When a good address book is not enough
A month ago, I left the Financial Times after 23 years as a journalist to become a headhunter with Odgers Ray & Berndtson.
My first impressions, though possibly naive, may be instructive to anyone using a search firm to find executive talent or to help themselves find a job. I have certainly had my views as an outsider sharpened since I walked through the doors of Odgers' offices, on Hanover Square in London.
Headhunting is more specialised and involves more teamwork than many people think. The headhunters I met as a journalist tended to be well-connected generalists who worked with clients. However, I have found that headhunters more commonly work in pairs - usually a sector expert plus a function expert, backed by researchers. I, for example, work with Virginia Bottomley, a former British government minister.
A classic example of the lone ranger is David Norman, who built up a premier headhunting business in the early 1980s, founded on charisma and contacts, albeit with a small team. But such generalists, while still popular for some very senior posts, appear to be a shrinking minority. These days, the skills needed to find the right people are varied and need to be underpinned by significant resources.
A growing number of top people transfer from one sector to another - and back again. Sir Christopher Bland has criss-crossed from television to the corporate world and back to television. More recently, David Varney, former chairman of MMO, the mobile operator, moved across to the Inland Revenue. Next year, Chris Snowdon is moving from his job as joint chief executive at Filtronic, the telecommunications equipment group, to become vice-chancellor of the University of Surrey.
I have found that headhunting is more systematic than I had anticipated. Top companies - under pressure from shareholders and tougher corporate governance codes - are learning to run meritocratic competitions for the top jobs. This has placed a premium on headhunters who can run a professional shop as well as build relationships. Today, it is as important to understand a company's strategy, issues and internal dynamics - and then build a job specification from it - as it used to be to have an address book bulging with contacts.
Headhunters are not as mysterious as they seem to outsiders. From the inside, at least, my colleagues could be categorised as sensible professionals with a mixture of skills and backgrounds - networkers, sales experts, dealmakers, brain-stormers with PhDs and operational staff.
If headhunters display an outward sense of confidence, I have nevertheless discovered that executive search is a surprisingly precarious business. Some top firms have been around for years. Further down the rankings, however, they come and go. This is because the barriers to entry are low.
The catch is that the barriers to exit are also low. Even established firms can disappear fast: for instance, Hanover Matrix, one of the best technology groups until its demise two years ago; or MSL, which dominated the executive selection business in the 1980s but later lost market share and was sold to TMP, a larger rival.
This is a salutary thought for a newcomer. And it is indicative of the fact that headhunting is more competitive than the popular image of a relaxed, well-lunched industry.
This tough climate has forced firms to become distinctive in some way. It has also meant that headhunting has become a buyer's market. The recruitment business is certainly picking up - which is good for everyone. But the rivalry remains as intense as ever.I have found myself watching the competition just as keenly as I once watched the Fleet Street and Wall Street rivals of the FT. The writer is a partner in the board practice of Odgers Ray & Berndtson, a UK-based headhunting firm. Previouslyhe was publishing editor of the FT
猎头：有社交还不够
一个月前，我结束了在《金融时报》23年的记者生涯，到Odgers Ray Berndtson公司开始当起了猎头。
我对于猎头公司的第一印象，虽然也许是天真的，但对于任何一个请猎头招募管理人才，或者是那些希望求职的人来说，应该是有帮助的。我并不是做猎头出身的，自从我跨进Odgers公司位于伦敦汉诺威广场的办公室起，对于猎头公司的看法深刻了许多。
猎头的工作比许多人认为的更专业，也需要更多团队合作。我在做记者的时候遇到的猎头往往是社交广泛、与客户紧密合作的多面手。但是，我现在发现猎头们往往是成双成对地工作，通常是某个领域的专家加上猎头专家，并由研究人员所支持。譬如我，就是与弗吉尼娅?伯顿利（Virginia Bottomley）一起工作的，她曾是英国内阁大臣。
当然也有单枪匹马的猎头，一个典型的例子是戴维?诺曼。早在1980年，他就依靠个人魅力和社会关系，开创了一流的猎头业务，虽然他的团队规模很小。虽然在某些高级职位中需要这样的多面手，但似乎越来越少。现在，找到合适人选所需要的技能变得多样化，也需要强大的资源为基础。
越来越多高层人士从某个领域跳槽到另一个领域，又跳回去。克里斯托弗?布兰德爵士（Sir Christopher Bland）从电视业跳到企业界，又从企业界回到了电视业。最近，手机运营商MMO前董事长戴维?瓦尼（David Varney）转到国家税务局任职。明年，克利斯?斯诺顿（Chris Snowdon）将辞去通信设备集团Filtronic联合首席执行官的职务，出任萨里大学（University of Surrey）副校长。
我发现，猎头工作比我预料的更具有系统性。在股东和更严格的公司治理规定的压力下，许多顶尖的公司正在学会用竞聘管理精英的方式延揽高级职位人才。这让那些有能力经营“专业人才商店”，并建立社会关系的猎头公司变得更加吸引人。今天，理解一家公司的战略、问题和内部动态，然后据此设立一个工作职位，和过去拥有一本写满社会关系联系方式的通讯录一样重要。
猎头们并不想局外人看起来那么神秘。至少，从内部看来，我的同事们可以归类为具有各种专业技能和背景、敏锐的专业人士：社交专家、销售专家、合同专家、以及善于和博士、执行人员一起出点子的人。
如果说，猎头们显示出一种外在的自信感，我却惊讶地发现，寻找管理人才是一种不稳定的工作。有些顶尖的公司经营多年。但是那些排名靠后的公司成立得快，解散得也快。这是因为进入这个行业的门槛很低。
蹊跷的是，退出的门槛也很低。即便是很成功的公司也可能很快消失：比如Hanover Matrix公司，曾是最好的科技集团之一，却在两年前倒闭；还有在1980年代主导管理人才猎头业的MSL公司，后来丢失了市场份额，卖给了更大的竞争对手TMP公司。
这对一名新手来说是有益的思考，它也显示了这样一个事实：在许多人眼中，猎头工作是轻松的，油水很足的工作，但是，其实不是，猎头竞争其实非常激烈。
这种严酷的环境已经迫使许多公司在一些方面变得与众不同。这也意味着猎头业已经成为买方市场。招募业的确正在复兴，这对每个人来说都是好事。但是竞争依然激烈。我发现自己依然密切地关注着竞争，就像我曾经关注着英国报业、华尔街上那些《金融时报》的竞争者一样。
