Most of us would not say we are biased. We consider ourselves to be objective, fair-minded individuals, capable of judging people solely on the basis of merit. The reality is somewhat different; as human beings we all use shortcuts to form impressions of people, including when recruiting.

Research over the last 20 years* has shown that we are susceptible to unconscious biases that come from direct experiences we’ve had with people and situations, as well as through indirect experiences from media and culture.

A report from the CIPD last year** found that employers’ perceptions of whether a person would fit with their company could be determined by a whole host of factors that had no impact on performance; including their looks, the university they attended, their leisure interests and even the candidates’ name.

The UK transport & infrastructure industry features many major international companies working on multi-billion-pound projects. But, like most sectors, when it comes to recruitment of people into senior roles it can still feel like a small world, with the same names cropping up time and again.

So what should we look out for when interviewing? The following are some of the common interview biases;

First impression bias

It’s often said that interviewers can make their mind up about whether they want to hire someone within 3 minutes of meeting them.

Temporary nervousness at the start of an interview is not uncommon, although nerves usually subside as the interview progresses, the damage may be already done. Does this nervousness make someone a bad candidate?

For business development roles and other externally facing roles a visibly nervous candidate may give justifiable concern, after all they may be expected to build rapport with, and present to, people they don’t know frequently. However for more internally focused roles, putting too much emphasis on first impression could de-select strong candidates.

Beauty bias

It’s not fair or right, but candidates who are more physically attractive stand more chance of being successful in interviews. Unfortunately, attractiveness has been found to influence employers’ hiring judgments; attractive candidates are generally perceived as more likeable, happier, and to have more socially desirable traits. Studies*** have consistently found that this unconscious attractiveness bias in the workplace impacts decisions on hiring, as well as promotions and compensation.

In case you were wondering research shows that attractive people are no more or less capable, intelligent, or sociable than less attractive people! So even though we may not set out to hire based on looks, we probably unconsciously do.

Using a structured competency interview format alongside other objective forms of evaluation, such as case study exercises and work samples, may reduce the risk of this happening.

Mini-me effect

Many interviewers have an unconscious tendency to favour people who are similar to themselves. They look for mini-me protégés that they can train up. Narcissistic yes, but true.

This is common when the interviewer is back-filling their role or interviewing for a position they have previously undertaken. They feel their own background is ideal for the role, so when they see someone with a similarity to them (such as attended the same university) they have an innate tendency to seek confirmation that the candidate is good.

I’ve been asked in the past by a very sporty Managing Director to ideally find people who have played sport to a high level. There was no direct link between sporting achievement and the requirements of the Director vacancy. His personal view was top achievers will compete at a high level in sport as well as work, as he and a number of his fellow Directors did.

Clearly this could exclude some very capable people from making the company’s shortlist. But it’s not black and white. There is an argument that finding someone with similar interests outside work will help a new employee fit into the team.

The mini-me effect clearly does not help recruit a diverse team. If you keep hiring people like yourself you may end up with teams of people with the same strengths and – critically – the same fundamental weaknesses. Having two interviewers at each assessment stage can help to counter this effect.

Halo effect

The “halo effect” is a type of bias in which the interviewer takes one of a candidate’s key attributes/achievements and positively generalises about the rest of your skills and experiences based on this one factor! For example, ‘Bob gave a great presentation at an industry conference I went to last year; he must therefore have all the leadership skills we need for this role to.’

The devil you know

Recruiting is an inherently risky process, for both the employer and candidate. One simple way to de-risk the process is to employ people you have worked with in the past.

There are some companies in the industry where there senior team all worked together previously at the same business. While this can be beneficial, at least you know what you are getting, it is limiting.

When we present a longlist of potential candidates to a client for their input, it is commonplace for the hiring team to say they already know a handful of them. The bias to previous colleagues could work either way. They may rule a capable person out based on their recollection of their position five years ago. Or they could favour a candidate who impressed in a meeting – even if the role they are trying to fill would not require the same skills. Things change. People change.

We recently filled a project director position for a joint venture on a major transport project. Our client had a clear favourite of the other shortlisted candidates but went with the consensus of opinion from their JV partners who had worked with one of the other shortlisted candidates before. Our client didn’t want to stick their neck out for the best candidate.

