3-24-14 Handout- Strategic Governmental Resources, Inc. ■
EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM REPUTATION AMONG
CITY MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS
i
SURVEY RESULTS:
•
August 2011
• y�
Prepared for:
j STRATEGIC GOVERNMENT RESOURCES, INC.
a •
a
TlfTOWN HALL PARTNERS, LLC
CONTENTS
RESULTS SUMMARY 1
ABOUT TOWN HALL PARTNERS 1
METHODOLOGY 1
SURVEY VALIDITY 2
PARTICIPANT PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE 3
RESPONDENT EXPERIENCE WITH FIRMS 4
SEARCH FIRM RATINGS 5
APPENDIX 11
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: LIST OF FIRMS ASSESSED IN THE SURVEY 2
FIGURE 2: RESPONDENTS'PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE 3
FIGURE 3: (QUESTION 2)TYPES OF SUBSTANTIVE INTERACTIONS 4
FIGURE 4: (QUESTION 3) PARTICIPATION AS A CANDIDATE IN AN EXECUTIVE SEARCH 4
FIGURE 5: AVERAGE FIRM RATINGS ACROSS QUESTIONS 4-12(TOP 5 RATED FIRMS) 5
FIGURE 6: (QUESTION 4)AVERAGE FIRM RATING 6
FIGURE 7: (QUESTION 5)AVERAGE FIRM RATING 6
FIGURE 8: (QUESTION 6)AVERAGE FIRM RATING 7
FIGURE 9: (QUESTION 7)AVERAGE FIRM RATING 7
FIGURE 10: (QUESTION 8)AVERAGE FIRM RATING 8
FIGURE 11: (QUESTION 9)AVERAGE FIRM RATING 8
FIGURE 12: (QUESTION 10)AVERAGE FIRM RATING 9
FIGURE 13: (QUESTION 11)AVERAGE FIRM RATING 9
FIGURE 14: (QUESTION 12)AVERAGE FIRM RATING 10
SURVEY RESULTS i
RESULTS SUMMARY
From August 2 through August 8, 2011, Town Hall Partners, LLC (THP) administered a survey assessing
the reputation of executive search firms among the city management community throughout Texas.
While Strategic Government Resources (SGR) contracted with THP to administer the survey, SGR had no
involvement with or control over the survey administration, response collection, or results analysis in
order to ensure survey validity. This report presents a summary of the survey results, and includes
complete results for each question in the Appendix.
About Town Hall Partners
Town Hall Partners, LLC is an interdisciplinary company of planners, architects, economic developers,
and administrators that provides a range of skills and opportunities for clients in the public and private
sector.The company has expertise and experience in:
• public input and communication facilitation
• market, pro-forma, and site analysis
• long range planning and economic development strategies
• land development, zoning, and building assistance
• Main Street preservation and design
THP's Principals believe that planning and development must not only be innovative, but also be
financially, socially, and environmentally responsible to meet the needs of future generations. It is
because of this that they have dedicated their work, experience, and capabilities toward developing
original solutions that are also practical, achievable, and specifically targeted to each unique situation.
Methodology
The survey, consisting of twelve questions, was hosted online through SurveyMonkey.com. The survey
was accessed via a web link included in the invitation email distributed to a list of city management
professionals throughout Texas, provided by SGR. The lists provided the sampling frame, with the target
population being 644 city managers, assistant city managers, and senior local government professionals
in Texas. The original recipient list was divided into two files: one for cities over 25,000 in population,
and one for smaller cities. THP combined the lists, then identified and removed any duplicate recipient
names in order to ensure that no one would receive multiple invitations. The survey was designed to
track only respondents' IP addresses, solely for the purpose of preventing multiple responses from a
single IP address "spamming" or otherwise invalidating the survey results. No other identifying items
were collected from respondents.
RESULTS SUMMARY 1
The ten firms respondents were asked to assess are shown in Figure 1. Firms were chosen for their
overall level of activity in local government searches in Texas. For the purposes of anonymity, each firm
beyond Strategic Government Resources have been identify as Firm A, B, C, D...etc. in the survey results.
