An interesting article by John Hollon on ERE inspired my SmartBrief for CFOs poll last week on the quality of the last hire. The results of the poll … once again … triggered more questions on my end since of those polled, only 27% indicated their last hire was a superstar while almost 50% indicated their last hire was either safe or forgettable.
So I wonder, why make a mediocre hire instead of a superstar hire when the cost of recruiting that person is the same either way. The salary of a superstar shouldn’t cost more since he should be able to save or make a company more than the cost of his salary.
Perhaps that answers at least one of my questions. Ho hum hires are made because the superstars can’t be found. Which begs the question … “why” can’t they be found?
— Top talent doesn’t exist.
— The message of superstar executives is not compelling, isn’t resonating with its target audience, or is completely mute.
— Recruiters aren’t looking for “unemployed” executives. It’s a sad reality and I’ve blogged about this many times. The moment you walk out the door on Friday afternoon with a big fat severance package in your pocket, you also wear the black mark of unemployment. Your marketability takes a hit despite the fact that your skill set and contributions remain the same.
Are you a superstar and are recruiters finding you? If so, you’re apparently in the minority and definitely a high-value target.