[Dr.John]

As both a candidate for executive-level positions and someone who has organized and supervised recruiting efforts, I have observed that successful recruiting efforts are based on the Golden Rule. In the context of executive searches, the Golden Rule means that both the organization seeking new leadership and those men and women who may have an interest in providing that leadership have needs that the process must meet. Failed searches--searches that either fail to produce a hire or result in a hire who flames out or leaves prematurely--can often be traced to one or more failures to follow the Golden Rule.

That point seems obvious, so it might seem surprising that so many executive searches fail. Part of the problem is in the nature of the search process itself. Executive searches are, by their very nature, asymmetrical processes. They are organized, conducted, and paid for by the hiring organization. Candidates have little or nothing to say about how a search is conducted. There is a strong temptation, therefore, to design and conduct the search to meet the needs and suit the convenience of the organization, giving little or no attention to the needs of the candidate.

Consider, by way of an obvious example, the issue of confidentiality. The best potential candidates for executive-level positions are often in similar positions elsewhere. Should their employer learn that they are exploring another opportunity, they may find their current position severely compromised. Protecting the confidentiality of all candidates is imperative. But a hiring organization that isn't attentive to this need may fail to take the steps necessary to ensure candidates' confidentiality. A single breach of confidentiality can do more than lead to a failed search; it can harm an organization's recruiting efforts for years to come.

As is true in other areas of life, following the Golden Rule turns out to be enlightened self interest.

I'd be interested in hearing others' first-hand experience with searches, both good and bad.