Figure 1:List of firms assessed in the survey(order differs from survey instrument)
WATERS CONSULTING
VOORHEES ASSOCIATES
STRATEGIC GOVERNMENT RESOURCES
RALPH ANDERSON ASSOCIATES
MERCER ASSOCIATES
JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES
CPS
CHRIS HARTUNG AND ASSOCIATES
BAENZIGER ASSOCIATES
AFFION
The survey collection was closed at 6:00pm on August 8, 2011. There were a total of 113 responses
received. However, twelve of those responses included an answer only to the first question, and no
answers to subsequent questions. These responses were removed from the survey results. This left a
total of 101 valid responses out of 644 invitations issued, for a response rate of 15.68%.
Please note that note that not every respondent answered every question. Skipped question frequency
increases as the survey progresses. The survey was designed not to force responses to specific questions
in order to allow respondents who might be uncomfortable with a particular question to still be able to
complete questions later in the survey. Numbers of respondents who answered or skipped each
question are in the Appendix.
Survey Validity
Several factors influence the validity of a given survey. These include:
• A well-defined target population (sampling frame)
• A sample that represents the target population
• Adequate response rate that minimizes non-response bias
In this case, the target population is clearly defined as senior local government professionals across all
geographic regions of Texas. The sampling frame thus comprises the overwhelming majority of the
parties likely to be most interested in utilizing local government search services within the state. The
entire target population was contacted and invited to be participants in the survey. External surveys
(surveys aimed at respondents outside of an organization, such as customer satisfaction surveys) often
have low response rates. However, the response rate for this survey was strong, surpassing the top of
the normal range of 10-15%for external surveys administered online.
RESULTS SUMMARY 2
Participant Professional Discipline
The first survey question asked respondents to self-identify their professional discipline. As shown in
Figure 2, the overwhelming majority of respondents (95%) identified their profession as City
Management.
Figure 2:Respondents'professional discipline
3%
1%
1%
•CITY MANAGEMENT
•ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
r+PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
•OTHER
95%
RESULTS SUMMARY 3
Respondent Experience with Firms
Questions 2 and 3 assessed respondents' prior experience with executive search firms. SGR fared well,
especially with regard to client engagement. Only 8%of respondents indicated that they had had no
interaction with SGR over the past year, compared to the average for all other firms of 48%. Further,
SGR had assisted 40%of respondents with searches in the past year, second only to Firm I, which had
assisted 49%of respondents. (See Figures 3 and 4)
Figure 3:(Question 2)For each firm,identify the types of substantive interactions you have had over the past year
80.0% -
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% - a
SGR FIRM A FIRM B FIRM C FIRM D FIRM E FIRM F FIRM G FIRM H FIRM I
El FACE TO FACE MEETING •PERSONAL COMMUNICATION VIA PHONE OR EMAIL
RECEIVED A MASS COMMUNICATION FROM LI No INTERACTION
Figure 4:(Question 3)For each firm,check whether or not you have ever participated as a candidate in an executive search
SGR
FIRM I
FIRM F
mwowwwomllIll
FIRM G —
FIRM C
FIRM A
FIRM B
FIRM E
FIRM H
FIRM D -
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
■ Have not participated ■Participated
RESULTS SUMMARY 4
Search Firm Ratings
The remaining questions allowed respondents to rate search firms on a number of criteria. SGR was the
highest rated firm on each question. Average ratings are calculated based on actual responses, leaving
aside any "N/A" or "Not enough information" answers. This is to establish ratings which reflect the
actual experience of respondents with a particular firm.
Figure 5:Average firm ratings across questions 4-12(top 5 rated firms)
4.5
4 *ZIA .. •AVERAGE RATING
3.5 - _SG R
\' FIRM
3 �_ r F IRM C
� � FIRM F
2.5 —
11.kg111011 FIRM G
2
Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Especially large favorable differentials in ratings appear for
• Question 4 ("For the firm(s) with which you have participated as a candidate, based on your
personal experience, rate the likelihood that you would participate again as a candidate in one
of their searches"),
• Question 8 ("Rate the following firms based upon their reputation for networking and engaging
leading edge thinkers in city government"),
• Question 12 ("Rate the following firms based on their reputation among young professionals
and rising professionals as supportive of the next generation of leaders in city government").
This identifies areas of particular perceived strength for SGR among the surveyed population.
