Transforming Defense Through Leadership: The Power of Executive Recruitment

Are you ready to discover the hidden power of executive recruitment in the defense sector? Our engaging discussion uncovers how the right leadership can spearhead an organization's fortunes in a rapidly changing landscape. Together, we, Spencer Bentley and Devin Floresack, delve into the challenges faced by the government and defense contracting sectors in attracting young talent, recognizing the pivotal role of effective recruitment to ensure continued success.

In the second half of our discussion, we address the elephant in the room - diversity in government organizations and how it acts as a recruitment magnet. We explore the government's efforts and challenges in conveying their mission-driven values, especially in times of relative tranquility when compared to events like 9/11. Highlighting the need for a broader range of representation, we drive home the point that recruitment from diverse sources, including various types of universities, is not just desirable, but essential. Tune in for an intriguing conversation that brings to light the crucial role of executive recruitment in the defense sector and the importance of diversity.

• Hosted by: Terrell Cummings & Devon Florczak
• www.countryintel.com
• Twitter
• Linkedin
• Facebook

Transcript

Spencer: 0:01

Hello and welcome back to the Country Intelligence Report. We are your host, spencer Bentley and Devin Floresack. Today we are going to be speaking about the benefits of executive recruitment. When done right, putting the right people in the right place can be the difference between an organization succeeding and failing, and at Country Intel we happen to specialize in executive recruitment. So we thought this would be a good, timely subject to touch upon today, and we'll just dive right into it.

Spencer: 0:38

So the defense sector is constantly evolving. We know this. It has to account for innumerable new threats, new dynamics that are introduced that play a role in the government's assessment of national security. We have unforeseen conflicts between states that are more the traditional threats that the defense sector has to compensate for. And then we have, as Donald Rumsfeld once said, unknown unknowns or was that chaining, I'm not sure, but you know, unknown unknowns things that there's no possible way we could foresee.

Spencer: 1:20

The one that sticks out the most to me is the sudden proliferation of AI and the impacts that that may have on national security. All of these things lend themselves to this constantly evolving landscape that has a direct connection to how the government is staffing, how defense contractors are staffing, what qualifications they look for in individuals in order to future-proof well, in order to answer the current threats and future-proof themselves against evolving threats that may come at the most unexpected times, as they tend to do. How might the talent pool need to adapt and adjust as we move into a future where tech will become increasingly more consequential for maintaining our national security structure? What are your thoughts on this, debby?

Devon : 2:22

Yeah, I mean, obviously it has to adjust, because it seems like obviously the workforce, especially the federal workforce, is definitely aging and in my personal opinion, I don't think the government does a very good job of filling their pipeline of folks that are either in high school or college and trying to get them to go work a government job as soon as they graduate.

Devon : 2:51

And there might be many reasons for that.

Devon : 2:56

The one reason that I think it is it's just because of the importance that comes with working with the government and the level of security and professionalism that you need to have to carry out tasks on a day-to-day working with members of the government or working with contractors. And to me it also seems like maybe this is just a general misconception, but any civilian job at least my conception is that if you want a civilian job, you either have to already have a civilian job or you'd have to be in the military. That's sort of how their pipeline is. They go military to civilian and that's really it, which, of course, if that's the case, most people serve their duty time is four or five years or maybe longer, so that of course, that leads to an aging workforce. So the issue of getting folks who are younger, directly into a civilian job, without either going to the military or just having maybe some sort of internship program, which mostly seems not existent in the agencies that we've spoken with and just across the DOD as a whole.

Spencer: 4:24

There are so many good points you brought up there that I definitely want to touch on. There is a huge and has been a real structural and really strategic flaw in the way that the government approaches staffing. For a very long time they have been outpaced in so many ways by the private sector and now it's starting to show with this aging workforce or workforce that is this sort of homogenous in their world outlook but prepared for the impact of developing technologies. It's a lot. The government has never done a great job of recruiting for civilian work, especially recruiting top talent to civilian positions, and it's an issue and it's the reason why a lot of in my mind, a lot of reforms that need to happen for the private sector just cannot happen because the government is just not equipped to understand the developments and how quickly the private sector moves. So a younger person the government has done very little to entice them to join the civilian workforce. But there are simple things that can be done to make the idea of government work much more appealing than it is. That the government just simply has not pursued. And fortunately the defense sector is a little bit different. The defense contracting sector part of me is a little bit different. There is some prestige there with working with the consulting firm, but it is still. I think.

