place from the public eye. His behaviour was rightly dismissed by most as high-jinx antics from a young man about to enter a lengthy period serving in Afghanistan. You could argue the saga won him far more fans than it lost him and made his family appear just a little more human.

Harry’s antics were only newsworthy because he is royal, and a public figure. What about those who aren’t?

We were going to offer you the job….then we saw THIS

I did a speech last year on this subject to a group of final year university students. I asked for a volunteer, a young lady came forward. She was a Law Undergraduate, expecting a first with the plan to join a top 10 law firm.  I asked her to log on to her facebook account on my laptop connected to the projector, she declined. Smart move.

I asked if anyone in the room knew her name, most did. I then found her on facebook, and found several non-private photos of her. They included pictures from her previous year’s holiday, to Ayia Napa. Several photos of her by the pool in a bikini, which noone would disagree looked great, if perhaps a tiny bit inappropriate.

….then came a couple of photos from a nightclub where she and her friend (whose birthday it appeared to be) were on stage with the male ‘act’ doing something which shall we say made most of her male students sit up with interest, and envy. She looked horrified.

One of these males suggested it may help her get the Top10 job. Unlikely.  We then googled his name and quickly found his Twitter timeline. Of the half a dozen tweets that were visible on that page all but one were probably inappropriate for a prospective employer to see – and that one was a photo of his breakfast! The others included comments on how drunk he had been, swearing, comments of a sexual nature and a joke about a black footballer player.

Does this matter? Surely ‘kids will be kids’. This is true, but in a highly contested job market, employers need no reasons to exclude you from the process.

Real life example?

I interviewed a young lady last year, very bright, straight-A student, Prize-Winning professional qualifications. She had been targeted for a role I was handling working for a London-based, very conservative Entrepreneur. Knowing his HR team would do background checks, I got one of my researchers to do the same, again merely using Google….

We quickly brought up several beauty pageant wins, including an entry in the Miss United Kingdom. It also brought up a side-line pre-University career in fashion modeling. Following that thread it brought up some glamour modeling, and some soft porn work, and some not so soft….. You get the idea. She wasn’t shortlisted.

Another example was an active tweeter who devoted much of his spare time campaigning against Animal Testing and promoting extreme political views. His application to join a key service provider to AstraZeneca ended quickly.

A highly topical example is the recent hijack of HMVs twitter feed earlier this month, the tweets from unfired, recently dismissed members of staff were swiftly deleted, but only after 1,000 of copies had been made and distributed.

Your digital footprint is indelible. Your Facebook/Twitter accounts can be deleted, but the data will remain somewhere. Worse still, the majority of your digital footprint cannot be deleted by you but can be found by anyone.

Easiest way to prevent an adverse footprint is to avoid undertaking any activity that if discovered, might in any way hinder career prospects. But we are all human, and the life of total abstinence can render equal levels of unemployability. …for most it is “too late to shut the gate after the horse has bolted”

Back to Prince Harry.  How did he deal with the situation? No doubt he got a dressing down from his commanding officer, a similar dressing down from his Grannie and huge sarcasm from everyone that knew him. He’ll also make sure that next time, his so-called friends do not have their phones nearby…..

But he took it on the chin and laughed it off. A young man, in the military, about to risk his life for 5 months in Afghanistan had a party..…with girls and alcohol. He’d be more embarrassed if there hadn’t been such a party.

What can commoners do? I have first hand of this. Having been splashed across the media in 2011, I can see the impact of modern digital media. I was lucky, not only was the reported story so exaggerated it became obviously unbelievable, but I work in a profession where being well known is a massive benefit. My tale had a happy ending, many do not.

The lessons are same for everyone though, don’t hide, don’t deny. Take extreme caution in what you do publically but don’t avoid living life because of it. Yes delete those photos from Facebook once you start entering the job market. Be especially careful of what you tweet/blog/etc – assume that everyone sees your comments, your wife/husband, her/his parents, your boss, etc…and use that as your control mechanism. Don’t assume you can hide. The wwworld is watching.

But after the event, remember the saying, “It is not how hard you fall, but how high you bounce-back”.   Address, explain and move on. If others can’t, it was never meant to be.

