It's Talent, Stupid!

International Recruitment - It's A Question of EQ

So, you have a requirement in one of your remote territories, say India, Singapore or as in our case at the moment the Caribbean.  Let's just say it is a Western organisation looking to expand, usually is and this is usually why they engage a Western based recruitment organisation, mistake?  Well probably not, our experience of agencies within say India, is poor and the traction you can get is sometimes just as easy from outside.  The more sophisticated agencies that do exist within the Asian market are usually (as is the case in Australia) just exact replicas of the agency business within the UK, hmmm, need i say anymore!

Let's use an example, Chemistry undertook some recruitment in India for senior level vacancies for a FTSE 100 technology business.  We were a trusted partner in the UK market and I guess they thought, that we were better the devil they knew. Hey, good enough reason for us!

We successfully filled all our vacancies in a short time frame by doing two things:

1. Partnering on a fixed fee (something like £2,000) with an Indian recruitment business for sourcing of Indian based candidates

2. Building talent maps of Indian talent that was working within large corporates outside of India and then approaching them to see if they would be tempted back with a "big" role in Mumbai? Funnily enough they were and some really cracking talent too.  We found both our "returning" placements in California.

The search was not difficult, it just required some "out of the box" thinking in terms of the how and who.

Actually the big challenge was finding Executives of an Indian origin who would work well and be successful in a business run by slightly arrogant (or you could say confident), incredibly bright (or you could say lacking in Emotional Intelligence), white, middle aged (or you could say in their prime) anglo-saxon men (none of them were called Harold). And herein lies the big challenge with International recruitment, it is not the sourcing (although you may have to do something different) but the selection that is the key.  Invariably Western business expanding their sales, marketing, operations, finance etc. in to new markets do not understand the cultural implications of hiring senior people who are not from the same ethnic group, blimey we still struggle working with the Europeans (exceptions clearly are the Dutch and Scandinavians who are just too cool for a bit of cross-border fisticuffs).

What Chemistry found is that the most crucial factor when hiring indigenous Executives for a Western business is their degree of Emotional Intelligence.  In the same instance, the most successful Western expats and managers of outsourced businesses are those with a vast toolkit of management styles, brought about by higher than average Emotional Intelligence.  It is this innate ability to control and manage their emotions whilst reading, understanding, controlling and managing others that enables them to work cross-culture.

So, when hiring Internationally, actually use who you like, in-market recruiters or UK based recruiters, as with all recruitment businesses the experience will be down to consultant you engage with.  The "bang" is not in the sourcing, this is fairly easy.  The "bang" is in the selection, ignore Emotional Intelligence at your peril, understand what you need in the role, measure it and if the individuals do not possess it don't hire them!

It's not rocket science, it never is, but it might be Chemistry :-)

R

Creating a referral scheme that works

Every recruitment company you turn to seems to have a referral scheme, most of them offer a cash incentive if their friends or colleagues get placed. We were looking to start our own referral scheme but offering cash for referrals just didn't seem very Chemistry, to be honest, it seemed like exactly the stereotypical recruitment agency behaviour we avoid at all costs!!

So, we were thinking about how else we can encourage candidates to recommend Chemistry to their friends freely of their own accord and then reward them for doing so. After getting our heads together and thinking about what we recommend to our friends we came up with a frighteningly simple answer; people never truly recommend something unless they have had a great experience using it! Groundbreaking, we know :)

Now, some of you reading this may think I am stating the obvious, but sadly in many cases this is a realisation yet to reach the recruitment industry.

The question then becomes so what can we do to make the experience for candidates as enjoyable as possible?

Well, quite a lot actually, at Chemistry we have introduced a 'welcome' pack for candidates which is crammed full of useful information including an invitation to the process, the Chemistry story, great interview tips, information about the client. We have been piloting this for the last few weeks and everybody is loving it so far.

We have also invested in a LexisNexis login so that our candidates can really research the clients they interview with and their markets. No other recruitment companies in the world are doing this!

Then there is all the great stuff for candidates that we have been doing for years e.g. every candidate gets a full feedback booklet from the profiling we do with them.

In summary, we have been making every effort to ensure that candidates are noticing the difference in service between us and other recruitment agencies.

But then what happens if people do refer their friends and we place someone, they need to be rewarded somehow!!!!

