- Home
- Success Stories
- Case Studies
- Vice President and Country Manager - OEM Manufacturer
Vice President and Country Manager - OEM Manufacturer
IRC Global Executive Search Partner
Qualifind, Inc., IRC Global Executive Search Partner - MexicoSearch
Two Simultaneous Vice President, Country Manager-Mexico Search ProjectsClient/Industry
European-based OEM Manufacturer and related SupplierSituation
Qualifind, Inc. had a client refer us to the Corporate HR Leader of the OEM manufacturing subsidiary of a European conglomerate with a global presence. The European-based HR Leader engaged us in a highly sensitive and confidential search to replace an incumbent Country Manager for their multi-site operations in Mexico and also introduced Qualifind to one of their largest suppliers (a U.S. company) to conduct the same search simultaneously for their operations in Mexico.The incumbent was believed to be a central figure in obtaining bribes and favorable personal treatment from several of the client’s vendors and service providers. Indisputable evidence had been obtained linking the incumbent of the European company with the incumbent General Manager of one of the client’s largest suppliers in Mexico – the U.S. company. Once the European company supplied this information to the supplier’s corporate leadership in the U.S., they agreed to launch a simultaneous search to replace both incumbents.
Any informational leaks would have jeopardized both ongoing business operations, possibly other vendor relationships and also the internal investigation that was ongoing for both clients.
Assessment
Qualifind’s reputation for integrity, knowledge and grasp of the passive talent market in Mexico and the U.S. were key to the client referral to this new client. Both searches were personally managed by the two principal partners in Qualifind in order to ensure the highest degree of confidentiality.One search was industry specific to a specific type of components and the supplier search was open to a broader field of talent. Both searches required sourcing Mexican nationals with advanced degrees and a verifiable track record of performance and integrity that was beyond reproach.
Challenge
One of the clients was positioning its global business to compete for new projects and their Mexico operations played a strong role in their ability to deliver on any new business obtained. Getting their Mexico operation cleaned up in a timely manner with minimal disruption to ongoing operations was critical. They were also placing great emphasis on Qualifind’s active participation in their vendor’s incumbent replacement as well due to the importance of the vendor to their supply chain.A new hire in both the OEM and supplier operations needed to have the leadership skills to take over both operations and be mindful of the fact that the ongoing investigation could result in more terminations and additional requirements for organizational change. It was also agreed from the onset that both organizations desired candidates that had no prior or ongoing personal or professional connection with the other.
In addition to the ongoing corruption investigation, Qualifind picked up on tension between the OEM organization’s U.S. leadership and leadership in Europe. We were told that a VP of Operations from the U.S. would be involved in the process. As we progressed with the discovery phase of starting this search, we learned that the primary players on the U.S. side of the OEM client were resentful of the situation due to having resisted the incumbent’s hire three years prior.
The supplier-related client was relatively straightforward with no such internal issues coloring our approach. The European company played such a large role in the U.S. company’s business that the U.S. company acquiesced to the European company’s requests and directions throughout the process.
Methodology/Solution
European CompanyGiven the level of tension and an implied difference of opinion that Qualifind picked up on in the discovery phase of starting the search, it was decided that we would provide an initial short list of four candidates for each operation. The purpose behind this was to be uniform in our approach to both clients who were openly communicating with each other but more importantly to gain an internal consensus with the disparate opinions and views of the European company.
This process proved to be successful after both U.S. and European leadership agreed on the profile of the second candidate that we sourced. Unfortunately, as is often the case, this candidate was the most passive candidate on the short list. He was very content with his current role and employer and we recognized that compensation would most likely become a major issue in getting him to abandon his comfort zone and join an operation with so many challenges. However, we had our benchmark profile and were prepared to approach our broader list of candidates and we were only 14 days into the search.
At the project’s onset, we had activated our research staff to source candidates with the sought-after profile which we had to make adjustments to when the benchmark profile was established. Over the next 45 days, we aggressively pursued the benchmark profile and met face-to-face with candidates for both companies from within those regions.
We did not identify our client by name, but given the relatively small playing field within Mexico, we were concerned about the risk of candidates possibly identifying our client through a process of elimination. So we had each candidate sign Non-Disclosure Agreements to prevent them from discussing any aspect of our meeting and no information breach was observed. These efforts led us to a new short list of 3 candidates that included our benchmark candidate. Our second and more focused-round of sourcing and screening led us to two more candidates that we found to be more qualified and a better organizational fit than our original benchmark candidate.
We gave weekly progress reports to the hiring managers in the U.S. and Europe and they were anxious to see our final list of 3 candidates. Aside from a brief delay by one of the hiring manager’s travel schedules, all parties moved quickly to schedule interviews at our office in Monterrey, Mexico. The result of these interviews was predictable and our client was ready to move forward with an offer for the leading candidate. An exhaustive reference check and education verification process was completed satisfactorily. The leading candidate accepted after negotiating through a deadlock on the base salary that was broken with an attractive signing bonus. The other search that was supposed to be “straightforward” was not so simple.
U.S. Company
The supplier to our European client was very receptive to our first slate of candidates. So receptive that they elected to postpone further sourcing and search in order to make an offer to our leading candidate. They also felt that a quick move would minimize any risk of an information leak through a more exhaustive sourcing and interview process. They backed off and waited until our joint client (the European company) was ready to move forward with their finalist. We kept our young candidate engaged while we waited. Realizing that our client’s request to suspend the search due to their committed interest in our candidate left our process exposed to numerous degrees of risk, our researcher continued her sourcing efforts in search of a candidate of comparable or exceeding value to the chosen one.
Our leading candidate was a bright young engineer with only two years of experience as a General Manager of a multi-site manufacturing operation. It was heartening to see them finding value in our initial efforts and our young candidate who had spent the past 14 years with his current employer gave every sign that he was motivated and emboldened to take on the role being offered by our client. We completed our reference and education verification process satisfactorily and our client moved forward with an offer that was 8% over his current compensation. After a round of negotiations, a signed commitment to accept the new offer at an overall increase of 15%, our candidate signed the offer letter and negotiated a 3 week delay before starting. According to the resignation letter that he shared with us, he provided a 2 week notice and he indicated separately to us that he wanted to spend a week with his family before starting work.
We placed a call to our candidate during his final week of work and got his voice mail on both his cell phone and office phone. Another call in the evening to his home led us to his answering machine. My partner followed up messages at all three numbers with an e-mail in Spanish letting him know that we were checking in with him to see how things were going in his last days with his employer. The next day resulted in no call back or reply to the e-mail. Having been in this position before, reality began to dawn on us and it became clear that our young and inexperienced candidate had had a change of heart. Using our Mexico City number that can be dialed from our offices in San Diego, we were finally able to get him to answer his cell phone two days later and forced the question of his intentions. An occasional casualty of Mexican culture is an innate reluctance to deliver or confront bad news. He finally admitted that he had accepted a counteroffer and would be staying with his employer.
At this point, we let the supplier know that the search would have to start all over. Our researcher’s continued sourcing work led to us engaging three exceptional candidates faster than if we had had to start from scratch. Further frustration resulted after we lost their first choice after waiting late in the offer negotiation process to determine that the candidate was too pricey for them and the candidate rejected their offer. Their second choice proved successful at not only meeting their needs but exceeding them.