Spencer: 6:43

If we're looking at the benchmark for what ideal recruitment success would be, I would say it's the tech sector. The tech sector has found a way to make itself universally appealing, especially to young people, young top talent, young top minds in the technological fields. It's made itself appealing in a way that even the consulting sector really has not been able to replicate, and I think it shows in how companies are able to innovate in the space and what the concentrations for innovation may be. It's 2023 and the largest money makers in the defense sector are still armaments. The real opportunity is in AI. It's in advanced technologies that are necessarily traditional arms.

Spencer: 7:47

Other countries obviously control this, I think, a little bit better, because the government structure is going to be different from ours. But yeah, I think it's a real problem and that's why I think it's important that there is some sort of real special consideration given to how companies like us, for example, approach recruiting. How we can package and communicate the benefits of working in this sector to young people has really become a science and an art, and it's something that, if done right, can pay real dividends, not just for the government but for private sector employers as well. Being the right people in the right place, like I said earlier, is the difference between failing and succeeding, and that goes from endless roles to operations roles, all the way up to manager and executive roles, and you can see the strongest organizations in the space have prioritized and really given prestige to the recruiting efforts in a way that is not secondary to any other effort.

Devon : 9:15

Really, yeah, you mentioned attracting top tier talent. I think that happens just naturally based on your company and what sort of roles and type of work that you're doing. Most of my friends, since I'm 26,. Most of my friends and people that are, like my siblings, age a little bit younger. It seems like for them they either want a job that they really care about or pays them a lot of money so they could get past that point of really caring about a job and that first part there of getting younger people to care about what the government does.

Devon : 10:00

That could be a tough sell because, especially now, I feel like the government as a whole I don't want to say it's a negative light, but there's definitely a division In the country over the last five to ten years based on politics, and when people say you work for the government, there's definitely a stigmatism that comes along with it, whether you're civilian or military or you're a contractor.

Devon : 10:29

And then the other piece that I said is just to pay. That comes along with a civilian job or even a contracting job. Most of the people that I know that are really tech savvy, they're really good coders, they get paid a premium and it's definitely something that the government would never consider to pay these people a six-figure salary right out of college when you have companies like the big guys, like Google and Amazon, doing that. So yeah, and I think that's something that it's going to be very hard for the government to adapt to is that I don't think they understand that these more tech focus roles are being paid a premium, and I think just most people in general don't really understand why they're being paid a premium, besides the big companies. So there's definitely some sort of knowledge gap there.

Spencer: 11:30

Yeah, yeah, definitely a knowledge gap that's growing every year between the government's capabilities in the private sector. I like what you said there, that dichotomy between choosing work that is meaningful or choosing work that is leap-roof, and that is definitely like the mindset that I had coming out of college. Which route am I going to take? I think that the government for a long time has suffered from a communications problem outside of the politics of everything.

Spencer: 12:09

The private sector, the bureaucracies, I'm sorry, the public sector, the bureaucracies they operate the day-to-day at least, operates largely outside of the realm of politics. They have mission statements that they were established to execute and many of them execute them very well, with great dignity and efficiency, despite the public perception. But they do not know. I can't really think of any agency or organization that really communicates that very well to potential employees. If you could communicate your myth in an articulate and persuasive manner, then you'd be able to recruit, I think young people.

Spencer: 13:07

Young people do want to make a difference. People do want to feel like they're working for something rather than being just another cog in the machine, and the government is one of the only organizations in the country that can guarantee that you're working toward a mission and not just for a profit motive. So, yeah, I don't know if they'll ever be able to quite match the pay for the private sector just because working with public funds is what it is, working with budgets that are impacted by politics is what it is. But if they could get more savvy in communicating the why and communicating the mission of what they're doing, I think that they could persuade some top talent much more so than they have in the past.