Above all, be aware of your digital footprint.

The above blog initially appeared as my guest blog on http://www.daftblogger.com

…plenty however left because with (often misguided) shareholder vilification and personal circumstances meaning they didn’t need to work, they suddenly couldn’t be bothered with the increased stress and decreased earnings. It has all meant that chosing the right person is a far bigger task than most people realize…and undertaking such processes without external guidance is fraught with risk.

Today there was an announcement that the ‘top man’ of one of the world’s largest (and some would say richest) organisations has tendered his resignation. Not overly unusual in light of the above….except this was the leader of the Catholic Church, and he’s not the CEO. He’s the Pope. Even more unusual this is the first time a Pope has resigned for 2 years short of 600 years.

OK, so we’re not going to suggest that he’s left because the Catholic Church had turned on him in a Shareholder Spring style revolt, nor that he has simply had enough as his earnings and job expectations were heading in opposite directions. He has certainly presided over his fair share of scandal in the church from alleged sexual antics of priests and rumours following Dan Brown’s novels to the adopting of Social Media as a communication tool…. but it does leave a major organization suddenly having to locate a new chief.

His departure has been blamed on his advancing years. but the sudden realization that he was becoming older and less able to fulfill his duties isn’t something that cropped up on a Sunday evening and caused a swift announcement on a Monday morning.

For 600 years, the job title of ‘Pontiff’ meant a job for life, that was certainly the expectation for Pope Benedict who at 78 years of age, was the oldest newly appointed Pope since Alexander VIII in 1689. …and yet even he hasn’t made it such.

There was certainly no HeadHunter involved in his appointment, nor any real outside guidance (obviously not including divine guidance). He was appointed by his peers, the ultimate Closed Shop. Was he the right appointee at 78 years old? At the time there was great applause from the Age Discrimination lobbyists but in the cold light of day, was he the right choice for a modern day organisation?…even one as steeped in history as the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church is a very traditional organisation (although readers of Mario Puzo’s The Family will have seen a different form of it’s history/tradition), BUT….this is a highly changing world.  The media was in awe as Pope Benedict publically tweeted for the first time, but the necessity to adapt to change is far greater that the use of an iPad. Was a 78 year old man really the best choice? And what lessons will be taken from that moving forward?

Leading a highly traditionalist organisation in a wildly, fast changing world is a tough gig – just ask David Cameron in the era of Gay Marriage and Inheritance Tax freezes. Embracing change, reacting (and evolving) to this changing world is a big task in any circumstance – to do so as the leader in arguably the world’s most traditional organisation takes a superhuman being. This is exactly what the Pope is viewed as, but his eminence is still human,…and crucially is still dealing with humans.

Let’s introduce the focal point for much of the corporate hatred: Barclays. The only Bank not to need direct government bailouts, wildly profitable and one of the few genuine Blue-Chip organistions in the UK. The former leader, Bob Diamond, was superhuman in banking terms. Took his Investment Banking division through a 5-fold increase in revenue and a 12-fold increase in profitability….leading them to account for three-quarters of the entire Group’s profits. Little wonder then that he was promoted to CEO, yet 18 months later he and Chairman Marcus Agius were out, vilified and branded dinosaurs. An old fashioned organisation in a changing world.

Barclays answer has been to de-risk the situation in Anthony Jenkins and new Chairman Sir David Walker. Both are, by comparison, beige. But both have appeased the media and the rampaging anti-banker public by sanitizing the organisation, with only the shareholders being less enamored by the expected plummeting profits. As discussed in the blog “The Risk of Recruiting a Bunch of Bankers”, forcibly changing the culture of an organisation is a dangerous game, no matter how much it is needed, and in Barclays case, the only way is down.

Even I am not going to attempt to draw parallels between Barclays and the Catholic Church. The Church does, however, need to take a long hard look at the pool of ‘talent’ it can call upon, the appointment processes it goes through and the backdrop of the 21^st Century we live in.

Even more importantly, the appointee will need to understand that in the age of rapid change, a more visceral (and vocal) public and an increasingly volatile macro AND micro economic environment, never has the case been greater for recruiting the right person and getting external perspective on who that may be.