Again, we believe it is all about the experience you give people. Therefore instead of a quick cash prize, we decided to give people something that will last, that they will use over and over again - a great experience they will constantly associate with Chemistry.

We decided one years membership to the Quintessentially concierge and private members club was the perfect reward.

So, there it is, our views on what a referral scheme should be, a reward not a bribe and the recommendation should be deserved not paid for!

Rowan

Attracting Talent, It's All In the Story...

Employer of Choice, EVP (Employee Value Proposition) call it what you will but attracting talent to your business is a serious business and give it any cool name or anagram you like, it's also bloody hard!

So why do most companies suck at attracting talent and end up spending huge sums of money with recruitment companies, as usual, the answer is a leadership one.  Those organisations who are phenomenal at attracting the best talent, have as their best talent guy/girl, their CEO.  Couple of examples, Asda (in Archie Norman's day), HBoS, now I know he is much maligned now but back in the day Andy Hornby sucked in the best talent.  GE, Jack Welch a phenomenal Talent Manager.

Put simply the ability for a company to attract talent is firmly and directly linked to the active participation by it’s leaders, as with most people stuff as soon as it comes becomes an HR driven initiative it is doomed to failure, notice I said HR driven not HR implemented!

So before we roll out the online funky stuff, the twittering, the blogging, what practical no cost steps can we implement.

1. Make hiring the very best talent a perogative for all your business leaders, they should prioritise interviews over any other meeting, they should be available for interviews at the drop of a hat

Bit of a story to illustrate this, when we doing our gig at Energis, they had an amazing Head of Marketing, called David Shaw now David attracted amazing talent…one day I was interviewing a stellar guy for an accounting role, half way through the interview it occurred to me that d’you know, his background may be accounting but he could do a great job for us in propositions.  I stopped the interview and rang David Shaw, the conversation was short:

“David, hi.  It’s Roger, I am interviewing a guy for Eamonn (CFO) but I think he’s perfect for your team, where are you?”

“I am in the building, what room are you in? I’ll step out of this and join you”

5 minutes later, David was interviewing the candidate, 24 hours later the candidate had accepted our offer and signed his contract.

Did you see it?

2.Nail Your Hygiene Factors - 24 hours and signed his contract…there’s another factor in attracting great talent, you have to have the hygiene factors nailed down, contracts need to be available immediately, get the salary range you can offer negotiated upfront so there’s no “sign-off” delays

3.    3.GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT! – great people sign up to missions, not pensions…what is your organization doing that is compelling, how do you treat people, do you empower them or control them…really it doesn’t matter which just get the story straight, be honest and exacerbate the “bad” bits.  The Energis story went like this…”everything is broken, no matter how bad I tell you it is, when you come in you’ll say it’s worse, however we are building the brightest, most capable team in the history of telecommunications.  You will be intellectually challenged by the size of the task and your peers.  There is nowhere to hide, if you don’t deliver you will be fired, however everything you do will affect the company by 20% up or down every day, if you want to make a difference then you need to join us on our journey”…this story was not so much an attraction strategy as a selection one, like Marmite, you either thought it was amazing or a load of rubbish…guess who we wanted to hire.  My point is this, you have to be honest, but find the mission, it can’t be money (you’ll hire the wrong people), it can’t be security (you’ll hire the wrong people), what is it?  Are you changing the world, saving lives or like Energis just trying to achieve the impossible.

Attracting great talent is nothing to do with a slogan or an online campaign or advertising, you can start right now by doing 3 things:

• Measure your senior leaders on how good they are at recruiting, make hiring great people a strategic imperative and therefore their priority
• Make it easy for the business to hire great talent and the experience for candidates tough but swift
• Get your story straight and make sure everyone who touches a candidate is on message, everyone! 

Attracting great talent, it's not rocket science but it might be Chemistry :-)

R

Chemistry's Formula (Pardon the Pun) for Sales Success

Sales people an enigma, wrapped in a mystery...get a good one and they transform the business, get a bad one and the effects are horrendous.  Missed revenue, management time in performance managing them out and all the "mood hoovering"* they can do whilst they live their miserable existence in your salesforce.

Chemistry of course don't stand for all this nonsense, oh no, we know what makes great sales people and the likes of LexisNexis,  C&W, Nokia, Lexmark, PepsiCo, Vega, The CarbonNeutral Company, Yell and HP are all now in on the secret.

