Where Commoditizing Does Not Fit

Yesterday I had an awkward conversation with someone in an organization that purports to match up people like me with appropriate openings on advisory boards and boards of directors. This used to be the province of specialized headhunters: low tech, high personal attention.

Now, as with so many things, upstarts push in the direction of a commodity service delivered inexpensively online.

As this tale unfolds, bear in mind that it need not be like this.

When this was a new approach, I got involved for a little while with one of the very first businesses in the sector. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. That's why I gave it a try, to see how it turned out in practice.

It wasn't effective. The approach being used was too much like an ordinary recruitment database. It’s okay for roles that mostly need technical skills which are relatively easy to train, measure and certify. As you start to look for soft skills in management, it works less well. By the time you get to the Board level where contextual competency and strategy matter most, it doesn’t fit at all.

When you want to add someone to your Board, an ordinary skills database can’t tell you enough about the contextual and strategic abilities of candidates. For example, I’ve held a prominent role in a Board that pulled a national non-profit back from the financial brink. It’s tougher than doing the same thing for a business with hard assets. Put me into a typical skills database and that is lost among the pigeonholes. To match me with an organization that needs those abilities, you would have to apply methods from capability and competency management.

A few weeks ago I had an initial brief telephone appointment with one of the latest upstarts for people looking to fill Board positions. The initial appointment sounded like maybe the sector has advanced. Their representative talked about having a writer work with me to develop a polished profile and having a professional work specifically on helping to match me with openings.

Before the follow-up, I did some digging. Trustpilot and Google reviews are not a reliable way to decide whether something like this is what it says it is. Better Business Bureau complaints are reliable. It takes effort to submit one, and the BBB puts effort into checking out the complaints they receive.

The company has a lot of BBB complaints. The complaints are so consistent, the BBB has added a summary of typical filings against the business.

This still is not ready for prime time. The personal attention promised, which was essential to their portrayal of what makes them better than competitors, was not happening even as recently as the time of my initial conversation. Somewhat worryingly, this particular company makes it difficult to cancel. They say you can drop out anytime with three days notice, but getting through to them to do so is repeatedly described as a nightmare. All of that is ordinary and readily corrected. But even if it all got fixed, they are using the same commoditized approach used by the early mover in the market that I tried out years ago. Signing up would be a waste of my time and money.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Online services don’t have to require commoditization. Upstarts are doing it this way because it’s easy. They apply the same concepts used by ordinary recruitment companies. As long as the sales engine can rope in enough new sign-ups, in the few months before people realize they are spinning their wheels and find a way to cancel, the company makes money.

There is a way to make this work well, but it isn’t as easy as people have gotten accustomed to expecting from online portals. For people seeking Board roles, companies wanting to recruit onto their Boards, and the company doing the matchmaking, it would require more effort. When it reaches the point of having enough candidates in it, the result would put current methods to shame.

You probably remember the three options: fast, good and cheap. You can’t have more than two of the options. For the time being, it is still being done with an approach that is fast and cheap, but not good.

That’s what I had to say yesterday. They’re offering fast and cheap. I’m more interested in good. Any business worth its salt will also want the best possible results from the way it chooses Board members.

If the business wants to stand heads and shoulders better than the rest of the sector, the variation I mentioned will get them there. I only outlined part of it. Without another crucial element I didn’t mention, it would fall over. (I’m not telling all my professional secrets free of charge.) Do it right and they can offer fast and very good compared with current effective methods. Although not as cheap, it would be cost effective, a superb value for both candidates and the Boards that want them.

Commoditizing doesn’t fit their market. It doesn’t have to be this way. It can be much, much better.