NB: This is an adapted version of my guest blog as seen on http://www.daftblogger.com

Same is said for building a relationship with Corporate HeadHunters.  Whether you are actively seeking to add to your own team, actively searching for a new job or just sensibly managing your own career progression and development; building relationships with proven executive search consultants, ‘HeadHunters’, is an essential element to a successful career strategy.  Over 50% of the C-Level placements I have made in the last 5 years have been individuals I had known for over a year prior to the appointment.

It is therefore vital that modern executives establish a means of targeting appropriate search consultants but being specifically mindful of the risks of HeadHunters who work solely within specific functions, industries or regions – those with a broader network will proffer a far greater spread of opportunities or individuals.

CC’ing 400 consultants…
Sending a mass email to all the consultants you can find is strongly discouraged, (and runs the risk of receiving a direct, straight-talking but ultimately less than helpful response….!). It will very quickly place you on any consultant’s list of executives who do not fully understand the formal search process and will most certainly provide the impression that you are not serious about your search. With a search consultant typically working 7 days per week , and often be clocking up 80-100 hours work each week, executives who do not take their own search seriously will almost certainly be passed over.

When reaching out to select executive search consultants, it is vital to be aware that first impressions count, and last! Personal referrals to a search consultant through colleagues/business associate/alumni who have existing relationships with the consultant will always be preferable – although it is also important to be aware how you differentiate yourself from your peer referrer. If they have the relationship and have a virtually identical background, what benefit is there in your recommendation?

Choose the path least trodden
It may well be worth your while forging your own relationships, or certainly facilitating your own introductions. Understand the approach you desire. Do your homework. Don’t solely target known SME/Entrepreneurial specialist consultants if you seek a FTSE-50 move, and Vice-Versa. Similarly, if you seek a far more mature, very old-school approach, more staid search consultant, target accordingly. Likewise if you desire a lither, more modern approach, target younger, more socially (and/or social media) accessible consultants – But be aware that a variety of styles and approaches is a very good thing.

Most consultants will likely be happy to respond to you and you can begin to build your relationships and expand your network. Find out which industry events and seminars your targeted consultants will be attending, and if possible, join that audience and prepare for an in-person introduction.  Understand their activity on Social Media, introductions through Social Media are still one of the best means of rapid introduction.

Remember that most search consultants are not career advisors or basic employment agencies – they may consider you for active searches, but they will not usually search for a job on your behalf.  Unless they also offer specific Individual Career Planning, Executive Search Consultants are unashamedly client focused. They are engaged by, work for and are paid by their client…the hiring company.

Furthermore, unless they offer such services, do not ask for assistance with your resume, general interview tips, or initial guidance in deciding your next career move, you should have a very good idea of that prior to contacting the consultant.

Majority of search consultants prefer to receive a short and simple email from those executives seeking to develop a relationship. Attaching an up-to-date copy of your resume/CV in word format remains the best route. Briefly introduce yourself and include minimal information on your current role and future career plans.

CV Tips HERE

Two way street
Make sure to offer yourself as a useful source or contact to the consultant.  HeadHunters themselves network for two reasons, find high quality talent for current and future searches, but also to win new business. If you have spent a career avoiding recruiters and HeadHunters when business developing, or hiding behind HR Departments/Preferred Supplier Agreements, don’t be surprised when HeadHunters themselves become less receptive to your approach/personal enquiry.  A contact who gives a HeadHunter the chance to pitch for business within their current employer will be valued.

Finally, highlight your connections in your industry and detail how you could assist a HeadHunter with any searches they are working on that are not suitable for yourself. This will position you and the search consultant in a mutually beneficial relationship.

Quick tips for networking with recruiters:

• Do not send a mass email to all search consultants you can find.
• Be aware of targeted consultants Social Media presence, use it to gain an understanding of their strengths, engage with them and where to find them.
• Send a personal email to a small, select number of search consultants highlighting why you are keen to work with them.
• Keep the introduction brief and to the point. Be concise about what you want from the consultant.
• Detail your background and aspirations in ‘Elevator Pitch’ brevity.
• Attach your CV
• Ensure the relationship is two-way.
• Remember HeadHunters work for, and get paid by the hiring company, not you.

