Confessions of an artful hunter
Is it true, I ask Gerard Roche, that when you first called Lou Gerstner to ask him to become head of International Business Machines, he told you to go away? It is a story that Mr Roche, the greatest living headhunter, loves telling. There is a story he enjoys telling less, and we will come to it, but the IBM one is a favourite. Yes, he says, Mr Gerstner told him to go away. “But everybody does. They don’t tell me to go away: they say they’re not interested. They’re happy. The better people are harder to get. The better people are busy. The better people don’t like distractions.” When you are on the trail of the big names in the corporate world, you need patience. Another story Mr Roche loves to tell is what happened when Jack Welch announced that Jeffrey Immelt was to succeed him as chairman of General Electric. The announcement left two disappointed candidates looking for jobs, and they were quickly snapped up by other icons of corporate America. Robert Nardelli became chief executive of Home Depot. James McNerney went off to run 3M. “Are you aware I did them both?” Mr Roche asks. “Within two weeks? Everybody thinks it just happened.” No, nobody thinks it just happened. Any half- conscientious researcher will find a hillock of press clippings saying it was Mr Roche’s work. The “greatest living headhunter” label is not mine. Mr Roche, who joined Heidrick Struggles 40 years ago, was named recruiter of the 20th century in a poll of his peers. Now Heidrick’s senior chairman, he is based in the firm’s New York offices on Park Avenue. What makes a good headhunter? You have to understand the character of the person you are pursuing, he says. “What kind of human being is this? Not where did he go to school [or] what’s his functional expertise. It’s not a matter of intelligence, it’s not a matter of product knowledge, it’s not a matter of education. It’s a matter of character and what kind of values does he have. So the soft side, almost the metaphysical side, is really where it’s at.” Aren’t a lot of these people really interested in being approached only so that they can demand more money in their existing jobs? “Yeah, yeah. Done all the time.” He sounds annoyed. Isn’t it natural that people enjoy being in demand even if they have no intention of moving? “It’s natural, but if you’re in my shoes, you’d better be pretty good at smoking that out or you’ll be spinning your wheels. Notice the mixed metaphors there? Spinning wheels. Smoking out. But anyhow. “If you are sucked in by those people who want to use you all the time, you’ll not be efficient at your work, and you’ll wind up chasing the stars of the world and having them get promotions and . . . increased incomes and having them go to their CEO and say: ‘Wait until you hear what I was just offered today.’” Aren’t companies better off recruiting from inside anyway? Isn’t there evidence that internal recruits are more successful as chief executives? Surprisingly, for a headhunter, Mr Roche has some sympathy for this view. “It’s better to promote from inside versus outside, all things being equal.” But things seldom are equal. There are examples of successful outsiders, he says, including those, such as Mr Gerstner, Mr Nardelli and Mr McNerney, that he helped place. But, after carrying out a search and talking to external candidates, he does sometimes advise company boards to appoint internal candidates. He advised American Express to hire Harvey Golub, who served as chief executive from 1993 to 2000, and he told Sears Roebuck that its best candidate was insider Alan Lacy, who became chairman and chief executive in 2000. Does