RESULTS SUMMARY 5
Average ratings by firm, with a comparison to overall average for all rated firms, are as follows:
Figure 6:(Question 4)For the firm(s)with which you have participated as a candidate,based on your personal experience,rate the
likelihood that you would participate again as a candidate in one of their searches:
AVERAGE RATING 3.25
SG R 4.23
FIRM F 3.76
FIRM C 3.58
FIRM I 3.56
-/NMNMMM
FIRM G 3.36
FIRM H 3.11
FIRM B 3.00
FIRM E 2.88
FIRM D 2.77
MINNEMMI
FIRM A 2.27
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Figure 7:(Question 5)Based upon the overall reputation of each firm,rate the likelihood that the firm's engagement in a search would
positively influence the decision of other peer public executives to become a candidate:
AVERAGE RATING 3.37
--
SG R 4.10
FIRM I 3.73
FIRM F 3.67
FIRM C 3.56
FIRM G 3.35
FIRM E 3.22
FIRM B 3.10
FIRM H 3.07
FIRM D 3.00
FIRM A 2.92
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
RESULTS SUMMARY 6
Figure 8:(Question 6)Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their level of understanding of city management:
AVERAGE RATING 3.38
---
SG R 3.87
FIRM C 3.77
FIRM I 3.67
FIRM F 3.63
----
FIRM G 3.56
---
FIRM B 3.50
---
FIRM H 3.15
---
FIRM D 3.00
FIRM E 3.00
FIRM A 2.64
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Figure 9:(Question 7)Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their level of real world understanding of your profession:
AVERAGE RATING 3.14
SG R 3.76
FIRM I 3.59
FIRM C 3.51
FIRM F 3.42
FIRM G 3.36
FIRM B 3.14
FIRM H 2.89
FIRM E 2.78
FIRM D 2.56
--_
FIRM A 2.33
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
RESULTS SUMMARY 7
Figure 10:(Question 8)Rate the following firms based upon their reputation for networking and engaging leading edge thinkers in city
government:
Average Rating 2.47
SGR 3.52
Firm I 3.16
Firm C 2.92
Firm F 2.89
Firm G 2.64
Firm E 2.29
Firm B 2.03
Firm H 1.83
Firm A 1.69
Firm D 1.69
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Figure 11:(Question 9)Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their reputation for providing innovative services/solutions:
AVERAGE RATING 2.72
SGR 3.67
FIRM I 3.21
FIRM C 3.00
FIRM F 2.97
FIRM G 2.83
FIRM B 2.45
FIRM E 2.40
FIRM D 2.36
FIRM H 2.31
FIRM A 2.05
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
RESULTS SUMMARY 8
Figure 12:(Question 10)Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their reputation for prompt,ongoing communications and
honest interactions with candidates:
AVERAGE RATING 2.74
SGR 3.63
FIRM C 3.11
FIRM F 3.03
--
FIRM I 3.00
FIRM G 2.89
----
FIRM E 2.65
FIRM B 2.47
FIRM H 2.27
FIRM A 2.18
FIRM D 2.15
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Figure 13:(Question 11)Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their reputation for a high quality and thorough vetting and
background check process:
AVERAGE RATING 2.94
SGR 3.67
FIRM C 3.45
FIRM I 3.26
FIRM F 3.18
FIRM G 3.16
FIRM B 3.00
FIRM E 2.74
FIRM H 2.60
EMEIN
FIRM D 2.38
FIRMA 1.95
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
RESULTS SUMMARY 9
Figure 14:(Question 12)Rate the following firms based on their reputation among young professionals and rising professionals as supportive
of the next generation of leaders in city government:
AVERAGE RATING 2.93
SG R 3.79
FIRM F 3.15
FIRM C 3.10
FIRM B INIIM11■11111■■=1111111
FIRM I 2.91
FIRM G 2.90
FIRM E 2.70
FIRM D 2.67
_-_-
FIRM H 2.60
FIRM A 2.50
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
RESULTS SUMMARY 10
APPENDIX
Complete responses by question.