Devon : 13:53

Yeah, that's a good point. Regarding these organizations, it's not to say that it doesn't matter who our president is, but from at least the general vibe that I've seen from when I do go into the office or on certain bases, there's always the pictures of the faces of the command chain, and from what it was explained to me before when I first started, was that those are just sort of faces on the wall and not to. Obviously those people have very important roles that make very important decisions, but the gist of it was that the mission of most organizations we work with carry on regardless of whose face is on that chain of command wall, and most people don't understand that, like you said. So that's a good point.

Devon : 14:47

The last thing I was trying to look up this article regarding the aging workforce.

Devon : 14:52

There's something that I think government executive put out from the last year regarding stats on different age brackets and what sort of age brackets comprise the federal workforce right now, and, when I'm looking at it honestly, it's sort of remained the same over the years. The thing that I found interesting, though, was that prior to 9-11, the younger folks bracket, which was like 20 to 24, 25 to 29, and 30 to 34. They obviously didn't really comprise of the workforce that much and they haven't over the last 20 years. The larger age brackets are pretty much 45 to 60. But it does seem like after 9-11 that most of the younger age brackets doubled. So it seems like when a terrible event like 9-11 does happen, or when something big does happen, where people feel a calling to support their government, maybe that's when they get the most support from the younger groups, which I wouldn't say. That's a good thing, but it's just interesting to think about. But how does the government then recruit for these positions in times where things are semi-stable? And I think that's the real challenge.

Spencer: 16:13

That is the challenge. I honestly don't think government proper is equipped to handle that challenge, just because when you're working in the machine there are so many other considerations that you have to make on a day-to-day basis. And the phenomenon of working within a budget that's prescribed to you instead of a budget that is earned off of your own efforts also plays a significant role in what they are and aren't able to do. But that's where leaning on the country intelligence groups of the world makes a huge difference with their ability to recruit top talent, because we can communicate that mission statement more effectively. We're government contractors. We come from a much more diverse background. Like you said, many of the civilian roles are just simply filled in with military. That's why it's very difficult to get into a civilian role if you're actually a civilian. But we come from a whole range of different backgrounds. I come from an industry that is kind of diametrically opposed to the government, at least historically. At least the last company I worked for, and then the one before that, was in Brazilian energy. So a range of experiences that I think better equip us in the consulting world to speak the language of new recruits and get them to understand the mission statement, but just turning the page.

Spencer: 17:58

Here I really want to speak on what you think the impact of diversity is. When we say diversity, I mean diversity in all of its manifestations, because, depending on the organization you work for, depending on what the leadership structure is, it's very easy to get a completely homogenous organization. And for the defense sector, diversity really is a. It should be viewed as a strategic advantage. And I'm just curious about what strategies? Well, one, how do you view diversity diversity of thought, obviously, diversity of ethnic background, diversity of race, sex, religion. How do you view that as a tool? And then, what strategies can be employed to ensure that a broad range of perspectives are represented at the leadership level, say, not just for government before defense contractors, like country intelligence group?

Devon : 19:10

Yeah, like you said, I think diversity can be a good weapon of the government, especially given people always call America the sort of belting country of the world, and that should be sort of exploited as a weapon where you have people that come from all sorts of types of blocks of life, all sorts of different types of cultures, who have seen all sorts of different types of things, and that's something that the government definitely has to leverage.

Devon : 19:41

I think that they have to be making sure that everyone's voices are heard. It seems like, and with the groups of organizations that we work with, it seems like they are doing a good job of diversity and making sure that not only just talking about race and ethnic backgrounds and whatnot, but diversity as far as backgrounds go. It seems like a lot of people that we work with I think they come from, of course, the military, but different military branches. They come from different previous experiences as far as different types of organizations that they work with as well, so I think they're actually doing a decent job. I'm not sure what you think, but from what I can tell, I think from the people that we've worked with and spoken to as some of these organizations I think that's something that they've actually had a good job with in the last five or so years.