It goes something like this, most (if not all) recruitment practices are 25% accurate in predicting the future performance of sales people.  Don't think this is true?  OK, let's try this, go and ask a Sales Director who has say, 100 sales people, how many he considers to be great, just the kind of individuals who he/she would hire again in a heartbeat.  If he/she can write down 25 names I would be amazed, it's never happened.  The answer is always a "handful", maybe 10, possibly 15...the conclusion therefore is only 10-15% of their hires are "A" Class.  The reason is, the hiring process never selected for "A" Class!  You can not hit a target that doesn't exist!

What's the business impact of 25% accurate recruitment.  Well, it's staggering, whether you believe the CIPD and the cost of mishiring is 4-6% of base salary, or you believe Brad Smart (author of Topgrading) and it's 14-15% of base salary.

Here comes the formula:

Let's take our Sales Director with 100 people, who has an annual attrition of 20% (bit high but not untypical).  So to keep still, they must hire 20 sales people a year.

So here we go:

20 Hires per year @ £40,000 basic salary = £800,000 salary costs (you would usually add 1/3rd for overheads but let's be generous and say these sales people are low maintenance).

Only 25% of the 20 sales people however are "A" Players, the rest are mishires

So 20 x 75% = 15 mishires (they're gutted)

And £800,000 x 75% = £600,000 of salaries have been spent on mishires!

However it's worse, because the cost of a mishire is anything from 4-15% x basic salary due to the mistakes, failures, initial hiring cost, missed opportunities, disruption and severance etc. Let's pick a middling estimate at 9 x.

So £600,000 x 9 = £5,400,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now let's look at 75% accurate recruiting, what if only 25% of the hires were mishires, what do the numbers look like?

75% of their 20 sales people are "A" Players. (they feel great)

So 20 x 25% = 5 mishires (they're still annoyed, they're a perfectionist)

And £800,000 x 25% = £200,000 of salaries have been spent on mishires!

The total cost of mishires is therefore: £200,000 x 9 = £1,800,000

The cost benefit of 75% accurate hiring to this Sales Director is £3,600,000.

And that's only the Opex benefit, by hiring great sales people every time, you will drive performance and the impact on revenue will be tremendous. Just think if you, as a Sales Director, had 75% of your sales people firing on all cylinders, how much better would your numbers be?

The truth is 75% accurate hiring in a sales environment will drive down Operating Costs and increase Revenue, it's not rocket science but it might be Chemistry :-)

R

*Mood Hoover - someone who quite literally sucks the energy out of any living object.  The employee above who, it is always raining and whilst clearly labels their Milk in the fridge, finds the bottle emptied by "cool" Bob in sales.

The key to making talent profiling and assessment stick... Language

Nice provocative headline, of course the truth is  I am referring to all those assessment profiles that you have done, the latest leadership assessment by external organisations that for some reason always abbreviate their name to 3 letters.  I am talking about the 250 page document that justified some exorbitant consultancy fee...yep, the one you never bought in to, never used beyond the initial feedback and frankly you always disagreed with anyway.

I couldn't tell you how many people (because it's a lot, rather than I can't remember) when we start getting talking about "profiling" internal people already have swathe of assessments, tests, reports and all manner of psycho babble on themselves.  I estimate that £4.325 billion (completely made up number but you get the point) is just wasted on profiling management and executive teams, so why?  Why does this always seem like a good idea and then just get neglected, only to be done again a few months later...simple really, "language".

Eh? "language", yep that's what I said.  

We have a bit of a reputation for making this stuff "stick", we haven't got oak panelled assessment rooms (god forbid), we don't charge £000's for doing it, but we do believe in complex inputs and frighteningly simple out puts.  I mean it, so simple that a child could understand and this creates the "stickiness".

The output of any assessment/development profiling work has to be that the individual does something different the next day, and if they do 1 thing that's a great return, if they do 3 that's brilliant!  They have to be able to describe themselves in a way that someone else can understand, in a language that's common, clear and bereft of psychological abbreviations and nonsense.  They have to know their strengths and how this means they are perceived by others, touch on their development needs but maximise their strengths.

So spend a £1,000 (if you are spending more than a £1,000, ask for some oak panelling as part of the deal) putting one of your management/senior people through a piece of profiling, and then insist on simple outputs.  If the development report is more than 5 clear, simple, well communicated bullets, chuck it out, it'll never be used.  If the individuals boss does not understand the profile or the report, chuck it out, it'll never be used.  

