Does size matter?

No, this is not a reference to the many augmentation products available and apparently exclusively marketed by spam emails.

I got a call from a friend a few weeks ago. He was calling to apologize for a search I did not even know existed. He went on to explain that his current organization, was looking to hire another Vice President in charge of nuts and bolts. He had lobbied on my behalf and suggested that the Board seriously consider using Hawes Partners. The Board felt the “bigger search firm would do a bigger job.” They chose to sole source to my former firm. It is a large firm with 14 partners and consultants working in various industry sectors.

I have conflicting thoughts regarding this. On one hand I understand the “no one ever got fired for hiring IBM” mentality. On the other hand, it is disappointing that we have not progressed past that way of thinking.

Having been inside the larger organization, I know better. The question is how do I articulate the benefits of a smaller organization without sounding overly critical of my former firm.

I will try to address some of the checkmarks larger firms use to differentiate themselves.

Is it …

Quality?

Few would argue that you get better quality customer service or results than Hawes Partners can provide. In a larger firm, the quality of your search depends on who you get within that firm. The experience can vary greatly. I know my former firm claims that four out of five clients rate them better than other firms they have used. I can only assume that Hawes Partners represents the one-in-five that was better than them.

Cost?

In fact Global firms have extensive overhead and marketing machines to feed. The Boutique firms traditionally are very competitively priced, and often less expensive.

Larger Networks?

Networking has developed significantly over the years. Everyone can claim massive networks. Having a database of 20 000 is not unique, what is unique is having the confidence and ability to speak credibly with target candidates. A personal approach is more effective.

Guarantees and Off-limits?

Closely aligned to quality, some would say a firm is only as good as their guarantee. I would argue that a firm is only as good as their willingness to honour their guarantee and the integrity they show in respecting their off-limits policy.

In larger firms with many offices, off-limits policies are consistently being broken for the sake of business development. A partner in Vancouver recruits a candidate the same firm placed only 2 years previous in Toronto. Or more likely, they recruit one of your key personnel away, and then they offer to conduct a search to replace that person. With so many partners and stakeholders, the integrity of the off-limits and other promises is often a casualty of the need to close a search and drive business.

Smaller boutique firms have a smaller client base and thus a smaller group who are off-limits. This allows a boutique firm to freely recruit the best candidates without compromising ethics.

So if it is not cost, quality, access to larger networks, nor a better guarantee or a preferable off-limits policy, it must be experience.

Unfortunately I must de-bunk that myth as well.

Experience?

Global firms list the experience they have in industry sectors, and yes by volume they have the number. However, those searches listed are more often than not conducted by individuals in other offices. Some, by individuals no longer with the firm. You must understand that these offices are actually competitive with one another and operate with independent P&L from one another. So the list of assignments in specific functional areas or industry sectors is often a façade of thinly strung together collective experience which collapses under scrutiny.


When I left to start Hawes Partners, the very first decision I made was not being a slave to massive overhead. Nor be motivated by conducting every search on the planet. I resolved to deliver high quality, personal service to those companies who valued the benefits of working with a firm focused on personal service rather than volume.

So far business has been very good, however it does sting when I learn that I have lost out on opportunities. Like the chef who cringes at the sight of the McDonald’s line-ups. I too lament some folks’ decisions. But the reality is that people continue to eat at McDonalds. They know it is unhealthy and will likely cause light gastro-intestinal discomfort, but it is the easy choice. After all, “You deserve a break today!”