The Recruiter

I have been wondering something since I read John Sumser’s post here last Friday on RecruitingBlogs.com

My random thoughts start something like this:

Thought #1
A recruiter comes to work to make placements. Not sure how many come to work to change the world through the belief that they have the best job in the world because they change lives. Recruiting is a great career because if you are kind of good at it you can make a lot of money. If you are great at it, you can make a ton of money.

Thought #2
A perfect candidate is a candidate who has the right skills for the job order you are working. Everything else about the candidate is irrelevant if the skill set is not right. If you come to work searching for the perfect candidate and then give it up because through initial conversation you realize that perfect candidate may not be in the right head space for your search you will always leave money on the table.

Thought #3
I am not convinced that attempting to show the candidate they are wrong in their belief that the position you are working is not right for them is arm twisiting. If their skill set is what your client desires, they are right for the job. Most people focus to myopically on the negative stuff and this often prevents them from seeing the big picture. This is the value a recruiter brings to their client and to the candidate even though this part of it is often overlooked and not even realized.

Thought#3
Candidate control whether you like it or not is part of what recruiters need in order to be successful. It can’t be any other way. It’s the job of the recruiter to identify the right candidate based on skill and then make sure that the candidate accepts the offer if the offer is made. Having said this, there should never be an offer made to a candidate that has not said they want the job and are prepared to accept the offer if it comes in at a predetermined level.

Thought#4
The reason a candidate turns down an offer is usually because of something that you the recruiter did not identify at the appropriate time. The way you get to the bottom of everything that will sting you in the ass is by asking questions and being in control. The recruiter is the one that needs to lead the candidate down the path, not the other way around.

Thought#5
" They are the one being tested, not you. You already have a job and they are the ones who need to prove themselves to you." - I agree with this completely.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on August 26, 2008 at 4:55pm

Jason, well stated and I agree with 95%. Here are some thoughts:

a. Thought #3
"I am not convinced that attempting to show the candidate they are wrong in their belief that the position you are working is not right for them is arm twisiting. If their skill set is what your client desires, they are right for the job."

Reply: We walk a fine line between influencing and selling - personally, I influence . . . which some may say is selling, but there is a different feel to influencing than there is selling. Candidates are often open to being influenced, and depend on us for such . . . considering our integrity does not come in question.
[Note: I would say someone is "right" for the job considering they are a good fit (which goes beyond purely skill-sets unless we're talking contractors) . . . however, I'm in 100% agreement that many recruiters focus more on disqualifiers than the latter (moreso true of Internal Recruitment). I challenge hiring managers daily to accept their leadership responsibility to develop the 1 skill a candidate doesn't have to go along with their 99 other skills. WE HAVE TO STOP LETTING HIRING MANAGERS TURN DOWN CANDIDATES DUE TO THEIR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THEIR LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES.

Thought#5
" They are the one being tested, not you. You already have a job and they are the ones who need to prove themselves to you." - I agree with this completely.

Reply: Our goal is to separate the wheat from the chaffe . . . however, I would recommend not walking in with the premise that a candidate needs to "prove themselves" to you. We're not cops - we're recruiters. Show me a recruiter that walks around with a badge + gun, 'holier than thou' mentality (i.e. "Sit there and prove yourself, Buddy"), and I'll show you someone who loses more often than they win. Some candidates are super performers that handle this pressure tactic well, while other are super performers that don't. Let's not judge talent based on someone's ability to make it through a pressure cooker.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Sumser on August 26, 2008 at 5:00pm

Generalizing like this is pretty tough. While it's certainly true that you have to have the respect of the candidate, some of these ideas are not true in anything like all cases.

If you're recruiting people who don't have jobs, you're working a very low end of the business. Things might be different when recruiting means screening through a series of unemployed candidates. I'm sure that managing a temp firm or a contract agency desk has some aspects of dealing from a position of superiority based on who is already employed.

And, I suppose that it's true that you have the golden apple and I don't if I really want the job you're recruiting for. But, that's not really recruiting, is it? That's screening.

But, to suggest that the way to treat candidates is as if they were unemployed and that you are their own personal saviour is silly.

It's possible to get away with this sort of arrogance in markets where there is a labor surplus. It's extremely counter-productive if you are trying to woo major strategic talent (or people who are in real demand) from one company to another.

There are a number of really discrete niches in our profession. Part of the communications problem is that we call them all the same thing. A street level temp office in a day-laborer quadrant of the poor side of town is not very much like the Korn-Ferry office in Orange County.

You can bully the unfortunate. It's a mistake to do so as you move further up the food chain.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on August 26, 2008 at 5:07pm

John, I can imagine sitting down for a coffee with a VP of Marketing and saying:

"Ya know, I have a job . . . . so tell me: What's so great about you?"

P.S. There is an awesome way to achieve the same end, and it works really well, "Mr. VP of Marketing, I like to start off these little meetings with a toast to new beginnings and then give you a well-deserved chance to brag on yourself - I'm really interested in knowing how you've come so far in your career :) " . . .
Well, maybe we leave out the toast part :P

John Sumser said:

Generalizing like this is pretty tough. While it's certainly true that you have to have the respect of the candidate, some of these ideas are not true in anything like all cases.

If you're recruiting people who don't have jobs, you're working a very low end of the business. Things might be different when recruiting means screening through a series of unemployed candidates. I'm sure that managing a temp firm or a contract agency desk has some aspects of dealing from a position of superiority based on who is already employed.

And, I suppose that it's true that you have the golden apple and I don't if I really want the job you're recruiting for.

But, to suggest that the way to treat candidates is as if they were unemployed and that you are there own personal saviour is silly.

It's possible to get away with this sort of arrogance in markets where there is a labor surplus. It's extremely counter-productive if you are trying to woo major strategic talent (or people who are in real deman) from one company to another.