Stereotyping bias

“That business isn’t doing well; we don’t want to consider anyone from there.” – is a common example of this stereotyping. However, not everyone within a business which is struggling is bad, just as not everyone in a high-performing business is good. This type of thinking eliminates some good candidates from consideration.

Finding the right fit for a senior position is an important and challenging job, and our unconscious bias makes it even tougher. Professional executive search companies like us can help make it easier.

If you want to explore new avenues of talent, and step away from the same old names that crop up, just click here to get in touch. I’d happily spend ten minutes talking with you about how to thoroughly map the market and improve your recruitment processes.

Thank you for reading my post. I regularly write about issues effecting talent and recruitment in the transport and infrastructure sectors.

Sources:

* Banaji et al (2003)

** Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, A Head for Hiring 2015: Behavioural Science of Recruitment and Selection

*** Cornell HR Review (2013). May the Best Looking Man Win: The Unconscious Role of Attractiveness in Employment Decisions

There are almost 10 million people aged 50 and older in work in the UK*. Yet many businesses in transport and infrastructure are reluctant to hire candidates in this demographic for senior management roles.

‘Older workers’ (as the UK government now officially refers to this group) represent about a third of the talent pool available to employers, and by 2022 there will be 3.7 million more in this category. As a country we are facing a major demographic change.

While there has been a significant progress and effort in tackling gender diversity in hiring processes, the same cannot be said for age discrimination – negative attitudes towards the over fifties are still common.

Directors who have been very much in demand for their whole career often find the phone stops ringing with potential job offers once they hit 55. It has become common for candidates in their fifties to omit graduation year and the early part of their career history from their CV to avoid any potential age bias.

Some employers hold a view that all older candidates will be “winding down” and less motivated than their younger peers. This is of course nonsense, a generalisation cannot be made of circa 10 million people. Every individual should be assessed on their own merits, not their date of birth.

There is a strong business imperative, in addition to the ethical and legal reasons, to address this issue; the looming skills crisis.

But are employers in the transport and infrastructure sectors reaching out to the over fifties? Despite the statistics – and clear age discrimination laws – some companies still won’t consider recruiting a director into their business who is into their 50s.

So to do our bit to help overcome this bias that still persists in the industry, here are five ways recruiting a more experienced candidate can benefit your business:

1. Industry knowledge & experience

A candidate with 35+ years’ in the sector will have experienced good times and bad, and may well have worked in different parts of the industry (contractor, consultant and client for example) giving them a broader perspective than many others. Furthermore, this industry knowledge and experience is invaluable for coaching and mentoring younger colleagues to realise their potential.

For major engineering projects that only happen once every 30 years in significant quantity, such as rail electrification or nuclear new build, older workers become even more important. If a business needs nuclear new build experience they either have to look abroad or look to the 50+ demographic in the UK, as no projects of this type have been undertaken on these shores this century.

2. Self-awareness

Experience often makes people more rounded employees. They play to their strengths and have rounded off some of their weaknesses, often knowing what type of people they need to have around them to get the right balance.

3. Flexibility

Rolling Stones guitarist Ronnie Wood may have just had twins in his late 60s but many people in their late 50s and beyond have seen their children grow up and leave home. They may be more willing to travel extensively for business or relocate, particularly to hardship locations, than colleagues with dependent families. For global roles in locations without good international schools this can be a big plus.

4. Contacts

If you’ve worked in the industry for 30 or 40 years you should have a decent looking black book of phone numbers. Your peers and former colleagues may be spread far and wide across the industry, becoming an increasingly valuable resource to call on. Don’t underestimate the benefits of hiring someone who may have well-established, personal relationships with key contacts in your clients, competitors and supply chain.

5. Credibility & Status

As well as the knowledge and experience you get from many years in the same profession, you pick up a certain credibility. It can be easier to build a relationship with a client and take people with you through difficult or changing times if you have a CV full of negotiating similar situations. Hiring someone to a tough project that has a proven track record can be a massive boost to a team.

For many of the reasons listed above, those chairing industry groups and taking leading roles in professional institutions are often over 50. Having senior employees with this industry status is reflects well on your company, gives you access to useful forums of industry discussion and increases your exposure to potential recruits.

Of course not everyone over 50 will have all of the attributes listed above. But with almost 10 million people in that age bracket, and a massive recruitment challenge ahead of the transport and infrastructure sector, you would be crazy not to look for those who do.

