Writing recently in the Financial Times, Andrew Hill described how four top headhunters now recruited top talent. Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.
First no one disputed the turbulent times. Political polarization, economic uncertainty, and rapid technological change were some of the challenges on which everyone agreed. To put it as one of the headhunters did, every corporate leader must deal with “the certainty of uncertainty.”
Second, corporate boards demanded that their new leader-hires had more than a strong record. They had to demonstrate their “softer” skills. What exactly were these? It’s a question that continues to defy easy answers. Whereas in previous, more “structured” and “predictable” environments traits such as experience and intelligence sufficed, now the requirements were vaguer and therefore, more difficult to assess. They included, for example, curiosity and adaptability, resilience and social intelligence.
But how to measure soft skills like these? How to assess them? Traditional assessment tools such as psychometric testing are still being used. But so are newer ones such as “immersive simulation.” What’s that? It’s a tool that enables recruiters to come closer than they used to be able to do to observe a leader “in the act of leadership.” To see evidence, or not, of a candidate’s softer skills – such as building relationships – when they are under pressure.
None of the four headhunters claimed that today’s recruitment tools were radically different from what they were before, or that they were reliability precise. On the contrary. There was agreement that while artificial intelligence now played a role in recruitment, as did some other more advanced methodologies, theirs was still a deeply human enterprise. As one summarized it, executive search remains and will continue to remain a “human business.” It will continue to rely on judgement, discernment, and assessment. It will not move to hiring that is “transactional” or “algorithm-based.”
Hallelujah! Shakespeare remains relevant.