LG & Associates Search / Talent Strategy

"Without a sophisticated enemy in sight . . ." ???

In reading about national defense topics today, I came across an article written by Robert Scheer of the Pasadena Star-News . . . "No candidate will battle the military budget".

Although highly opinionated, and with some points I agree on (and others I don't), I came across the following statement which led me to the conclusion that Mr. Scheer does not understand the current global risks of terrorism:

"The United States already spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military without a sophisticated enemy in sight."

The truth is that a 'sophisticated enemy' is a true competitive disadvantage . . . there is power in lack of what many term sophistication. The more decentralized a terrorist cell is, the more difficult it becomes to identify and engage. Our current age of terrorism has us in a world where technology collides with centuries-old religious extremism; where a cellphone and a small container of depleted Uranium could result in a horrific scenario on any continent, not just our own. In fact, the very lack of traditional sophistication places our military in a quest to enhance our own. There is an inverse correlation at play here, which is a major reason that the world has changed greatly since 9/11.

As former veterans ourselves, the co-founder of LG & Associates Search / Talent Strategy and I do everything in our power to support our men and women in harm's way. Since we cannot be on the actual battlefront ourselves, we fight to do all we can, which today might be recruiting the very best Aerospace Engineer out of AirBus into Boeing . . . or dedicating our time to provide workshops on reentering the workforce for returning veterans (many of which are severely disabled.)

If you're as passionate as we are, let's connect!

"You Know, Profit is Funny" . . .

When it comes to discussing talent in the executive search community, there is an overriding philosophy that every company should hire the 'best people' for every role. But is this really affordable for an organization? Can they really pay a salary premium for every role and position within the company? Well, maybe they can . . . if they're cash heavy or have no eye for recurring operational expenses (aka, the infamous 'burn rate').

Likewise, I can recall a conversation with an HR Director a few weeks ago where there was shock when I stated that "Some employees and roles are just more important than others." I received the age old HR response, "All employees and positions here at XYZ company are equally important." At this point, I responded, "So, are you saying that the A/P clerk is as important as the Director of New Biz Dev or the Satcom Design Engineer?" Yeah, right. Obviously, this led to crickets on the other end of phone line.

Let's be honest for a change. All roles aren't created equal. This is the reason executive search and talent acquisition consulting firms exist - because companies can't afford to role the dice when it comes to those people, positions, and roles that most closely drive profit and value creation.

My friend, Adrian Slywotzky (author of "The Art of Profitability", "Value Migration: How to Think Several Moves Ahead of the Competition", "The Profit Zone") puts it best:

"You know, profit is funny . . . In fact, the more you think about profitability, the more you sense how dependent it is on a few key talents in the organization. The discovers of molecules, like Jimmy Black. The brilliant project managers at places like MITRE, Merck, or Boeing, who keep impossibly complex projects hurtling forward unstoppably through time, like so many runaway freight trains. The three brilliant copywriters at an ad agency. The two genius designers buried in the bowels of Chrysler's engineering group. The six rainmakers who drive 70% of a law firm's new business creation.

"Profit works in highly definable pathways, and in many case, it's a handful of players in a vast organization who are the true catalysts, the triggers that cause the right things to happen."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks, Adrian.

"The Point of Innovation Is To Make Actual Money" . . .

I have to applaud IBM's new marketing campaign geared at educating the business world that 'innovating simply for the sake of innovating' is like tossing $$$ out the window.

As any Marketeer worth their salt will tell you, "Mindshare? Who cares about Mindshare? We're after Market Share . . . !!!"