My asbestos suit is on and ready.

Thought I'd just throw this out. As a practitioner of executive search, I've always tried to understand the needs and objectives of my internal recruiting counterparts whenever I have to interface with them in the recruiting process. In the third party world, there always seems to be the goal of moving internal HR recruiters off to the side or just bypassing them, the thinking being that they slow down the process since they don't make final hiring decisions. As a consultant and trainer to the third party recruiting industry, I've noticed that nearly all the search firms I've encountered try to do this, sometimes even obsessing over it.

So I'm curious, if you are an internal recruiter, I really want to learn and understand more about your job, your value to the process, your goals.

Here's my question: What are the top three ways that internal recruiters add value to the recruiting and onboarding process?

Thanks in advance for your feedback,
Scott Love

www.GreatRecruiterTraining.com

Views: 502

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm not sure how other organizations work, but my goal as an internal recruiter is to make it so the hiring managers have only two jobs...First, tell me what the want. Second, select the best out of the 3 Great candidates I've presented to them during the final .

There is a lot of leg work in the middle of those steps, and if I do it right, I can save our company a lot of money along the way. Since I've started with this company, we have all but eliminated the need for head hunters, saving the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not to mention, since I know and understand our company culture, the candidates I've selected are more inline with our company culture, and the new hires have built a relationship with someone who won't dissapear as soon as "the deal is done." A good recruiter takes the hand of candidates from the first phone call, and is there throughout their entire career. It's value-added, cost-saving, service.
Having been both a corporate recruiter and a third-party recruiter (TPR), I am confident there are more than just 3 ways an internal recruiter can add value.

1. An internal recruiter can be a valuable ally to a TPR by alerting you to the political land-mines you could stumble across, help educate you about the idiosyncrasies of hiring managers, and expedite payment of your invoice.
2. Likewise that internal recruiter can alert the newly-hired candidate of the political landscape and help increase their odds of success.
3. And, an internal recruiter can protect your right of referral when a hiring manager wants to hire your candidate 6 months after the interview and not tell you about it. (Yes, I've seen internal recruiters do this.)

There are good TPRs and bad ones. Likewise there are good internal recruiters (I strive to be one!) and not so good ones. Before you do an end run around what could be a critical ally, consider that possibility.

Respectfully submitted...
Hi -

Great question. I have over 10 years of iternal recruiting exerience and a day doesn't go by that I don't feel like I am adding more value than an thrid party search firm. Here are my top three ways I add value:
1) I build relationships with hiring managers and have a better understanding of their needs and the needs of their team. Because of this relationship and the trust they have in my abilities I can present candidates who are a bit out of the box - but are dead on with the skills required and fit with the team. These hires typically turn out to be the best hires.
2) I can borrow from Peter to pay Paul. If one candidate knocks it out of the park with a hiring manager but for what ever reason they don't move forward with that candidate, I can present that candidate to another team with a good referral (internal)
3) I follow up with candidates and hiring managers in a timely manner and provide feedback.
Scott,

Chuck had a great response and covered a lot of territory. I have also been both an internal recruiter and a TPR and I hope my comments will add upon what he started. I will also take Chuck's approach of answering how an internal recruiter can help a TPR as opposed to what the value of an internal recruiter is in general.

1. An internal can be a great source of information to the TPR, particularly in terms of follow up after a candidate interview. If a Hiring Manager does not return the TPR's call, the internal can help answer that question (HM is on vacation, HM is considering some other candidates that we have scheduled for interviews, etc.)

2. To add on to Chuck's response, an internal can navigate the internal process from making a decision to extend an offer to getting approval for the offer to getting an offer letter to the candidate. There are a number of aspects to getting an offer approved in a given organization. A TPR can't expect to be able to navigate through to the key decision makers in an organization to get the appropriate approvals. The internal recruiter can contact the key decision makers in the process, get all of the appropriate approvals, and most importantly from the TPR perspective, get approval to pay a fee for the recruitment of the candidate for the open position.