Question 1:Choose the professional discipline that most closely
describes your role and background: -
Response Response
Answer Options:
Percent Count
City Management 95.0% 96
Economic Development 1.0% 1
Fire 0.0% 0
Police 0.0% 0
Library 0.0% 0
Parks and Recreation 0.0% 0
Planning and Development Services 3.0% 3
PIO-Community Relations 0.0% 0
Public Works 0.0% 0
Utilities 0.0% 0
Other 1.0% 1
answered question 101
skipped question 0
Question 2:For each firm identify the types of substantive interactions you have had over
the past year:
Personal
Face to Received a mass
Answer communication No Response
Options: face communication
via phone or Interaction Count
meeting email from
Firm A 4 7 8 69 87
Firm B 1 12 11 65 85
Firm C 20 23 20 43 90
Firm D 3 5 5 72 85
Firm E 3 11 34 48 89
Firm F 9 17 25 42 88
Firm G 1 14 13 53 77
SGR 35 57 44 8 96
Firm H 2 6 5 67 79
Firm I 23 29 38 21 91
answered question 101
skipped question 0
APPENDIX 11
Question 3:For each firm,check whether or not you have
ever participated as a candidate in an executive search:
Answer Participated Have not Response
Options: participated Count
Firm A 14 77 91
Firm B 10 80 90
Firm C 21 71 92
Firm D 4 88 92
Firm E 10 81 91
Firm F 34 59 93
Firm G 25 69 94
SGR 40 57 97
Firm H 6 84 90
Firm I 49 46 95
answered question 100
skipped question 1
Question 4:For the firm(s)with which you have participated as a candidate,based on your personal
experience,rate the likelihood that you would participate again as a candidate in one of their searches:
Answer Highly More Less Highly Rating Response
Options: likely likely Possibly likely unlikely NSA Average Count
Firm A 1 1 5 2 6 51 2.27 66
Firm B 4 2 2 4 3 51 3.00 66
Firm C 8 6 7 3 2 43 3.58 69
Firm D 1 1 8 0 3 53 2.77 66
Firm E 3 2 6 0 5 50 2.88 66
Firm F 10 10 9 3 1 38 3.76 71
Firm G 4 5 13 2 1 43 3.36 68
SGR 25 10 5 2 2 32 4.23 76
Firm H 1 2 4 1 1 52 3.11 61
Firm I 17 11 10 7 5 24 3.56 74
answered question 84
skipped question 17
APPENDIX 12
k.. FFr+ � �q.,!'�[:PyA�•� . .�v_',5 .h+5. ..Yaf.= F�.—Fy-9
auestici i Eiased upon the overalireputatrart eacli-f rm;ratatR'e Ir ce osrt a t litre' eeger�nen
in a search would positively influence the decision of other Peet public executives to becQrtr&a candidate
Answer Very Positive Negative Very Rating Response
Options:
positive influence Neutral influence negative Average Count
influence influence
Firm A 2 3 56 7 3 2.92 71
Firm B 4 5 56 2 2 3.10 69
Firm C 10 24 33 4 0 3.56 71
Firm D 2 2 62 0 3 3.00 69
Firm E 4 12 50 1 2 3.22 69
Firm F 12 26 34 1 0 3.67 73
Firm G 6 15 48 2 0 3.35 71
SGR 31 29 16 2 1 4.10 79
Firm H 3 4 57 1 2 3.07 67
Firm I 19 28 25 6 1 3.73 79
answered question 83
skipped question 18
Question 6:Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their level of understanding of city
management:
Answer High degree of Some Limited No Rating Response
Options: understanding understanding understanding understanding NSA Average Count
Firm A 6 10 8 4 43 2.64 71
Firm B 13 10 1 0 47 3.50 71
Firm C 40 12 0 0 21 3.77 73
Firm D 4 7 4 0 52 3.00 67
Firm E 8 23 4 2 32 3.00 69
Firm F 35 10 4 0 24 3.63 73
Firm G 27 13 3 0 30 3.56 73
SGR 62 7 1 0 10 3.87 80
Firm H 6 11 3 0 49 3.15 69
Firm I 47 11 5 0 14 3.67 77
answered question 82
skipped question 19
APPENDIX 13
Question 7:Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their level of real world understanding of
your profession:
Answer Highoofgree Some Limited No N A Rating Response
Options: understanding understanding understanding understanding ' Average Count
Firm A 3 9 9 6 37 2.33 64
Firm B 9 8 4 1 41 3.14 63
Firm C 34 11 4 2 16 3.51 67
Firm D 1 8 6 1 49 2.56 65
Firm E 6 20 8 3 26 2.78 63
Firm F 30 12 7 1 17 3.42 67
Firm G 20 18 3 1 24 3.36 66
SGR 54 12 2 0 5 3.76 73
Firm H 4 10 4 1 44 2.89 63