Mr Roche still collect a fee if he recommends an insider? “Ye-e-es! Of course!” Many companies these days look outside even if they intend to make an inside appointment. “It’s practically due diligence today, before succession committees place CEOs, that they at least look outside to see who else is available before they name their inside person. The greatest growth segment of our business has come by doing studies or searches to scan what’s available on the outside and report it to boards and committees before they make their decision.” Why can’t companies find chief executives themselves? They can, he says, provided they have enough time and don’t mind if news gets out that they are looking. “I’m working on one of the biggest brands in the world right now and they don’t want it known that they’re looking. The beginning of the Coke search was with a high degree of confidentiality. You can’t have Don Keough [the powerful Coca-Cola director] picking up the phone and calling people around the world without it becoming known that Coke is looking for a CEO.” Ah, the Coke search. This is the story Mr Roche is less happy talking about. It became public knowledge Douglas Daft was stepping down as chief executive and that Coca-Cola wanted Jim Kilts, head of Gillette, to succeed him. The eyes of the corporate world on him, Mr Kilts decided he didn’t want the job. It went instead to Neville Isdell, a retired Coke lifer, passed over once before. “The lack of confidentiality on that search was devastating,” Mr Roche says. Devastating to whom? “To the process, to our ability to get people to hold up their hands and declare that they could be interested. It’s had a negative effect on the search industry by having people say: ‘Hey, if I let Roche know that I could be interested in this situation, it could appear in the Financial Times tomorrow and it could wreck my career.’” But didn’t we say people benefit from having their names linked with a new position? Not if their names become known and they fail to get the post, he says. What upsets him most is that some people think that Heidrick itself leaked details of the Coke search. “Nothing could be further from the truth. It did us no good at all. It served no purpose and caused us a great deal of difficulty on the search. We used to be able to say to candidates, ‘we can guarantee confidentiality on this’ and we can’t say that any more. And that’s harmful to the industry. Whoever performed the Coke leaks did a lot of harm to the process.” He decides not to say any more. “I don’t want to turn this into a Coke autopsy. I’m talking about a client and how they handle a search and I don’t feel comfortable.” Let’s come back to people who are happy in their work. How does he persuade them to move? “Oddly enough, it’s not compensation,” he says. How much they earn is important, but it is not their main reason for moving. “They can only eat two eggs a day, drive one car at a time. What they really want is, number one, to run their own show.” After that, they want to be sure that they will enjoy working with their new colleagues, that the job is in an industry they like and in a part of the world they would be happy to live in. “Compensation could not get Jim Kilts to go to Coke,” he says. He has mentioned Coke again. Why didn’t Mr Kilts accept the job? Is it true that he didn’t want to move his family to Atlanta? “Can’t say. Jim who?” Back to those people who are too happy to change jobs. He must receive resumés from hundreds of others desperate to move. “Hundreds? Hundreds a day. I bet we get a thousand resumés a day, worldwide.” What does that tell him? “It tells me