3. Finally, the internal recruiter can be helpful in building that future relationship with the organization that a TPR wants. As you know, building a relationship can lead to future business, since people "buy from people they like." By working with the internal recruiter, you have the ability to create an advocate internally for you to help you do future business. By avoiding the internal recruiter at all costs, you risk making a large number of phone calls to hiring managers that do not get returned.

Best regards,
The main thing internal recruiters have (or should have), is direct access to hiring managers and they should be able to get feedback and comments that are often difficult for agency recruiters. If they are good, they also have the respect of the hiring mangers and can often get the managers to look at resumes just based on the recruiter saying that it's worthwhile. I've done both; agency for 8 years, interval recruiting for 3 years.

Jay
Internal recruiters often serve as process administrators ensuring that a company's records are in order and that legal requirements are adhered to (such as OFCCP compliance). I've encountered many an outside headhunter that doesn't care about potential liability of the client companies s/he is doing a search for. The internal recruiter serves the purpose of protecting the company's long-term best interests, whereas the headhunter is looking to make money (typically in the short term). This may seem like red-tape from a headhunter's perspective but for a company looking to avoid lawsuits it's a MUST to have someone ensuring processes are followed and records are kept.
You know, I have been on both sides of the isle and I would turn the question around and ask “Why don't we get rid of third party recruiters? “
First, I am a sales person, always have been always will be. I have trained, mentored. Hired and fired some great and not so great sales professionals and I have huge respect for the occupation. I have been in IT since before most of the recruiters I work with were born; I have grown up selling IT and the contractors to implement it. My position was designed specifically for me and MY experience. This is because I was the top vendor, followed the rules, and brought her some GREAT candidates, My Boss did not understand IT, and by the way, in my company, we do not allow vendors to talk with my managers.
I have I am a technical recruiter for a large international company and I have contact with the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to outside vendors. I have met the cute Woman and/or Men sales reps who know absolutely nothing about IT and are just a mantelpiece (sorry if you think that is chauvinistic but it is true all the same) , I give them the specifications (that I write) for the position and they take it back to their recruiters. Let’s face it, it is the internal recruiters at ALL these national firms who are the hero’s, NOT the “front end” salespeople.
This may sound brash, cocky, and even egotistical unless you realize that my managers prefer it. They do not like vendors, they may like to go out to lunch sometimes but they do not like having to tell them “no” and they do not like having vendors bother them all the time. That is my job and one I am good at because I know what you folks want, to make money and in order for you to make money, you need to bring me the best candidates and it is for me to decide IF the manager looks at them or not.
So what value do I add, you are not even going to get in my company if you don’t go through me.
This is easy. We understand company culture, what it takes to be truly successfull on a day to day basis, fit issues, and if we're really good, we completely understand our internal business partners "business", the nuances of the specific job, what made someone successful in the past and what made them unsuccessful and coach, guide, train and develop our internal hiring managers about what constitutes great feedback and assessments much better than an agency recruiter could.

The other add is this...............if you've been in a niche market/industry for a long time like I have (16+ years, and recruiting for ecommerce since it's inception), you develop long term relationships with the players in the field who literally become invaluable to you as a referral and knowledge base. All in all we know the ins-and-outs of our company needs and that is beyond value added in my opinion.

I'm not saying agency recruiters don't add value because they do. I use them on key searches as a partner, but do find myself spending a lot of time on course correction when it comes to caliber and "fit" issues with candidates. This is prevelant even with those agency recruiters I've worked with over a long period of time. Fine tuning is essential to the relationship both inside and outside and agency recruiters tend to move around a lot and whichever agency they happen to be working for tends to also have different business models, so in some cases it's like retraining them again.