What would you add to this list?  What other qualities do your more experienced employees bring? To comment or contact me just click here

Thank you for reading my post. I regularly write about issues affecting talent and recruitment in the transport and infrastructure sectors.

*Office of National Statistics – 2016.

By the time you read this Sam Allardyce will have presented to the media as the next Manager of the England football team, in what is often referred to as “the Impossible Job”.

While succeeding in the England job can certainly seem impossible, recruiting someone who wants to do it isn’t. Despite the pressure of carrying the expectations of a nation on your shoulders, trying to manage the egos of 23+ prima donnas, the continual media onslau
ght and millions of people dissecting your professional competence on a daily basis, someone always takes the job not long after it becomes vacant. A salary of £3.5m probably helps.

Yet the same cannot be said if you are recruiting senior management roles in the infrastructure, rail and transport sectors, with many businesses often struggling to fill a role within three months when a senior employee leaves.

A poll published by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills earlier this year found that 34% of roles in the infrastructure sector were classified by the employer as “difficult to fill” because it couldn’t find “applicants with the appropriate skills, qualifications or experience”.

So what do you do if you have a very demanding, senior position to fill and you don’t have a multi-million salary to offer like the FA?

Leaving senior roles open like this can be catastrophic. Another senior employee is often informally covering the role, desperately trying to do two jobs simultaneously and struggling to give either the attention it needs. This can lead to them getting burnt out, long-term decisions may well be put off, opportunities missed, team morale hit, and customers lost.

Often leaving a senior role vacant for a long period of time can lead to those at the rung below becoming disgruntled at the lack of certainty and long-term direction.

The urgency to hire is high but companies are wisely unwilling to hire a sub-optimal candidate just because they are available.

So what can you do to stop the process grinding to a halt?

A major infrastructure business recently contacted us with a senior vacancy that had been open for nine months. Another search company had been commissioned to headhunt for the role eight months previously and had failed to fill it. The business had been recommended to us by another client as head-hunters that like a challenge. The successful candidate from our search has just started and the client is relieved that the problem role was solved for them within eight weeks of appointing us.

We don’t claim to have a magic wand – just plenty of market experience and a practical approach to solving recruitment problems in the rail, aviation, power and infrastructure sectors.

The best approach when faced with an “Impossible Job” is to focus on the following steps

1. The Job Spec

The first thing is to look through the job specification, particularly the person specification to see what it’s asking for. How realistic is it? Is it what they really need? Or just some compilation of the individual wishlists of several of the stakeholders that hasn’t been sense checked.

It boils down to finding someone who ticks three boxes – they can do the job; they are motivated to do the job; and they fit with the culture of the organisation. All too often companies focus on the first and third of these aims and forget about the middle one, with predictable results. The key is to take each required criteria and decide if it is essential or desirable, which should result in a realistic job specification.

2. Compare the Market

Look at the salary, benefits package, location, appeal of the role, employment brand of the company and current competition/availability for someone with the required skills and experience. Can it be done for that salary and in that location? If so how can it be done and if not what needs to be flexed in order to recruit the role? The FA’s appointment panel were widely reported to have done this early on; comparing the salary required to attract a top manager from overseas (c£5m per annum) with the salary needed to attract the strongest available English manager (c£3.5m per annum), which led them to decide a home-grown appointment was the best option.

While money is rarely the most important factor for senior candidates when considering a job move, it has to be right. If you are offering well below the market rate for the experience and capability you’re seeking, filling the job is never going to happen. We can offer market based evidence of the going rate that you need to offer to attract their target candidate.

If pay isn’t the issue, then greater flexibility on location may help. A company may be asking for current competitor experience but be based nowhere near the majority of firms in their sector. What are the allied sectors that are more local to you? Another option is to look at the extent to which you could accommodate someone working from home or another regional office for part of the week, which may make the role more manageable for some candidates.

3. Past History

What’s been done so far to fill the role? Has another search company worked on it, have an internal recruitment team (if you have one) been working on it etc? By reviewing the work done previously by others you can see if there are gaps that were missed. Were the right businesses targeted? This review allows you to plan the right approach this time around.

4. Be Prepared

What are the selling points of the role and its potential career path within the company? This can make the difference when face to face with the dream candidate who ticks all the boxes, but who is well looked after by his current employer and weighing up if they wish to take it forward. We also prepare an in-depth candidate brief to share with candidates to sell the role that they can read at their leisure.