Be Available.
Don’t fall at the first hurdle. One of my biggest surprises (and frustrations) is executives simply not returning calls or even worse, allowing “tenacious” gate-keepers; assistants/receptionists/etc to refuse to put the call through to the executive themselves, or even passing the message. If you have any interest in developing your career, make sure you tell the right people that you do accept calls from search consultants and get calls forwarded through accordingly.

Find out who’s calling.
Establish who the caller is, and importantly, the nature of the call up front. Is the caller a genuine Corporate HeadHunter or just a database recruiter? Are they simply “fishing” the market on a speculative basis or are they calling regarding a specific opportunity?  In the age of the internet, verifying the validity, status and reputation of the firm is easy. Ask your ‘HeadHunter’ for their website URL, don’t be afraid to load up their website whilst on the phone. A very quick look at their site and current opportunities will tell you if they are genuine and relevant for you.

Be an opportunity engineer.
Make the most of the call and of the opportunity. A true HeadHunt call will be for one of two reasons (or often both). As a “Source” or as a “Prospect”.

Whether you are a “source” (someone of value to the search firm in directing them to suitable candidates, company leads or general market/industry/company insight) or as a “prospect” (someone the search firm has identified as a potential fit for the position), the call is a unique opportunity to build a relationship with a HeadHunter and with the Exec Search Market in general (The most commercial of us all talk to each other and share ideas…!). Maximise your own benefit from the call by being as helpful to the consultant as you can. Even if that specific call amounts to nothing, by being helpful and proffering valued information will set you in good stead for a relationship in the future.

Devil in the Detail.
Assuming your call is about a specific opportunity, the HeadHunter should usually give you good and in-depth details of the opportunity, reporting relationships and scope & prospects of the job and usually the name of the company (or the specific reasons for confidentiality – in which case enquire about an NDA). If this information is not offered, ask.

Be Frank.
If the opportunity is not of interest, say so. A genuine HeadHunter will be more appreciative of early candour. A good HeadHunter will try a second time though….Around 75% of shortlisted candidates said no on that first call!  If you are genuinely not interested in the role, or in any role explain why and point the recruiter to other relevant sources or candidates. Doing this will gain respect and benefit the relationship to ensure the next time a suitable assignment arises, you will remain on the recruiter’s radar and assure you of an early call!

Keep in touch.
At the end of the call, you should exchange contact information and ask if you can send a copy of your CV to the recruiter. If you are a genuine ‘prospect’ the consultant will want it. If you are not a headline contender, the interest displayed in proffering your CV and key data within it can easily increase your prospect of being long-listed. CV Tips: HERE

No means No.
The HeadHunter has a huge vested interest in submitting the best shortlist possible to his/her client. If they disclose that you are not a prime fit, they will detail why. These reasons will be genuine and with exception of the rare occasions when specific exposure may be overlooked, it is advised to accept such reasons and focus on building the relationship with the HeadHunter. Arguing implausible reasons as to why Retail Banking is a highly valid fit for a High-Street Retail Operational Lead role may give the impression of desperation and is more likely to cause long term damage to the relationship; it may subsequently hinder your chance of being approached for a more valid opportunity.

Follow-up.
After the call, research the hiring company (if provided) and email the HeadHunter with your reflective thoughts and comments about the opportunity, highlighting specific skills fit and areas of particular attraction to you. Confirm your interest.

Allow him/her to ‘Wet Their Beak’.
Finally, whether the call elicits your inclusion in a specific mandate or not, highlighting the benefit to the HeadHunter of developing your relationship will be a personally advantageous move. Whether it is acting as a source, providing market information or facilitating their inclusion into a ‘Beauty Parade’ or nominations committee selection process, you are likely to gain beneficial/reciprocal  favour in doing so!

For further information contact me

Should Old Acquaintance Be Forgot? Ok, it’s a rhetorical question asking if old times should be forgotten and more generally a ‘call-to-remember’ long standing relationships.  As a Head-Hunter, old acquaintances and long-standing relationships are the back bone to my USPs, and my life.  But what of the past?