One language, that the individual understands, the boss understands and HR can play their interventions in to.  

Oh, while I am ranting...if all of this is being done in to a competency framework that is more than 3 pages long...chuck it out, seriously I saw a competency framework that a client had bought the other day from a leading "development" consultancy and it was both incomprehensible and so bloody long, the document could not be lifted by hand...it came with a forklift truck as part of the fee!  Aaaarrrrggggghhhhh, come on, how is a busy line manager meant to understand that "language" it might as well be in Cantonese.

I need to make clear that i don't think line managers are thick and therefore don't understand our HR like wizardry, just that they are busy and the tools we provide them are meant to enable not disrupt and disable.

LANGUAGE, simple, clear and useable, it's the key to delivering high impact people interventions and therefore the key to business performance...that was easy :-)

R

PS: My sincere apologies for my poor grammar.  I have the unfortunate affliction of writing as I speak, therefore both my written and verbal communication is rapid and littered with missing commas and full stops.  Funny thing, language.

More confidence in the economy and employment markets?

At Chemistry, we’ve been noticing an air of confidence and optimism returning to the markets in the past few weeks. We have all heard mentions of ‘green shoots’ in the press over the last few weeks. However, it seems that harder evidence for an upturn is starting to appear.

In May, Tatum published a report on the US economy; they surveyed nearly 1000 CFO’s and CIO’s expectations around certain business metrics to create an index of business conditions.  Although this data is collected for US market given the interdependence between the UK and US markets it could prove a predictor of a UK upturn as well

This month, the index rose for the 6th consecutive month from 1.58 to 2.29. This is the first time the index has been above 2 since August 2008. The 3 month average of this index is now at it’s highest point since September 2007.

As we are a recruitment agency it is only right to focus on the employment markets. When asked whether they believe their hiring would improve, remain the same or decline, the ratio of respondents expecting hiring to improve vs. decline has steadily risen since November 2008. It could therefore be concluded from this data that in the US, unemployment will not reach the levels some have predicted.

Drawing a parallel to the UK recruitment markets, this prediction ties in with the results from the Badenoch and Clark’s May talent spotlight, suggesting we are seeing “an easing in the rate of decline.” However, we are still expecting a decline, so we are definitely not out of the woods yet!

We are starting see the signs of recovery – but maybe that’s because we are ever optimistic ;-)  We would love to know whether you have seen the green shoots of recovery, or whether you believe there is doom and gloom for a little while to come? You can use the poll at the side to let us know!

Rowan Watkins

Should I Stay or Should I Go!

"Less people are leaving," that is what I am hearing from clients.  For some this is a problem, to others a blessing.  

Couple of  truths: the total number of roles out there is falling off a cliff, hence less movement in the candidate market. The market is still candidate driven, find the right candidate for a client and they will still hire them.  The hiring process everywhere is currently taking a loooonnnngggg time and is further challenged with hiring freezes and reluctant decision making.

So faced with this job seeking landscape, as a candidate is this the right time to move job?

In a word, why not? (sorry in two words).  Whilst the dynamics of the market are changing, companies are broadly still looking for talent but not having specific job descriptions and the hiring process does take longer, the opportunity to take on new challenges and stretch yourself by taking a new role have not gone away.

There are a few tips:

1. Do not quit a job to look for a new job.  This has never been a good idea, actually it's rubbish, especially today.  The market is currently oversupplied with candidates who find themselves out of work.  Whether we like it or not, clients are more likely to orientate to those still currently holding down a job.
2. Do not "hawk" yourself round the market, again this has never been a good idea.  Right now you should be getting interesting job leads from people you know, referral in this market is the way to approach most things.  It is never more true of your job search.  If you are working with agencies, do not use too many, as per my previous post, find the ones you believe can help you and focus your efforts on them.
3.  As well as referral, focus your efforts on direct approaches to companies.  They are all looking to save recruitment costs at the moment, using agencies is not on the agenda.  By all means apply direct via a website but try and get a referral in, who do you know? Use LinkedIn to find connected people in the company.  Using tools like LinkedIn to directly connect with your future employer is a massive opportunity, shamelessly use it.  You'll be saving them money!
4. Do your due diligence.  If the company is public, get the latest info.  For the small price of a Hoover or LexisNexis (Chemistry provide free access to LexisNexis for it's candidates) search you can find out a lot about the team, their financials and what analysts believe their future is.  For private companies, take references on the company, again who do you know? Use LinkedIn to connect with past and current employees.  It' a big decision, make sure that you do your homework!
5. Move for the right reasons.  Now more than ever, you need to make sure you rationale for looking outside of your current employer is the right one.  Get a pen and paper, write down the "Push" factors, i.e. what is making you look outside and the "Pull" factors, what is it about the opportunities you have that draw you to them.  Now ask yourself are the "Push" factors something I can impact, if so would my job be great if i changed them?  Are the "Pull" factors genuine, or are they just the result of the "Push".   There definitely is a growing backlash at the moment on candidates who are perceived to have "job hopped".