Spencer: 20:42

Yeah, I think it's definitely been a push on the government side to have a more diverse workforce. This is one of those things that's extremely unique to government work, in that the composition of the workforce, the mission, doesn't change but the composition can change based on leadership, because many individuals within the government are very mission driven. If leadership comes in and their vision for the future doesn't align with the mission, then it's not unusual to see that sort of brain drain happen. But over the past couple of years there has definitely been a noticeable push for diversity in the workplace and not just diversity in what we think of as the classic sensuality of racial, ethnic diversity. But we're seeing more diversity among gender representation, more diversity among political affiliation, more diversity around intellectual pursuits not everybody is interested in the same things and I think that helps with overall effectiveness.

Spencer: 22:09

And I think that the government is always, I think, just structurally, going to lag behind in a lot of those areas. But the defense sector, I think honestly in my mind, is even further behind. As a country, intel, we are definitely an exception. If you just look at our roster, we literally have every conceivable representation there can be, both in our staff and in our leadership. But you look across the industry, you look to the big four, they are extremely homogenous. They have a very limited scope of who they believe their ideal candidate and workforce should be, and I think that has led to a lot of stagnation.

Spencer: 23:08

If you look at the more innovative firms in the space, they have a very broad swath of representation that empowers them to then have different perspectives on things, different approaches to strategy, different approaches to execution, different ways of communicating with members of their staff. That helps them stay motivated and, ultimately, more productive. So yeah, I think diversity is one of those things where, if you're intentional about implementing it and you're not sort of myopic in its execution, you can really add a tangible benefit to your business. And that means giving a chance to the younger generation, offering younger employees leadership rules. These are all the different ways that leveraging diversity can empower your business in future. Proof it, especially when you have such a large disconnect, say, from the baby boomer generation to Gen Z or the younger millennials. There's such a huge separation in terms of life experiences and areas of expertise, especially again as it comes to technology, that ignoring that and not being flexible in your approach to staffing is really to the detriment of your firm, honestly.

Devon : 24:50

Yeah, yeah, and I think I don't know how you feel, but maybe that does start with recruiting and how recruiting processes are sort of generated for your organization, whether you're a government organization or you're a contracting organization. Definitely, I think, for us we do sometimes go to career fairs and we sort of recruit for our own positions there. And, come to think of it, the only one that we've really gone to is, or have ever thought about going to, was the University of Dayton, one. That's just because most of us live around here in Ohio and went to UD as well. But that sort of got me thinking was I wonder if there is a large difference in the sort of companies that are showing up at the University of Dayton career fair versus the companies that show up at an HBCU career fair. I would assume honestly that the difference in companies is probably very vast.

Devon : 25:55

I don't know what you think, but I'm just sort of talking to. I obviously have really researches or anything, but that's something to consider where maybe the government does need to which I'm sure they do show some support to HBCUs and other different areas of backgrounds for recruiting for their positions. I think that's probably just an easy way to. If you don't think that you're recruiting to your best ability and you're searching all over for the top talent. That's probably the one way to cover all your bases and sort of expand the people that you're looking for.

Spencer: 26:32

Yeah, definitely. I mean that's a very good point that there are so many levels to staffing and effective recruiting, especially for an insity like the government. Exposure is certainly a factor. Who's showing up on these college campuses? What sort of opportunities are being presented? Is big, it's HBCUs, it's smaller liberal arts colleges that aren't necessarily seen as those lines into the government, the larger state colleges that could have a more conservative bent to them, that are more prone to feed into the private sector.

Spencer: 27:21

The government should be going to all of these places and finding those young individuals that are more mission oriented and really approaching them and trying to court them. Because, again, like you, I haven't researched this, but it would not surprise me if the research showed that there are only a select number of universities that the government actually puts some marketing dollars towards. Because if you look at the top leadership, the institutions that they come from are pretty, the ones that you would imagine the Ivy Leagues or the service oriented schools, air Force, academy, army, all that West Point. There isn't, to my knowledge, just off the top of my head, a lot of representation from HBCUs, fortunately, I would say, even less so from the smaller liberal arts colleges, things like that. So yeah, showing up is huge and offering that option can make a huge difference. I do think the government lags behind in that area.