Lastly, my influence of managing the complete recruiting process for my company, full cycle allows me the insight and the right to stand up for a candidate when my interview team is on the fence. Case in point, a key IT position that was open for a long time ended up with a mish-mash of "yes votes", "on the fence votes" and a couple of "no votes". But when assessing the feedback (I do send out a detailed feedback assessment form to everyone involved in the interview process.........AND......train them on it before hand so we're getting good content versus personal view points), it was light as a feather and had NO weight to it. I challenged my functional V.P. of the department to either cut the candidate loose or take a few more rounds in order to construct a solid yes or no vote. And they did. And they hired the candidate. And it's a very strong hire. I don't think you can influence like this from outside the company. And I believe that is what they call value added.

Just my 2 cents worth. Thanks for bringing up the topic!
What Valentino says makes the most sense, as I read these posts...it's not an "us against them" situation (at least one would hope not), as a TPR for 15 years, I think there is a way for internal and external recruiters to work together to find success (identifying and hiring the right candidate). There are good and bad recruiters on both sides of this issue. It's unfortunate that the experiences we have had with the latter (on both sides) helps to set our perceptions, thus our realities, as to why one is better than the other which in turn fosters the "us against them" mentality. So in the immortal words of Rodney King...can't we all just get along?
In addition to all the great stuff everyone else mentions in their responses, I'd like to add that as an internal recruiter, you probably couldn't put a price on what I do :) Talk about value for the company's money! I have handled an average of up to 60 positions at any given time, completing the full recruitment life-cycle for each of those positions (posting, researching, cold calling, networking then scheduling interviews, doing the first round of interviews, then consulting with my hiring managers on the best hires, starting pre-hire processing) all the time in step with the company's policies and building great relationships internally and externally along the way. Im a living breathing walking billboard for the company. lol. Thank god, I love what I do and thank god Im great at it!
I love your spin and I totally agree.

Valentino Martinez said:
The questions is interesting but would be more valid if it was stated as: "Shouldn't we get rid of ineffective recruiters--both internal and external?" Internal recruiters are effective when they facilitate the process of identifying, attracting and hiring quality, high potential individuals in concert with the hiring manager or hiring team. However, internal recruiters are ineffective when they block, slowdown or drop the ball in identifying, attracting and hiring quality, high potential candidates. Quality candidates can be overlooked or never submitted because the internal recruiter is protecting his or her turf.

External recruiters can be a great asset or a nightmare. They can help find ideal candidates, and even help attract and facilitate the hire of those candidates for a company. The no-nos relate to over badgering for updates; embellishing resume content and/or the candidate's true qualifications, and potential; pushing past HR to speak directly to the hiring manager; and the kill-switch is on when external recruiters can be linked to recruiting employees away from the very company they serve as an external recruiting resource.

So your question has value, but it cuts both ways.

VB Martinez Group
It's subjective when you state get rid of "ineffective" recruiters in general. Not sure I get your point or if your case is very strong in regards to your statement.
Valentino Martinez said:
The questions is interesting but would be more valid if it was stated as: "Shouldn't we get rid of ineffective recruiters--both internal and external?" Internal recruiters are effective when they facilitate the process of identifying, attracting and hiring quality, high potential individuals in concert with the hiring manager or hiring team. However, internal recruiters are ineffective when they block, slowdown or drop the ball in identifying, attracting and hiring quality, high potential candidates. Quality candidates can be overlooked or never submitted because the internal recruiter is protecting his or her turf.

External recruiters can be a great asset or a nightmare. They can help find ideal candidates, and even help attract and facilitate the hire of those candidates for a company. The no-nos relate to over badgering for updates; embellishing resume content and/or the candidate's true qualifications, and potential; pushing past HR to speak directly to the hiring manager; and the kill-switch is on when external recruiters can be linked to recruiting employees away from the very company they serve as an external recruiting resource.

So your question has value, but it is a bit one-sided because it supposes external recruiters are all that. And the fact is, it cuts both ways.

VBMG

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Subscribe

All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.

Just enter your e-mail address below

Webinar

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2021   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service