In general the days for moving for a pay increase are gone, the kinds of uplift candidates are getting at the moment range between 0-10%.  Companies are using the "interesting" times to leverage leaner packages.

So it's still the right time to move.  Just do it for the right reasons, get your salary expectations in line, sensibly approach due diligence and above all else reach in to your network to do your homework!

R
 

 

Age Discrimination - Who isn't doing it?

I attended the Recruiter Forum today, for my thoughts see my previous post.  One of the questions asked by the panel to the audience of 60+ recruiters, was, "do they see age discrimination as they go about hiring for companies"...the whole room put up their hand.

And then as if by magic today , i received in my inbox this email from a candidate today; who is asking the question no wants to hear and getting the usual response...silence.  This particular "silence" came from TotalJobs but they are equally as useless as the rest so they can't be blamed, can they?

Candidate's Email to TotalJobs Begins---------

Dear Career Doctor.  I need your help as I'm suffering from an incurable ailment that dramatically impairs my ability to find employment - my age.

 

Despite regulations to the contrary ageism continues to be rife among employers, notably in new media and professional services in my direct experience.  I have applied for a number of roles, and find that, although abundantly qualified, I am almost never selected for interview.  This applies to very many people I know who suffer from the disability of "having a 5 in front".

 

1) Can you recommend a way of overcoming this as an individual and isolated job-seeker?  I suspect that I have no chance of combating such practice alone, not least because such employers will doubtless have rafts of policy documents, statistics and rationalisations that they can advance which I would have no way of disproving.  Additionally any potential employee would be ill-advised to risk causing irreparable damage to their career prospects by creating a reputation among employers as a trouble-maker.  What can a solo job-seeker do to land a role in the light of this wide-spread and covert practice?  There are specialist recruiters for those over 50, but they do not seem to work in the professional space.  Interim management roles often require past experience or a capital injection, and government agencies do not accept "speculative cvs".  The "vast, unadvertised job market" can be tapped by many eager consultants, but with no credentials on offer and myriad suppliers, each of which expects their 100 pounds of flesh, this opaque sector looks more like a gigantic and very expensive black hole.  I'd be very grateful for any help - a cure, ideally.

 

2) Are you aware of a means of collecting information to expose those companies who operate ageist recruitment practices?  I imagine that you at Totaljobs are able to mine those cvs you hold, and can chart success rates and search duration by age.  If this is not the case or you feel that this would be injurious to your business interests, is there a government agency that provides such data by individual employer?  Without this their laws are unenforceable, so it must be held somewhere.  Is there an ageism Czar in government I can appeal to?

 

3) Are you aware of a network for fellow professionals in this age bracket where we can share data about individual ageist employers in order to spare ourselves the pain, humiliation and wasted time of sending cvs to employers which are certain to be rejected?

 

If you have any other tips and "wrinkles" on this hoary topic I should be most grateful to receive them.

 

 

Yours rejectedly, but ever hopeful,

Candidate's Email to TotalJobs Ends---------

Herein lies our challenge as recruiters, i would love to place this candidate, he sounds bright, capable, he has a wealth of experience and there are 1000's like him, with as he says the disability of not being 25-35 anymore.  Given, soon only 20% of the population will be white, male and under 45 this is a problem our industry but more importantly corporate UK has to face in to.

We have to stop believing the War for Talent exists and start realising, that we are creating it.  Our narrow perception of what "good looks like" is not only driving up the costs of hire and frustrating us but is counter productive to getting the Uk economy out of the shit it's in.  Chemistry for their part are using the profiling tools to provide data that proves people like David and others are equally as capable and in most cases more capable than filling roles in all sorts of businesses.

