Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Executive recruiting approach revised | inequality not equation

I had developed a [husband] position description with an executive recruiting approach, and I received input from my mom and her pal, Becky, over this past weekend in Florida.  They said the approach was too business-oriented and that it did not address the softer elements of being in a strong relationship.  Since they're both married and have years of marriage experience, I decided that I better listen!  Thus, I am revising my earlier position description.

Further, I just got off the phone with my previous boss (who has multiple years of executive recruiting experience and marriage experience).  He told me that I had formulated too many questions.  The result would be too much inconclusive information.  I completely agreed with him.  When I applied the questions in a recent date (in an interview format), it came across as cold.  And, I felt detached from the person I was interviewing.  In the past, I had felt chemistry with him, but the interview questions put a wedge between us.  On the other hand, I did learn some important information about his views regarding family and children.  Those views could be deal breakers.

Thus, my conclusion is that I need to narrow down my questions to the deal breaker questions.  My ex-boss suggested 5 questions.  Becky, my mom's friend, suggested 3 questions - to be answered in a video format.  Ultimately, I need 3-5 critical questions to ask in each date.  Timing will be important....that I will continue to judge.  However, as my recruiter boss (and mom and Becky) pointed out, there are no questions that can point to the presence of chemistry.  Chemistry has to be ascertained through visceral observations and gut feelings.

How exciting and enigmatic is this?!  I was looking for a formula, and it doesn't appear that an  exact equation exists.  I do know that two is better than one (listening to that song as I type). Therefore, mathematically, I know I am looking for an inequality rather than an equation.  I need the person who completes my 2 > 1 inequality.

No comments:

Post a Comment