Firm I 41 12 6 0 11 3.59 70
answered question 75
skipped question 26
Question 8:Rate the following firms based upon their reputation for networking and engaging leading edge
thinkers in city government:
High degree Not enough
Answer Some information Limited No known Rating Response
of
Options: engagement engagement about them to engagement engagement Average Count
know
Firm A 3 6 29 4 23 1.69 65
Firm B 5 8 30 3 17 2.03 63
Firm C 18 22 13 2 10 2.92 65
Firm D 1 7 36 3 18 1.69 65
Firm E 2 23 20 6 14 2.29 65
Firm F 20 18 16 4 11 2.89 69
Firm G 13 16 20 3 13 2.64 65
SGR 44 16 8 0 5 3.52 73
Firm H 2 9 32 1 18 1.83 62
Firm I 25 23 10 4 6 3.16 68
answered question 74
skipped question 27
APPENDIX 14
Question 9:Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their reputation for providing
innovative services/solutions: _
Not enough
Answer Highly Some information Limited Not at all Rating Response
Options: innovative innovation about them to innovation innovative Average Count
know
Firm A 1 7 43 5 8 2.05 64
Firm B 2 13 41 0 7 2.45 63
Firm C 13 19 25 7 3 3.00 67
Firm D 2 6 50 1 5 2.36 64
Firm E 1 18 33 3 8 2.40 63
Firm F 10 22 29 3 4 2.97 68
Firm G 6 16 36 3 4 2.83 65
SG R 39 19 12 2 0 3.62 72
Firm H 0 10 47 1 5 2.31 63
Firm I 20 23 17 9 0 3.21 69
answered question 73
skipped question 28
Question 10:Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their reputation for prompt,ongoing communications
and honest interactions with candidates:
Exceptional Average Not enough Limited Lack of
Answer communication communication information Rating Response
communication communication
Options: with with about them to Average Count
candidates candidates know with candidates with candidates
Firm A 3 7 40 3 9 2.18 62
Firm B 4 6 44 1 6 2.47 61
Firm C 13 17 26 5 2 3.11 63
Firm D 1 5 48 2 5 2.15 61
Firm E 4 12 37 2 5 2.65 60
Firm F 12 21 24 3 4 3.03 64
Firm G 6 15 35 3 3 2.89 62
SGR 42 13 10 3 1 3.63 69
Firm H 1 7 44 2 5 2.27 59
Firm I 16 23 16 6 5 3.00 66
answered question 70
skipped question 31
APPENDIX 15
Question 11.•Rate the following firms based upon your perception of their reputation for a high quality and thorough
vetting and background check process:
Exceptionally Not enough Have experienced
Answer detailed and Average information Inadequate embarrassing Rating Response
Options: thorough process about them to process situations as a Average Count
process know result of poor
vetting
Firm A 2 5 44 2 10 1.95 63
Firm B 4 7 49 0 2 3.00 62
Firm C 16 16 31 1 0 3.45 64
Firm D 1 4 53 0 3 2.38 61
Firm E 3 11 43 2 3 2.74 62
Firm F 10 26 26 1 1 3.18 64
Firm G 7 16 36 1 1 3.16 61
SGR 32 12 23 0 1 3.67 68
Firm H 0 8 51 0 2 2.60 61
Firm I 21 17 18 7 1 3.26 64
answered question 70
skipped question 31
Question 12:Rate the following firms based on their reputation among young professionals and rising professionals as
supportive of the next generation of leaders in city government:
Seen as very Seen as Seen as not Seen as negative Not enough
Answer supportive of somewhat supportive of towards future information Rating Response
Options: future leaders supportive of future leaders leaders to know Average Count
future leaders
Firm A 1 8 2 3 49 2.50 63
Firm B 3 4 3 0 52 3.00 62
Firm C 8 18 3 1 34 3.10 64
Firm D 2 3 3 1 52 2.67 61
Firm E 1 13 5 1 42 2.70 62
Firm F 8 15 4 0 37 3.15 64
Firm G 3 13 3 1 42 2.90 62
SGR 33 9 0 0 28 3.79 70
Firm H 0 6 4 0 51 2.60 61
Firm I 12 14 3 6 31 2.91 66
answered question 71
skipped question 30
APPENDIX 16
All executive search firms are not created equally! XECU'TIVE i EARCH IRM
It is important to choose an experienced search firm with EVALUATION MATRIX
exceptional local government experience,network reach,and
a proven methodology when hiring the person who will be the
right match and fit for your organization.