5. Agree a Plan

If everyone involved within the employer and the search company has a project plan, showing which days they will be required for interviews etc, the search can be concluded in a much quicker time frame.

By marrying the company’s expectations with the job it is offering, we always back ourselves to crack even the hardest to fill role in transport and infrastructure. With the number of major projects on the horizon, and the skills shortages that are predicted, it’s not going to get any easier to attract the top talent in the market.

If you have an “Impossible Job” to recruit we can provide you with a consultation as above to ensure your process leads to success.

To book a call please click here

Tomorrow we all go to the polls to make a decision that will have a profound impact on the country we live in.

It is 43 years since Britain joined the European Union, and through much of that time there has been grumbling about the impact of membership on our day-to-day lives. We have heard much debate and hyperbole from both sides of the argument over the last few months, but what impact would Brexit really have on the UK infrastructure sector?

1. Skills

The UK government has repeatedly made infrastructure central to its drive to turn the economy around after the global shocks at the end of last decade. Ministers, this spring, set out a pipeline of £300bn of projects that will be delivered by March 2021. George Osborne said of this government in his latest Budget speech: “We are the builders”.

This is all great news for the infrastructure sector, and the economy in general but there are acute skills shortages in many aspects of the industry.

If you go to any construction site in London, you are highly likely to see hard working, skilled people from outside this country’s borders putting in shifts to make projects happen. It’s one thing saying you’re the builders, stood in a suit at Westminster, but the real builders are working hard on the ground, and many are not British.

This is not just true of tradespeople, there are many senior managers and experts who come in and out of the UK to lend their expertise to major projects. Overall 10% of the UK construction sector are foreign born.

If we leave it is unknown what immigration system we would eventually end up with but there would at best be a significant period of uncertainty and transition. EU membership allows vital construction skills to flow naturally into the country so why change that and put project delivery at risk at such a critical time for the sector and the economy?

2. European HQs

Many US, Japanese and other overseas owned global companies choose the UK as the base for their European HQ. There are multiple reasons for this, not least that we are part of the EU. If Brexit occurs these major companies may well decide to site headquarters within the EU rather than outside it. Where we have often been a prime choice for global offices, other countries in Western Europe may jump ahead of us in the queue, losing the jobs they bring.

3. Investment

Aside from these global firms, the EU itself funds plenty of British construction activity. The European Investment Bank recently announced £700 million for the Thames Tideway Tunnel and has injected £16bn into UK projects in the past three years. David Cameron has warned that losing membership of the EIB could have a big impact on the infrastructure sector and hence the economy as a whole.

4. Economy

One of the few things most observers agree on is that Brexit would trigger a recession. A recession would have a major negative impact on UK property and commercial construction activity, and could shrink infrastructure investment. The transport sector would likely take a hit, with reduced leisure and business travel impacting airports and other transport operators.

5. Political uncertainty

The infrastructure sector, particularly Transport and Energy, suffers when there is political uncertainty. Is it possible for Cameron, as a staunch Remain campaigner, to continue as Prime Minister if the population votes to leave? Who would come in and would they be likely to back major energy and transport projects with the same vigour? If Boris gets into No.10 it would undoubtedly be bad news for a third runway at Heathrow.

Leaving the EU would have some very specific impacts on Energy and Transport. EU directives on renewables would no longer apply to us if Brexit occurs, this would likely lead to a review of energy strategy and policies taking several years. One thing we don’t need right now is less certainty about infrastructure schemes.

The major transport groups also have a vested interest in the vote due to the EU’s fourth railway package currently going through legislation. The fourth railway package will make privatisation of rail services essential to all EU countries, essentially ending any ambitions trade unions might have to return the UK rail sector to public ownership in the future.

For all these above reasons I believe it’s best for UK infrastructure that we should vote to stay in the EU. With positive political and financial backing, and open borders, the infrastructure industry can continue driving the UK economy. The UK recently overtook France as the second biggest economy in Europe, and could rival Germany as the most powerful economy (and therefore main voice) in the union by 2030*.

Far better for the UK to protect its burgeoning infrastructure sector and aim for more power within the EU to reform it, than to risk withering on the outside. I know which way I will be voting.

*Source – Centre for Economic and Business Research forecast, December 2015.

So after eight years of Boris Johnson, London this month elected a new Mayor.

