After a client interviewed shortlisted executives and selected a candidate the difficult phase of candidate placement starts. Closing an assignment is not as easy as it seems. This is insider know-how of all search consultants who have effectively placed several people. To my initial surprise and astonishment, it is not selling the search, neither finding the candidate, but the closure of an assignment that is the most challenging process.

Once there is a preferred candidate, trust me, a myriad of things can still go wrong: Murphy's law finds much fertile ground here. If one does not pay careful attention, things can and will go astray very quickly.

The slipperiest slope is represented by, no surprise, issues related to compensation. However, a broad variety of other contingencies at both client and candidate side can slam the brake during this period, especially when decision making at the client goes at a snail pace.

I will cover such contingencies extensively in the next post.

Package negotiations are a tricky matter, especially when a consultant needs to proactively mediate between candidate and employer. Usually I do not play an active role in the negotiation but provide switch board service, ferrying offers and counter offers, while advising both parties. Candidates often ask me who I represent - in this phase I represent both, though the hiring organization will always call the last shot.

a. Most clients have a package set, and have few or no flexibility to change the amount. This makes both search process and candidate management easier. If expectations of shortlisted candidates fall within the parameters set there is no issue. The only problems ensue when a client wants (or pushes for) a profile that falls in a higher income bracket.

b. Some clients want to keep all options open. Usually they have a "ballpark" figure in mind, and indicate a degree of flexibility according to the seniority and experience of candidates. In order to avoid issues coming up related to salary, bonuses, equity options, transfer fees, benefits and other elements of compensation, it is necessary to report regular to the client during the search the expectations of candidates you believe are relevant to the project. Clients that have all options open could get entangled in a legal smorgasbord when lawyers come in to hammer out a universe of exotic clauses, when there is not yet a full consensus between candidate and employer. Have a candidate and employer agree on all compensation aspects as well their contractual formulation, before anyone brings in lawyers. Usually lawyers tend to cosy up comfortably to each other, and leave it to the candidate and the board of the hiring company to organize the final handshake. When the lawyers agree, both parties follow quickly.

c. There is a group of clients that needs extensive involvement of the consultant. It is the group of clients that does not have an idea what they should pay, and further need assistance in the formulation of the offer. We receive questions about what we believe would be a fair compensation. What do we think about the structure of the offer? If equity options are offered, how much should be given, on what basis, and how should they be vested?

d. One factor that can stir up problems, is when a client skews the contractual formulation of the offer into his advantage. In my experience (as with the above case) this happens often with smaller, less institutional, entrepreneurial firms in a period of high growth; companies that need outside seniority to consolidate, restructure and reengineer the business.

Once, when searching a European Sales Director for a software firm, the client made an offer and was surprised the candidate halted all negotiation, moreover, he completely pulled out of the process. He shared with us that the contract proposal was heavily biased in favor of the hiring company, and included various clauses that where not up to industry standards (verbally he was far more colorful). Our client, who did not share their contract template with us, was surprised why senior European executives would walk away from an offer they deemed excellent without even negotiating. (the candidate felt disrespected with the attitude reflected in the contract proposal). Though the compensation was reasonably good, contractual clauses related to notice period, expense account, the way bonuses were paid, and the lack of any corporate benefit made candidates (rightly) balk.

In an other case, I worked on an assignment for a large, family owned financial services company in Eastern Europe. Their contract included clauses forcing the payment of punitive damages if the successful candidate would terminate his employment unilaterally within 6 months after hire. Furthermore, the candidate was not allowed to take the contract proposal with him, he could only read it and take notes. The rationale behind the decision was that candidates might use the confidential offer to negotiate a higher salary with their existing employer. In this manner they communicated without realizing: (1) we are not fair and (2) we do not trust you. Twice HR (the wife of the owner) insisted on this process, until the owner intervened after two exceptional candidates indicated to have no interest joining them - having lost 6 months in the process, and myself significant time and effort in "selling" the position to these candidates.

Prepare youself for roadblocks early on, try to learn all relevant package and contract details, and always stay close to client and candidate after the initial selection of a candidate.