The question we have to ask is, what is corporate UK going to do?  Beyond retailers, who do embrace a diverse strategy of recruitment for front line staff, what are the other institutions actually doing?  Is their new Account Director, Marketing Director, Brand Manager, Sales Executive et al, really going to be offered to a 50+ year old individual, if not, why not?

Gonna give this some more thought and post back, in the meantime anyone got any great ideas?

R

Recruiter Forum 2009

As some of you may know I am fairly scathing of our industry, i therefore have traditionally shunned industry get togethers, shindigs and official bodies such as REC. However today i attend and spoke at the Recruiter Forum (well run, well put together by the great team at Recruiter).

However with the encouragement of the irrepressible DeeDee Doke and her fine staff at Recruiter and Resourcing magazines I have slowly begun to engage with the great unwashed out there in other recruitment companies.  However my fears to a certain extent have been confirmed...of all the people I have met so far, only two and their organisations stand out.  

Firstly Kate McCarthy at McCarthy recruitment, WOW here's a lady that get's it, she absolutely rocks.  Value set is great, passionately believes in what she does...love it.  If i was a retail company i would run to McCarthy recruitment; do exactly what Kate and her team tell me to and pay her whatever she wants for doing it.

Secondly Claire Owen at StopGap.  I am like a sponge around Claire, every moment with her is a huge learning experience.  Again if i was hiring marketers or I was a marketer...forget the big blue company...they have nothing on Claire and her gang.

The interesting thing about both these great women is that they have built their entire organisation and proposition around values, values which they don't compromise and drive all of their business decisions. Those values are about people and how you treat them.  They lead with the view that if we are open and honest with our own employees, treat them as we would want to be treated and are constant role models for the right behaviour, shockingly our people will be the same with both our clients and our candidates.

Staggering news, I know.

But i have to say I attended the Recruiter Forum today.  Great event, some great presentations from Kate and also Chris from Chess, who I plan on getting to know better.  However one presentation was entirely god awful, no truly, like taking 10 steps back and a shuddering reminder of how bad our industry is.  I shall refrain from naming the culprit but it is him and dinosaurs like him (and there were more than a few there today) that we should remove from our industry.

So here's to Kate, Claire and the others like them (there has to be more), they will be the leaders standing at the end of this recession; as their client relationships are deep and their own people will follow them to hell and back.

R

PS: I should also pop a mention to Martin Dangerfield, who whilst doesn't have the size of business Kate and Claire have built, is still driving his clients to look at the world of recruitment differently.

PPS: Here's my slides from today.

Download ChemistryRFSlides2304

The Second Wave

Now, I don’t want to scare monger, goodness knows there is plenty enough of that in the newspapers every day.  But one thing that has been taxing our clients and us in recent weeks is the question of “The Second Wave”.

During recessions there are usually two waves of redundancies. The first wave happens rapidly after the onset of the recession. Frequently these necessitate a focus on speed over accuracy, probably essential but never ideal. The first wave impacts contractors, central roles like HR and marketing and lightly touches sales, service and operations. In this recession this wave occurred between Oct08-Mar09.

However, as businesses realise the severity of the recession a second wave of cuts is needed. This second wave cuts deeper into more valuable functions. We expect this second wave to occur between May and September this year and there are signs of it already in some businesses.

Deeper cuts will take out more valuable people and if done hastily can have far reaching impacts for the business. Often downsizing can be based on outdated views of what high performers look like rather than considering who will succeed under the new market conditions. But the boards and shareholders need to be seen to be acting quickly, being ready and prepared with objective data is essential.

Before the Second Wave, business leaders (and we include HR in this) have a window of opportunity to plan and prepare for it. Our experience tells us that the process of doing this includes:
-    Identifying which roles/people will really create value in the next two years, not the last two years, i.e. What “great” looks like!
-    working out your talent map against this new model of “great”
-    using the objective data collected to carry out, the never pleasant, but necessary changes to people

Establishing what type of people organisations need in the future to be successful is a science, a science Chemistry is at the forefront of.  How you define “great”, how you measure “great” is the secret to making sure, to quote Jim Collins, “you have the right people on the bus, in the right seats”.  To understand how  this can be done cost effectively click here.

Simon Cooper