Despite their political differences there is a key link between Johnson and his successor, Sadiq Khan, as they worked closely together at the beginning of the mammoth Crossrail project at the end of the last decade.

Khan, who was transport minister at the time Crossrail was getting underway, has also pledged as Mayor to follow Boris in promoting cycling in the capital – and indeed to get Crossrail 2 underway.

I wish Khan the best of luck – but I believe he faces a major challenge to make good on his raft of infrastructure promises.

Just look at Transport for London (TfL). This is the body responsible for ensuring people can travel smoothly across one of the biggest cities in Europe.

TfL is already expecting significant challenges as its assets age and its user population grows. On top of this, it is having £700 million slashed from its annual budget by the government, by the end of this decade.

Yet Khan has not only pledged a raft of projects including further cycle superhighways, river crossings, Crossrail 2 and an extension to the Docklands Light Rail – he has pledged not to raise fares during his first term.

Now the prices TfL charges people to use its services account for 40% of its income. So how is Khan going to keep his fare freeze promise (estimated to cost £1.9bn) as well as his infrastructure spending pledges?

Well he has a plan, but I’d like to tell him that it’s not a very good one.

Khan’s mayoral manifesto said his plan to freeze transport fares would be funded “by making TfL a more efficient and profitable operation”. Different engineering departments would be merged; duplication will be slashed; and almost £200 million less would be spent annually on consultants and agency staff.

This is a classic politician pledge; it sounds very attractive to the general public – reducing costs in an apparently simplistic way, without upsetting the unions by cutting TfL frontline staff numbers.

If the Mayor is going to rely on ideas such as these to fund infrastructure projects, then I advise people to get a good pair of walking boots. Cutting the use of third-party staff is something TfL and all other infrastructure bodies have been trying to do for years – if it was that easy to do then they would have done it by now.

TfL, like many of their peers are reliant on consultants, agency staff and freelancers to deliver many of their objectives. The current £383m annual bill in question is spent broadly on two things; interim appointments and consultants of all types (management consultants, engineering firms, quantity surveyors, transport planners and architects etc.).

The desire to reduce the interim appointments, typically with permanent full-time staff, is nothing new. I have sat in countless meetings with infrastructure clients who have been frustrated about the numbers of interim consultants and freelancers they are using to fulfil senior roles, that really look as though they should be done in-house. But they often have pay scales totally at odds with the external market and would lose most of their best interims if they tried to impose permanent contracts on them.

Why would a highly skilled individual accept a lower income, with less flexibility and higher tax bills? They wouldn’t; they would go elsewhere. The only answer would be to put lower quality staff into critical roles, which would clearly be a false economy.

Another false economy, in many cases, would be reducing the use of consultancy staff. They are usually brought in to provide a service which TfL as the infrastructure client has no capability to do itself, or no desire to do itself.

Cutting this spend significantly isn’t achievable without breaking pay scales (and potentially changing the company culture) to attract consultants en masse to join TfL permanently. TfL has previously tried this in some areas (such as transport planning) and it has increased their wage bill and driven up consultancy fees.

It’s not just on surface transport where I fear Khan will struggle. He has promised to oppose the construction of a third runway at Heathrow and support Gatwick expansion, yet he has no power to do so. Boris Johnson never stopped talking about his plan for an airport in the Thames Estuary, only for it to be rejected by the Davies’ commission on numerous grounds, not least it would cost £30-60bn more than expanding Heathrow.

Airport expansion will be a central government decision, and opposing Heathrow will be difficult for the Mayor both practically and politically, with businesses and the construction industry desperate for swift action.

Khan has also pledged to deliver 80,000 new homes a year in the capital, while making more than half of them affordable. Again it is hard to see how he can solve viability issues here and manage these dual pledges. Getting close to 80,000 homes built a year will be a minor miracle; Boris previously promised 42,000 per annum and barely reached more than 20,000.

Time of course will tell, but I have a clear feeling that Khan has set himself far too much to do on infrastructure. Good luck Sadiq, you are going to need it.

The sun is finally shining and Spring is officially here.

Congratulations to all of our Movers and Shakers from March, let’s take a look at who has moved where this month…

Partnering with us for your next search will help you to source the very best talent across your sectors. Click below to get in touch and find out more information.