Christmas and New Year is a great time of reflection, looking back on the past year – The highs, the lows. The wins, the challenges. The lessons learned and how life has moved on & developed.  But should any of it be forgotten?

Two great quotes:

“Live like you will die tomorrow; Learn like you will live forever” – Mahatma Gandhi
“I’ve come to believe that all my past failure and frustration were actually laying the foundation for the understandings that have created the new level of living I now enjoy.” – Tony Robbins

Good or bad, I’m an optimist, an opportunity engineer and a proponent of positivity. Carpe Diem, #JDFI and grabbing (then maximising) opportunities. I largely believe that regret is a wasted emotion and I despise negativity.  “Whether you believe you can do something, or believe you can’t; You’re right” — another of Tony Robbins’ mantras from his book, Unlimited Power.

Releasing the past

Everything I know has come from what happened in my life, right up until this moment – and everything I will do in the future will be based on past experience and knowledge – so to forget it is irrational.  But we need to take the knowledge, the lessons, the experiences, the results….. then positively release the past and turn to focussing on, planning for and expelling our energy on the future and what it can bring.

We stood and launched Chinese Lanterns last night (non-metal-wire variants!), just after we had welcomed 2013 and comprehensively toasted it’s arrival! (Picture Left: Me ‘pre-launch’). It was a highly symbolic activity. Having spent a lot of this festive season reflecting on the past 12 months (and the past few years), and more importantly, in planning/assessing the various options that will start 2013 for me – seeing a large paper balloon literally filled with hot air tugging at my hands, willing to be released before finally lifting into the calm night sky was highly emotive and immensely motivating.

As it soared above our neighbour’s houses, over the Wilmslow area, then high above the Cheshire countryside disappearing onwards and upwards – it’s flame was still visible for several minutes, highlighting it’s trajectory, taking 2012 higher and higher, further and further away; leaving me with the knowledge gained from the year but filled with energy and excitement for the new year just starting.

Embracing the future

“If you can’t you must, if you must you can”

These next few days have the potential to be the most powerful of the year. The fresh start, the ability to set (additional) objectives and the latent energy built up over the festive season, all provide the ability to springboard into the new year. But to coyne yet another Tony Robbins quote “The path to success is to take massive, determined action”.  Having left the past, but retained the knowledge gained we can plot the course into the new year without that ballast that we carried at the end of the last.

More than ever in 2013, the new year holds greater challenge for me. A still new business, family, daughter getting older, ambitious charity plans and a host of self-set personal challenges to tackle, it is an exciting place to be. 2013 is going to be huge.

Last Verse

Auld Lang Syne finishes with “And there’s a hand my trusty friend! And give us a hand o’ thine!….”. It is a great reminder that people are everything. Yes, they are the basis of my profession, but more importantly they are the backbone to life. Family, friends, partners but also the many many people who made 2012 such a year through their support, advice, assistance, comfort and entertainment.  I’m honoured to have you in my life and call you friends.  Let’s kick arse in 2013.

Live life fully while you’re here. Experience everything. Take care of yourself and your friends. Have fun, be crazy, be weird. Go out and screw up! You’re going to anyway, so you might as well enjoy the process. Take the opportunity to learn from your mistakes: find the cause of your problem and eliminate it. Don’t try to be perfect; just be an excellent example of being human. – Tony Robbins

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

New job in your life or new talent in your business, the New Year is a great time to reflect on the old year and make plans for the new.

2012 saw me set up in business, and end the year not only profitable but in better position that the year started and in a position to work more flexibly and more commercially.
It saw me win Charity Awards for Cycling and gain bruises for Charity Boxing.
It saw the recruitment market get more difficult, and then get easier.
It saw some amazing talent start to stick their toe in the market.
It saw Business Confidence all but disappear, then return.
…and it saw some great opportunities, especially in the fourth quarter.

