Candidate Ownership - within a firm

I'm looking for examples of how people handle candidate ownership in an agency/firm.

In our case, the firm has grown - but at the start the recruiters barely used the database to note anything AND they honored ownership "forever". It worked because it was so small and they communicated and "knew" who was whose candidate, etc.

As we have added people - new recruiters will contact a candidate who has no notes/updates in the system for 2+ years and the person who put them in the db will want credit - or for the new person to ask before calling them. I'm more from the "but for" school and that we all put people in the database so that we can connect them for jobs later. If we don't connect them for jobs and someone else does - then too bad for you. Move on and call your other candidates.

It seems reasonable to have a "time frame" from last touch. We are a niche perm shop - so relationships can last years before a placement is made.

I'm curious what others do in a perm shop for candidate ownership rules. Thanks!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Danny Powell on March 7, 2013 at 12:19pm

There are parts of what everyone is saying that I agree with.... and disagree with. If it is a perm full-desk shop, then IMHO the candidate should belong to the recruiter for life. That is as long as they have fully documented the conversations and have filled out a profile. I know personally that I have had had candidates that I have represented early on in their career that are now hiring from me. I have also built relationships with candidates that I have never placed but would certainly know who I am. Candidates are an important part of marketing and information gathering.

On the other hand, if it is a split desk environment and a large fast paced office, I have always used a 6 month rule. If there is no documentation for 6 months then it is open season.

Great conversation by the way and good question Jerry. My answer would be in a fulldesk shop, yes they have to check the database

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve N Odell on March 7, 2013 at 12:26pm

Jerry- If they got one from a posting (that we paid for and our research team wrote the add and posted it) How much time have they really spent. If they place that candidate they get all of the comm or split just for having a conversation.(Company does not pay less comm or take off anything for house) That's a good deal and there has to be "give and take".

Most of their contacts go to folks already in our database ( we have over 150,000 in there). But some times research gives them a list with name, title, and phone # and email address. It does happen that they contact someone that was in the database under ownership of someone else, but only if that recruiter is still with the firm. That is a pisser but sometimes the candidates says I have already spoke to so and so are you already have my resume. But again sometimes they don't. When a recruiter leaves all their candidates become open status and anyone can place w/o split. Another good deal.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on March 7, 2013 at 12:54pm

So let's look at a more specific example.

Recruiter B is recruiting. He's on the phone with someone who is not interested. The disinterested candidate refers his associate. Recruiter B calls this new candidate right after hanging up. (Like a good recruiter should do IMHO)

They talk at length and decide to pursue the job.

Later it is discovered a recruiter put his name/resume/profile into your ATS 4 years ago. That person got lost in the 150,000 names and had not been contacted since then.

What happens in this case?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah Beddow on March 7, 2013 at 1:20pm

Honestly I find this topic exhausting.

I do think that two weeks is a bit much - and at the same time a huge improvement from what we had. We also highly value "the golden rule" so in the example given where Recruiter A entered someone in the database in 2009, and Rec. B had them interviewing a month ago - and then a new job comes out, Recruiter A still has the ownership techinically, but I think in practice they would let Rec B have it. Honestly I'm fine either way and the problem with the golden rule (in this office) is that we have different philosphies at play.

Our office is a small perm shop, no turnover and people building the database since 2006. Until 2years ago they didn't even put placements in the system. So we wanted something that didn't require them to put in notes, although it would certainly be to their benefit to do so.

Our job orders have a very long sales cycle as we are placing very niche developers at startups. Very specific skills and a very high bar. Only 15% of our orders are younger than 2 weeks old. That being said, I wanted it to be one week. The long time recruiters here want (a minimum) 10% of a fee for anyone that they put in the database. 99% of the time there are no notes associated with the entry except for contact information. So to me that effort took about 15 seconds on a company paid resource. From their POV they had to know that the candidate was right for what we do...and we aren't paid a salary - 100% commission - with a draw.

This is a work in process. If it doesn't work....we'll change it. :)

Sandra- you didn't mention the 90 days in your first post. But that may have been for the best.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sarah Beddow on March 7, 2013 at 1:23pm

In our case - I don't want people to stop and look them up, and then ask someone if they can call them. So with our new rule, chances are that there is a job order that is more than 2weeks old that they can be subbed to with all the credit going to the recruiter with the new contact.

Jerry Albright said:

So let's look at a more specific example.

Recruiter B is recruiting. He's on the phone with someone who is not interested. The disinterested candidate refers his associate. Recruiter B calls this new candidate right after hanging up. (Like a good recruiter should do IMHO)

They talk at length and decide to pursue the job.

Later it is discovered a recruiter put his name/resume/profile into your ATS 4 years ago. That person got lost in the 150,000 names and had not been contacted since then.

What happens in this case?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on March 7, 2013 at 1:31pm

Okey Dokey - looks like we've covered it. Thanks for the discussion everybody!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Fluhrer on March 12, 2013 at 11:28am

Had to add my 2 cents here as I have seen this done in many ways. Good and bad.

There's a bit more to it and a few of the comments hit on these points. In the end this should be about creating, building and maintaining relationships.

1. There needs to be a defined time, 90 days, 6 months, whatever. After that the candidate is up for grabs if the person that originally entered that person, has NOT contacted them. The main test should be: prove you have the relationship, not a piece of paper.

2. It also depends on how your company structures the commissions. In 1 company I knew 80% of the Comm got paid to the candidate side, the client side person got 20%. This encouraged 'resume banking', and list building. Very bad for building business. A big problem that arose was, clients were worse off. Account mangers would not look at presenting many candidates because they knew how much $$$ they's be losing. So, they wouldn't present those candidates and would go find their own, if they could.

This way of doing things does appear to work better when a company is in more of a start-up mode and the owner has most of the relationships. Then as things grow, potentially modifying it, could work.

One other thing to note, is....if you are going to have this type of set up, and depending on your commission structure, and how many people are in your firm......Just saw this happen many years ago and is one of the reasons I can pull database log files: I saw a few people back data entries so it looked like they had spoke with the person within the last 3 months. Pulling the log files saved me and got me my $$$