In November of 2020, Boris Johnson set out his 10 point plan for the UK’s Green Industrial Revolution. In this plan, he detailed how we were to achieve the legally binding obligation of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

As part of this promise, the government has a target to cut emissions by 78% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels.

2035 is a mere 15 years from now. If we consider that Sizewell C has been in talks for the last 12 years and if works were to begin as predicted by 2024 it won’t be completed until 2036 at the very earliest.

15 years is a drop in the ocean.

Various task forces have been established now to address the most pressing issues, but it is time to start acting on their recommendations.

Starting with the massive green skills gap.

Every major sector in the UK needs to close a significant skills gap to enable them to reach net zero. Looking specifically at the Infrastructure & Built Environment sectors, the most pressing areas to focus on are Power and Transport.

Power

The power sector is responsible for c11% of UK emissions, and employment is expected to increase by roughly 80,000 people by 2040. This is largely within the Offshore wind market where employment is expected to increase 170% by 2026.

Spanning wind, solar, hydropower, hydrogen, nuclear, bioenergy, carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) and tidal power, the jobs most likely to be in demand are:

• Manufacturing: making renewable energy technologies, equipment and parts.
• Construction and engineering: building renewable energy infrastructure, such as offshore wind farms.
• Maintenance: repairing, refurbishing and upgrading existing renewable energy infrastructure.
• Data analysts and digital specialists

Transport

The Transport sector is responsible for 31% emissions, and it is estimated that an additional 175,000 employees will be needed by 2035.

The jobs likely to be in demand are:

• Sustainable aviation: green aerospace engineers, alternative fuel experts and hydrogen electrolysis engineers.
• Electric vehicles: charging infrastructure designers, manufacturers and operators, battery development experts, micro mobility manufacturers and regulators.
• Active travel: urban designers and city planners.
• Public transport: green bus and coach manufacturers, and rail electrical engineers.

There is an awful lot of talk about what we need to do in order to achieve net zero. What we really need to see now, is serious, sensible actions taken to make them happen.

So how can we start to reskill the Transport & Infrastructure sectors? 

1. Educational Institutions

This is not a ground-breaking suggestion. The National Skills Academy for Rail was recently established to help employers, trainers and organisations develop skills. Various smaller academies in the energy market have been set up such as the X-Academy and The Green Skills Academy, but nothing government led as of yet.

And of course, there was the troubled National College of High Speed Rail which ultimately failed because it wasn’t training in the areas that businesses really needed.

For new skills institutions to succeed, the government and academia need to learn from this and work closely with businesses in the industry to determine what it is they actually need and ensure academies offer courses in those areas.

These need to be realistic courses that will result in someone getting a job today, not 10 years from now. And then as the green technology develops, the colleges will need to be adaptable enough to offer new or updated training.

2. Government action

We’ve seen a lot of task forces but we’ve not seen a lot of contracts being let to deliver change.

If we look at transport decarbonisation, there have been a handful of consultancy contracts that have recently been awarded advising public sector businesses. This is nowhere near the volume of activity that is going to be required to achieve the governments ambitious targets.

Along with feasibility studies to work out what the best solution is, the government needs to provide the incentives for the private sector to then deliver decarbonisation.

The supply chain needs to see a predictable and sustained pipeline of work to invest in skills in the skills required to deliver it. There is little incentive for companies to reskill their employees if the work isn’t there for them to win.

3. Recruit from allied sectors or International Markets

When there is a serious skills shortage in the domestic market and you don’t have time to re-train staff from scratch then there are two main options: look to other sectors or countries. Are there allied markets with transferrable skills? Are other countries more experienced in the specialist area?

Hinkley Point C (HPC) is an example of this. Sizewell B was completed in 1995. When EDF announced they wished to build HPC in 2008, a full 13 years had passed in the UK since the last new nuclear build. EDF went down the route of working closely with French supply chain companies to utilise their skills built up over years in the much larger French nuclear market on HPC. They supplemented these engineering skills with project and programme management skills from allied infrastructure markets such as rail, airports and conventional gas power stations.

There is so much that needs to be done in order to make the governments emissions targets a reality. Have you struggled to fill roles in emerging sectors, or are you considering recruiting for a role but you’re not sure the talent is out there?

Our talent mapping service allows you to map out the market to determine the potential candidate pool before you commit to a full executive search.

If this is something that interests you, please give me a call or email to discuss further.Book a 15 minute call