2013 looks to build on all of those aspects (except perhaps the bruises….!)
Business that already has great momentum
More crazy Charity plans
And with opportunities like these, others are going to have a great year too:

• Retail CEO, Established UK Fashion/Leisure brand – £250k+
• eCommerce COO, Leading Online Retailer – £150-175k
• Managing Director, Wholesale/Distribution – £140k
• Commercial Director, Entrepreneurial Technology Group – £150k
• HR Director, Multinational FMCG Group – £90-130k
• Finance Director, Major high-street retailer – £90-125k

And possibly the most exciting, opportunities. Two junior roles for future business leaders: ‘First rung on the corporate ladder’ General Manager[MD Designate] and excellent CEO MBA Exec Assistant.

Whether you are determined to shake your own career up by looking for a new opportunity, or shake your business up be looking at new talent; 2013 is set to be a great year for those who seize opportunities.

CV Writing Tips Here. Corporate Recruitment Advice Here

All it takes is action. “If you can’t, you must; if you must, you can“ |- Tony Robbins

Make 2013 count.

Happy New Year!

Your CV is your Sales Document, it is not your opportunity to demonstrate how easily you can rival War & Peace, nor your chance to use every one of the over-4-syllable words you learnt from your word-a-day thesaurus desk calendar.

Your CV will get 20 seconds, if you are lucky, before the reader decides if you are worthy of a 2nd view, or destined for a polite (and politically correct, EU legislation appeasing) “Thanks but please don’t contact us again” rejection email.

Think of the best Sales Literature you have seen, and why it worked.  Chances are it was simple, informative, credible, accurate, factual, objective, captured your attention and told you just what you wanted to know without waffle, or children’s names.

Your CV should be the same.

A professional CV is the absolute key to a successful job search; fall at the first hurdle and you are out before the tournament as started, a bit like Man City. Be Relevant, Be Credible, Be Professional.

Structure should be simple. Don’t try and overcomplicate: Personal Details (and contact details!), Qualifications, Career History, Achievements, Interests.

Personal Details: Name, Contact details(!), Date of birth (controversial – see below).
Qualifications: Professional Qualifications (real ones). Masters/Post-Grads/Degrees, A-Levels/O-levels/GCSEs/etc.
Career History: Reverse chronological order, Keep it simple: What you did, where you did it, when you did it, what you were responsible for, what you achieved. No gaps, no stories, no humour. Consistent format. Relevant info only. Include facts & figures, show growth/change in % terms. Show all detail for last 3 roles/10 years, then decreasing data.
Interests: Relevant, interesting, concise. Be aware what it says about you (Female shot-putters/male-flower arranger). Chose interests which have added to your character, and where you have achieved or committed.

Do…

1. Keep it simple. Straight and to the point
2. Tailor your CV for each role you apply for, ensure responsibilities/achievements are relevant
3. Use a sensible, modern font and a small to medium font size
4. Make sure your CV gives the right impression of your skills and achievements
5. Be positive: do not give details of anything you are not good at
6. Focus on quality not quantity (forget 2 page ‘rule’)
7. Be clear and concise, use note form English, not prose
8. Use bullet points where necessary to reduce blocks of text and word count
9. Include your Date of Birth (see below)
10. Detail qualifications & grades, but only A Level subjects if relevant (and not O’level/GCSE)
11. Include relevant, recognised, vocational training courses. (Don’t include LearnDirect ‘Intro to IT’)
12. Check thoroughly for spelling and grammatical errors (don’t just rely on spellcheck)
13. Give a brief description of each business you’ve worked for
14. Focus on achievements, detail the (positive) impact on the organisation
15. Ensure transferability of skills without referring to them as ‘Transferable skills’
16. Decrease the information detailed in more distant career history
17. Check how your CV displays on another computer AND on an iPad/Tablet
18. Get someone who doesn’t know you to proof read. If they don’t understand, change it
19. Assume your CV will initially be read/assessed by a 16yr school leaver in HR. Make sure key data is obvious
20. Turn ‘track changes’ off – it will highlight all your draft mistakes

