The Network Trap by Meryl Bushell & Kim Hoque & Deborah Dean

Author:Meryl Bushell & Kim Hoque & Deborah Dean
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9789811508783
Publisher: Springer Singapore

Formulating the Shortlist

Having reduced the list of names to a manageable long-list of 15 to 20 people, the next stage of the process is to reduce the numbers further to formulate the shortlist. The first step here is for head-hunters to prepare a short précis of each candidate’s skills and experience to present to the client. The head-hunters then talk through the list of candidates in a face-to-face meeting with the Chair (and sometimes the nominations committee), usually spending no more than three to four minutes describing each candidate and their perceived fit for the role.

The aim of these meetings is to consider how each candidate measures up against the role and person specifications. However, as is the case for long-listing, none of the head-hunters suggested the existence of a systematic approach for ranking candidates against these specifications. Instead, while decisions on the candidates may depend in part on the particular skills, attributes and experience they would bring to the board, the head-hunters suggested they also depend heavily on whether the candidate is known to any of the reviewing group. Candidates’ chances of being shortlisted increase significantly if any of the reviewing group knows them (either personally or through reputation) and regards them highly. According to HHF13, the emphasis placed on personal knowledge of the candidates in part reflects a sense of risk aversion: ‘I think it’s a huge advantage to be known positively because it takes away uncertainty and risk’.

Also reflecting risk aversion, individuals who are known and not held in high regard by any of the reviewing group will typically not be shortlisted. For example, HHM8 stated: ‘If someone rails against someone, even if the feedback from other members of the nominations committee is positive, then that, generally, means that individual won’t go through’. All the head-hunters (bar one) indicated they would not go against these client assessments of candidates’ reputations, and they consider such assessments a useful part of the shortlisting process. HHM11 was the only head-hunter who expressed concerns, highlighting that reputational assessments of this nature ‘are not always accurate, sometimes the views they hold are views going through hearsay. More typically the views can be gained through association many years ago; I used to work with him, oh, must have been in 1995, or 1990 or something oh, he’s hopeless’.

The Chairs confirmed the importance of personal knowledge of the candidates in the shortlisting process. They all said they discuss with other board members whether they know any of the candidates on the long-list and whether they have any views on them, either directly or through reputation. CHM9 described this by saying:… when the head-hunters come up with a list, I test myself and my colleagues – which ones of these people do you know and which ones would you actually say, for God’s sake, don’t even interview them. Or, my goodness, if we can get this person, man or woman, that would be a terrific thing because I’ve heard of her, or I’ve actually worked with her, or, you know, this particular person has got a great reputation, and so on.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.