Love At First Sight
The recruitment process may contain a certain amount of nervous energy and infatuation.
March 31, 2006 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
Like a really good date, the recruitment process may contain a certain amount of nervous energy and infatuation. It should. If both sides aren't enthusiastic from the outset, I usually urge the client and candidate to end to the courtship early.
Most successful placements are made before the love fest ever begins and are the result of properly managing everyone's expectations. If you don't have a good recruiter who knows how to get the right couple to the altar, you need to do a little soul searching and be honest with yourself. While there are many expectations to manage, here are the most important:
If you are a general counsel, you shouldn't pursue a star hire unless you can offer that person stimulating work, business clients who can work with such high-caliber talent and a plan for how that person will progress within your department. If you have a nice, low six-figure staff attorney opening, but little realistic room to move that person up your particular pyramid, hire a solid person with good credentials who wants to work hard and also maintain a life away from the office. That's not settling. It's a happy marriage.
If you're the candidate, it's much easier to manage expectations when you aren't actively seeking a new position. Attorneys who are employed and happy will only pursue the openings that make sense. But if you are in the unemployed or miserable camp, you must fight the natural temptation to think, “I can make it work.” Guess what? If the pay range is $140,000 to $160,000, you will not make them fall in love with you and say “yes” to $180,000. If the job is in Birmingham, it's in Birmingham. They won't say yes to telecommuting or pay for you to fly home to Atlanta every Thursday night.
Love the job the company has to offer, or don't take it. Trying to change a job once you've already accepted it is just like trying to change your spouse six months after saying, “I do.” You may have some success at the margins, but you will make everyone unhappy and end up divorced.
Like a really good date, the recruitment process may contain a certain amount of nervous energy and infatuation. It should. If both sides aren't enthusiastic from the outset, I usually urge the client and candidate to end to the courtship early.
Most successful placements are made before the love fest ever begins and are the result of properly managing everyone's expectations. If you don't have a good recruiter who knows how to get the right couple to the altar, you need to do a little soul searching and be honest with yourself. While there are many expectations to manage, here are the most important:
If you are a general counsel, you shouldn't pursue a star hire unless you can offer that person stimulating work, business clients who can work with such high-caliber talent and a plan for how that person will progress within your department. If you have a nice, low six-figure staff attorney opening, but little realistic room to move that person up your particular pyramid, hire a solid person with good credentials who wants to work hard and also maintain a life away from the office. That's not settling. It's a happy marriage.
If you're the candidate, it's much easier to manage expectations when you aren't actively seeking a new position. Attorneys who are employed and happy will only pursue the openings that make sense. But if you are in the unemployed or miserable camp, you must fight the natural temptation to think, “I can make it work.” Guess what? If the pay range is $140,000 to $160,000, you will not make them fall in love with you and say “yes” to $180,000. If the job is in Birmingham, it's in Birmingham. They won't say yes to telecommuting or pay for you to fly home to Atlanta every Thursday night.
Love the job the company has to offer, or don't take it. Trying to change a job once you've already accepted it is just like trying to change your spouse six months after saying, “I do.” You may have some success at the margins, but you will make everyone unhappy and end up divorced.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllElon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readSteward Health CEO Saga Signals Escalation of Coercive Congressional Oversight Against Private Parties
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Nelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
- 2Immunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
- 3How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 4Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 5Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250