This evaluation matrix can assist you in determining the best firm to select for your organization.
Place a check mark next to the characteristics that apply to each search firm.
is- 0. ss
use - T 4 j
Objective Measures For Evaluating Executive Search Firms s°'`-4 so'` V's se"'-
Specialization in local government recruiting
Experience conducting searches for similiar positions for more than 10 years
Experience performing searches in this state
Corporate presence/office in this state
Previously worked with this organization
Dedicated Project Manager with career local government experience comparable to the position being searched
Project Manager never has more than 5 searches going at a time
Dedicated Search Coordinator to support the Project Manager
24/7 access to Project Manager
Dedicated professional Writer for position profile development on staff for profile development
Dedicated professional Graphic Designer on staff for profile development
Dedicated Media Search Specialist on staff to conduct highly-detailed mainstream and social media vetting
Media alerts service for candidates to educate them about the community
On-site job analysis interviews with search committee,key staff,community leaders
Experience in various stakeholder engagement initiatives -
Comprehensive Multi-Platform Social Media Marketing experience
•Facebook
•Twitter
•LinkedIn
History of reaching diverse candidate pools
Firm maintains a local government job board
Extensive email marketing network
National network of local government relationships
Assessment Exercise Process prior to on-site interviews
Stage 1 media searches via LexisNexis or comparable
Comprehensive Stage 2 media searches(news and social media)
Extensive background investigations performed by a licensed private investigation firm
(education,career,credit,civil,criminal,traffic)
Facilitation of on-site interviews
Recommendation of on-site interview questions
Provision of comprehensive questionnaires to candidates
Comprehensive reference checks
Online video interviews prior to finalist selection
Option for psychometric assessments
Experience producing professional recruitment video
Experience providing meaningful market compensation data
Assistance with salary negotiations
Assistance with announcement of new hire and provision of a professional press release
Assistance in development of a transition strategy
Applicant Pool Guarantee-search will be repeated for no additional fee if initial applicant pool is unsatisfactory
Service Guarantee-professional fee will be waived for new search if selected candidate leaves within 2 years
Experience conducting performance evaluation assistance after first year on the job
Experience conducting facilitated team building,goal setting,and strategic visioning retreats for
governing body and staff
Other
Number of criteria met
Professional Fee
Expenses
Other costs,if any
Total Search Cost
Proposed Timeline
Task Weeks
• Contract Executed Weeks 1
• Outline Project Plan,Timeline
• Individual Interviews with Search Committee, Key Personnel, and
Community Leaders (optional)
• Development of Position Profile Brochure Weeks 2-3
• Search Committee Reviews and Approves Brochure
• Ad Placements Weeks 4-7
• Accept Applications
• Email Distribution and Marketing of Position Profile
• Triage and Scoring of Resumes Week 8
• Search Committee Briefing (Slide Presentation)/Select Semifinalists Week 9
• Candidates Complete Questionnaire and Online Interviews
• Stage 1 Media Searches
• Deliverable: Semifinalist Briefing Books Week 10
• Search Committee Briefing/Select Finalist Candidates Week 11
• Comprehensive Media Search Stage 2 Weeks 12-13
• Comprehensive Background Screening Report
• Candidates Complete DiSC Management Assessment
• Deliverable: Finalist Briefing Books Week 14
• Stakeholder Engagement(optional) Week 15
• Conduct Interviews
• Deliberations
• Reference Checks
• Negotiations
• Announcement/Press Release
*Each search timeline is different based on the particular needs of the organization.SGR has completed searches
in as little as 45 days, although this is not the recommended approach. We have also extended searches well
beyond 15 weeks,based on the preference of the client.
SGR
STRATEGIC GOVERNMENT RESOURCES
Lori Philyaw
Director of Operations
Executive Search
P.O.Box 1642
Keller,Texas 76244
Office:817-337-8581
Cell:903-456-1763 alli
LoriPhilyaw @GovernmentResource.corn
wwwGovernmentResource.com