Yet in hindsight, perhaps we should have gone for something riskier, something a bit more attention grabbing. Something like Mythbusters! Random, I know, but that is exactly what we do.
Take for instance one of our clients that had struggled for several months to hire a certain role. They thought this was because it was a niche position combining certain responsibilities, alien to the market. Also, that they were paying too little. To support the business case for a redefined role, we were asked to rubber stamp their assumptions. To the contrary, we busted this myth by providing a tailored market map of equivalent post holders, together with profiles of individuals earning less than they were proposing. A hire was subsequently made, in line with initial parameters.
More recently, the SLT of a client assumed it would be impossible to hire a certain skill set, due to their remote location and “lower quartile” salary bandings. Pressure was being put on the Talent Acquisition team to come up with a plan. We subsequently found that the client had a highly credible brand perception and that renewed emphasis on the fascinating solutions they were delivering would overcome these preconceived obstacles. They were able to move forward with renewed focus and confidence.
Finally, the executive team of another business was keen to relocate a satellite function to their head office in another part of the country. Potential cost savings were attractive. Yet we concluded that they should avoid doing this at all costs, as the talent pool local to their HQ just didn’t exist. Relocation would have been a huge mistake.
I guess the point of this post is to shout it from the rooftop that research is much more than a candidate attraction channel. If you want to gather real time external insight to help you make a better-informed decision or challenge a long-held opinion, then who you gonna’ call…?