Don’t…

1. Put ‘Curriculum Vitae’ as the title, use your name
2. Forget contact details on the CV itself (be wary of Social Media ‘names’ unless content appropriate for prospective employers to read)
3. Put a photograph on your CV (and if you must, make it from the current decade)
4. Include your children’s names/ages/education/career objectives
5. Include non-academic/non-professional qualifications unless relevant. No Age7 swimming awards!
6. Include any qualification you have to explain i.e. XXXX – seen equivalent to an MBA in Liechtenstein
7. Use inappropriate email address (Jimmy5Bellies@… Looks crass; JobResponses@… Looks desperate)
8. Use a profile unless VERY relevant, VERY succinct & VERY accurate
9. Summarise 20yrs achievements together then repeat in career (lose the summary – looks like you are hiding something)
10. Use tables/Textboxes/bizarre spacing – it is unlikely to retain its formatting
11. Try and squeeze too much on a page. 3 sensibly spaced pages looks better than 2 crammed/4 over-spaced)
12. Actively seek to hide your age by removing dates/omitting earlier positions/tweaking qualifications
13. Don’t use abbreviations or jargon, unless sure the recipient of your CV understands
14. Use the word ‘I’ too much
15. Use logos/hyperlinks – they can get blocked by email servers and/or cause formatting issues
16. Leave gaps in timeline, if earlier career not relevant, show by title only
17. Be negative about anything – i.e. reasons for leaving/highlighting where achievements went un-rewarded
18. Explain why your experience is relevant, if it isn’t obvious, it won’t count
19. Include bland interests. We can all read/swim/socialise. It isn’t noteworthy
20. Blindly upload your CV to Job Boards/Public websites – anyone can see it

Contentious subjects

Date of Birth
The Human Rights brigade will bang on about NOT putting ages on CVs due to Age Discrimination. Age Discrimination is wrong, and the measures to avoid it are just and correct. However, the issue is discrimination over age, not the knowledge of.  If you wilfully (seek to) hide your age, it gives the impression you have the issue with your age – it also runs the risk of annoying the reader.
My advice: be straight. Be proud of your age and the experience it means you have. Stick it on (Date of Birth, NOT age).

Profiles
A comparatively recent trend, telling me what you think of yourself. In theory, a great strategy; in reality, highly risky. Profiles always read too positive, demonstrating an extremely high, one-sided opinion and being wholly non-objective. CVs should be factual, objective & historical; Profiles seldom are. Even if the reader does like it, you will have a far harder task of matching let alone exceeding expectations. Furthermore, if your career history and achievements do not leave the reader with the same impression as you profiles dictates, either your achievements, or your profile are poorly written!
My advice: If you want a profile, put a factual one-line summation.

Interests
Many will tell you that they are irrelevant on a professional/exec/C-Level CV. I disagree. The biggest challenge in recruiting talent is finding that chemistry fit (hence why human, professional head-hunters will always beat CV factories/automation…but that’s another blog). Interests give that insight into the person behind the professional; i.e. the person the reader will be working with, spending 10/12/14 hours per day with. It is also your chance to standout and/or be memorable. Your interests can demonstrate great social responsibility, charitable action, strong teamwork, natural leadership, energy, a sense of adventure, motivation etc. It also makes you seem human. If nothing else it is a conversation starter for a nervous interviewer and a way to build rapport.
My advice: Put interests down, as long as they are appropriate, give a positive message, are something notable…and can be quantified. If you have nothing notable to put down…..do more with your life!

For Pro-Bono, basic CV advice/comment, please feel free to contact me.
For more comprehensive, bespoke advice, career planning, interview training and assessment see here

CV Stats

A recent Survey amongst over 1000 HR Professionals also made the following CV recommendations:

*Incompletely or inaccurately addressed CVs and CV cover letters were rejected immediately by 83% of HR departments.
*72% of HR departments said they didn’t like (or ignored) personal profiles on CVs.
*62% of HR departments said they ignored summaries and relied on relevant information being in the body of the CV.
* 68% of HR professionals admitted they didn’t read covering letters/emails.
*CVs and cover letters addressed to a named person were significantly favoured over those addressed to a generic job title by 55% of HR departments.
*63% of HR departments said that the inclusion of a photograph with the CV adversely affected their opinion of the applicant.

Gary Chaplin