Devon : 28:41

You could definitely see that too. In the last episode we were talking about the financials and where the money went the last year. As far as contracting data from samgov, One of the areas that we saw, of course, was that it seems like all the small business set-asides across the board had less money given to them compared to FY22. But the largest hit ones seem to be the 8A set-aside. That comes to think. You can obviously see that there might be some sort of bias towards of where this funding is going to as well with the government. I think that's a tough challenge for them to solve, to try and fix that.

Spencer: 29:23

That's true. There's that old saying of how you do one thing is how you do everything, and obviously there are gradations to that. But yeah, that makes a lot of sense. So what about balancing experience? So we're in a sector that really values more so than most experience, which is why we see that military to civilian work pipeline so prevalent. How should organizations, companies, weigh the benefits of season leadership against the fresh perspective? Younger talent can bring a lot of new ideas to problem solving that older individuals that are set in their ways just simply can't conceptualize. And the flip side of that is that the experience of older individuals in leadership roles can be hugely beneficial, just with life experience, with professional experience, being able to predict things before they come across. I'm just wondering how you feel about that balance, and specifically as it pertains to government work or defense contract or work.

Devon : 30:49

Yeah, I think a good analogy for that is I listened to a good amount of football and fans football podcasts and I think they had, on one of the podcasts, had a former general manager on Michael Lombardi and he was saying how the owner and maybe even the general manager but general manager obviously more hands on in the NFL but said more so the owners there to sort of set the tone for the organization. They're not really there to actually have any decisions in personnel, but they give sort of advice in general on what the philosophy should be for the organization and they shouldn't really care how that philosophy gets carried out. But as long as it's carried out, then that's good in their eyes. And I think that's a good analogy on how the more experienced folks should be in these civilian positions is that they should set the tone and say, hey, as an organization, as a federal organization, we carry out such and such activities and this is our philosophy towards them. And then they should pretty much just say go on and have at it.

Devon : 32:06

And then it's up to us, the contractors or some of the lower analysts, to actually use some more savvy technology like ML or AI to carry those out and better inform the philosophy that they're trying to set forth. I think that they start to get in some issues when they try to start weighing on in some of the techniques that we're using, especially if they're not very familiar with them. But I think that's how you can sort of balance. Experience of innovation is that the folks that are being paid and supervise your role should just do that. They should just supervise and set the tone and then let the folks below them actually carry out the work and make sure that the techniques they're using actually backs up the philosophy that they're setting for the organization.

Spencer: 33:01

That makes a lot of sense, man. I don't know if I could have stated that any better myself. Yeah, that's a completely sensible approach to the balance. Obviously, in the implementation of it, there are things like human dynamics that start playing a factor, but that makes a lot of sense. It's vitally important that companies and organizations empower their younger employees to feel like they're actually contributing to the strategic goals of the company and that their contributions are seen, appreciated and rewarded.

Spencer: 33:51

That is how you foster a sense of for lack of a better term loyalty among your staff. That's how you perpetuate the idea of being mission driven. It's how you get the best out of people, younger people, who are more in the growth phase of their professional careers. Having a supportive organization can make the difference between them staying with you for a few years or a few months, especially since right now we're in a position as a whole in the economy and the government is not excluded from this by any means. But we're in a position where employees have more leverage. There are a lot of jobs out there, there are a lot of options for young people and a lot of demand for fresh perspectives on old issues. How the organization fosters their younger employees and how they support them really is again one of those factors that's directly in line with success or failure long term and short term.

Devon : 35:16

Yeah, definitely yeah.

Spencer: 35:24

Well, this is great. We will continue to touch upon this. Executive recruitment is something that we, a country in Intel, take very seriously. It's one of our marquee services. It's something that we are going to be, I think, pushing more to the forefront of how we discuss a lot of these topics. I'm going to try to feature and showcase a lot more of our capabilities here. Thank you for tuning in Until next time. This has been the Country Intelligence Report. I'll see you.