that a lot of people aren’t happy with their jobs. Those that are happy, productive, valued, generally speaking, aren’t sending in resumés.” And it is the happy ones he is most interested in? “Yes. Without question.” So what advice does he give to those happy, productive people who hope, all the same, that the headhunters will call? “They should keep their heads down, do a goddamn good job, achieve their objectives and make their bosses look good - and we’ll find them.” Tomorrow: Michael Skapinker talks to Joseph Bachelder, expert lawyer in executive pay negotiations
猎头老手吐露运作方式
我问杰拉德?罗谢(Gerard Roche)，你第一次给郭士纳(Lou Gerstner)打电话，让他出任IBM一把手时，他让你走开，这是真的吗？
这是当今最伟大的猎头罗谢先生津津乐道的一个故事。还有个故事他也喜欢讲，我们接下来会谈到，但IBM的故事是他的最爱。是的，他答道，郭士纳先生是要他走。“但每个人都这样。他们不是直说让我走；他们说不感兴趣。他们现在工作得很开心；越是优秀的人越难‘挖’到；优秀人物都是大忙人；优秀人物不喜欢三心二意。”当你追踪企业界的大人物时，你需要耐心。
罗谢先生乐于讲述的另一个故事，发生在杰克?韦尔奇(Jack Welch)宣布杰弗里?伊梅尔特(Jeffrey Immelt)将接替他出任通用电气(GE)董事长之后。韦尔奇的声明，让另两位候选人在失望之余开始另谋高就，他们很快就被美国企业界的其它巨头抢去。罗伯特?纳代利(Robert Nardelli)成了家得宝(Home Depot)的首席执行官，而詹姆斯?麦克纳尼(James McNerney)则前往3M公司担当统帅。
“你知道是我帮他们两个找的工作吗？”罗谢先生问到，“两周之内？每个人都以为事情是这么自然发生的。”其实不然，没有人认为它就这么自然发生了。任何还有一半责任心的研究者，都将找到一大堆剪报，说这是罗谢先生的功劳。
“当今最伟大的猎头”这个标签，并不是我给罗谢先生贴的。在业内进行的一次调查中，他被冠以“20世纪猎头”的称号。罗谢先生40年前加入海德思哲国际咨询公司(Heidrick Struggles)，如今担任该公司的资深主席，他的办公室位于纽约帕克大道(Park Avenue)。
怎样才能成为一个好猎头？罗谢先生说，你得理解你的猎头对象的个性。“这是个什么样的人？这不是关于他在哪里上的学，或者他的职业特长是什么。这不是智商的问题，不是产品知识的问题，不是教育的问题。这是个性的问题，是他有着什么价值观的问题。可以说，这种软性层面，几乎是形而上学的层面，才是真正的关键所在。”
许多人有兴趣让自己成为猎头对象，难道不是只为了在现有职位上能提出更高的薪酬要求吗？“是啊是啊，这种情况一直在发生。”他的声音听上去不太高兴。
即使人们不打算换工作，他们也喜欢被人需要的感觉，这难道不自然吗？“这很自然，但如果你设身处地，站到我的立场，你最好是非常善于拨开云雾探明究竟，否则你就是空转车轮白忙活。”注意到这种混合隐喻了吗？空转车轮。拨开云雾。但随便怎么说吧。
“如果你被那些从头至尾就是想利用你的人欺骗，那么你的工作就不会有效率：你成了‘追星族’，只是帮助那些家伙得到升职……增加收入，还跑到他们的CEO面前说：‘你知道今天有人答应给我多少薪水？’”
话说回来，难道公司从内部提拔人员不更好吗？不是有证据证明，在公司内部提拔人员担任首席执行官会更成功吗？令人惊讶的是，作为一名猎头，罗谢先生对这个观点有几分认同。“在一切条件均等的情况下，从内部提拔比从外部招聘要好。”但一切条件很少是均等的。他说，有启用外部人员成功的例子，包括那些他帮助猎到的人，如郭士纳先生、纳代利先生和麦克纳尼先生。
但是，有时候在进行搜寻并与外部候选人交谈后，他确实会建议公司董事会任命内部候选人。他曾建议美国运通(American Express)雇用哈维?戈卢布(Harvey Golub)，此人在1993至2000年间担任该公司首席执行官。他也曾告诉西尔斯百货(Sears Roebuck)，最好的人选是公司内部的艾伦?莱西(Alan Lacy)，此人在2000年成为董事长兼首席执行官。
如果罗谢先生推荐内部人士，他还收费吗？“是――的！当然！”现在，许多公司即使有意指定内部人士任职，也会看看外部是否有合适人选。“如今，这实际上是公司的继任事务委员会在任命首席执行官之前的尽职调查。在指定内部人员前，他们至少会看看外部是否有其他人可供选择。我们增长最大的一项业务，就是进行研究或搜寻，以查看外部是否有合适人员，并在董事会和委员会做出决定前，向他们报告结果。”
为何公司自己不可以找首席知执行官呢？他说，可以，只要它们有足够的时间，而且不介意找人的消息泄露出去。“目前我在为全球最大的一个品牌寻找管理者，而他们不想让外界知道他们在寻找人选。可口可乐寻找首席执行官的行动最初是高度机密的。你总不能让唐?基奥(Don Keough)（颇有实权的可口可乐董事）抓起电话，打给世界各地的人，而不让人知道可口可乐在找首席执行官吧。”
说起可口可乐的猎头行动，这可是罗谢先生不那么乐意谈论的故事。后来人人皆知，时任可口可乐首席执行官的道格拉斯?达夫特(Douglas Daft)将要离任，而公司想让吉列(Gillette)的老板吉姆?基尔茨(Jim Kilts)来接替。在企业界的众目睽睽之下，基尔茨先生决定不接受这个职位。于是这个职位到了已退休的可口可乐老臣内维尔?艾斯戴尔(Neville Isdell)手中，他以前曾有一次被排除在考虑范围之外。
罗谢先生说：“那次猎头行动缺乏保密性，带来了破坏性影响。”对谁具有破坏性呢？“对整个过程，对我们让人举手表示他们可能会有兴趣的能力。如果让人说：‘嗨，如果让罗谢知道我可能对此感兴趣，这个消息就可能出现在明天的《金融时报》上，毁了我的职业生涯’，那对猎头行业会带来消极影响。”可是，我们刚才不是说过，如果一些人的名字与新职位联系在一起，会对他们有好处吗？罗谢先生解释说，如果他们既被曝光，最终又没有得到那个职位，那对他们就没有好处了。
最令罗谢先生感到烦恼的是，一些人认为，海德思哲自己泄露了有关可口可乐在找人的具体细节。“实情完全不是这样。这对我们没有一点好处。这没有意义，而且会给我们的猎头工作带来很大的困难。我们过去总是对候选人说，‘我们保证会对此保密’，而我们现在再也不能这么说了。而且这对猎头行业有害。不管是谁泄露了可口可乐找人的消息，他都对整个过程带来很大的害处。”
他决定什么也不再说了。“我不想把这事变成对可口可乐的一次剖析。我说的是一位客户以及他们处理猎头行动的方式，对此我觉得不自在。”
让我们回过来说目前工作得很开心的那些人。他是怎样说服他们跳槽的呢？他说：“奇怪的是，吸引他们的不是薪酬。”他们能挣多少钱固然重要，但这不是他们跳槽的主要原因。
“他们一天顶多吃两只鸡蛋，一次只能开一辆车。他们真正想要的是，第一，要自己做主。”其次，他们想确信自己和新同事一起工作会开心，新工作所处的行业是自己喜欢的，而且是在一个他们喜欢居住的地方工作。他说：“用薪酬不可能说动吉姆?基尔茨去可口可乐。”他又提到了可口可乐。基尔茨先生为什么不接受这个职位呢？他真的不想将家人迁往亚特兰大吗？“很难说，要看是哪个吉姆了。”
回过来说那些开心得不想换工作的人。他一定会从其他极度渴望跳槽的人那里收到数以百计的简历。“几百份？一天几百份？我敢说，我们每天收到上千份简历，来自世界各地。”
对他来说这说明什么呢？“这说明许多人不满意自己的工作。一般来说，那些快乐、富有成效、得到重视的人不会送简历来。”而他最感兴趣的正是那些工作开心的人吗？“是的，毫无疑问。”
那么，对于那些开心、富有成效，但又希望猎头公司打电话来的人，他会给些什么建议呢？
“他们应当埋头苦干，干出像样的活来，达到自己的目标，让他们的老板风光――那我们就会找到他们。”
明天：迈克尔?斯卡平克将采访高管薪酬谈判专家律师约瑟夫?巴切尔德(Joseph Bachelder)。
