One of the sessions I sat in on yesterday at Bullhorn Live was with Danny Cahill. He is a well know speaker and trainer and from the sounds of it a recruiter sooooper genius. People who know me know that there are a few concepts that I am not fond of. One of them is people who sell themselves as an expert and the other is people who try to get work because they use Guru as part of their selling tactic.

These are real interesting times for recruiters and as much as I recognize that being pumped up and motivated is valuable, I think something more valuable is to see where most of your time is being wasted and how to do something about it and I think yesterday's session was a missed opportunity.

There are very few people who can summon the energy and determination that Danny tries to instill. I don't want to be too harsh and I have never met or heard him speak before but I think most of what he talked about was wasted on the audience. Don't get me wrong, I am sure everyone walked out a little empowered and maybe that was the idea but it's not enough and again, in my opinion, it was not what's needed. I think the key point that he made which made sense is that you need to raise your fees. It's the only thing that stuck with me

A better approach would have been:

You are probably so happy when you are given a job order these days because they are so far and few between right? Well, how are you going to ensure it's real and that the company is motivated, I mean really motivated to write you a check for a successful hire?

Time is so important right now that you can't afford to waste it. It is a far more valuable currency than the money you have in your pocket right now. Don't waste it, don't lose it, invest it in the right search.

Don't work any orders that you are advised to get off the company website. Unless the hiring manager will invest an hour with you broken up over two days, forget about it. Keep looking.

Proper and real job orders will ensure you get through these times.
----------------

Few people can replicate the energy of a well known and successful trainer like Danny Cahill. I feel confident in saying that because very few people are busy being a successful trainer. It's the energy that gets people excited but it's so hard to keep excited when sitting at your desk being a recruiter which is a very difficult line of work. I think a better approach would have been a slow deliberate attempt to ensure that everyone knew the basics of being successful.

Views: 920

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Great post and couldn't agree more...
I love this site and one of the reasons is that Jason callz it like he seez it- takes some real ovaries to do that.
I could not agree more. Time is valuable and if the hiring manager hasn't been able to make time to connect with you regarding his/her positions move on.
JD, I've seen Danny Cahill speak a few times and I agree that when it's live, he packs a ton of hard-hitting information in. The guy really cares, and to be honest, a lot of what he says isn't what the audience wants to hear. For example, I remember him at Sourcecon 07 when he stated that if a Recruiter was only focused on getting names, they'd be out the door as soon as the economy went south. He was right . . . but man, did he aggravate some audience members.

In all sincerity, I believe his approach is to give 'just enough' on several different fronts to sell his other materials . . . which are an absolute 'deep dive'. It's like he shakes some commonly held foundations, but you find yourself wanting more . . . although he's only up there for 1/2 to 1 hr. I was speaking with a friend of mine the other day about how "End Game" is very much a bible of closing deals. Once you really grasp everything, you might not close everything that comes across your desk . . . but you believe you can. And because of this, you have a psychological edge and are more inclined to ask the tough questions and not be afraid to overcome objections.

In down times, when there are way, way, way less jobs to work*, many are happy to simply have a search assignment . . . so it's common to see assignments not as dilligently qualified (which as you know, is a kiss of death.)

(* Our current number of people collecting unemployment benefits in the U.S. is at 4.77 million, up from a high of 4.71 million in 1982 [at least since the fed gov't starting collecting this data in 1967]).
I actually agree with Danny on the point of raising your fees. He is right in that it is sales 101, the client is going to ask for a concession in a recessing economy. A higher starting fee gives you room. The reality is that Danny does not speak to everyone, his true audience is the 5% of the people who are going actually going to do something vs. those in the crowd looking to be entertained.

Now, when Danny starts talking about technology this is where I differ from him. About a year ago he was pontificating that everyone would eventually have access to all information, ergo, great recruiting skills will be the only differentiator in the competitive landscape for recruiters. (this is great propaganda for a recruitment trainer). I missed his talk at Bullhorn Live, so I am not sure if he is still toeing that line. From someone who knows technology, that statement shows a total lack of understanding of technology as it relates to the growth of information vs. the capabilities to index and store it. Information growth is occurring logarithmically whereas the ability to store and index is it not. Many people would say that disagreeing with Danny on this point because it furthers Broadlook's interests. Absolutely correct, but you cannot escape the basic math that I am right and he is wrong ;) Sorry Danny.

I really don't care if Danny screws up when he talks about technology. For me, in the past, I was one of the 5% that listened to Danny, took action and became a top recruiter. I still love to be entertained and reminded of some core fundamentals. Thank you Danny!
DD with the self-interest ! Good for you ;-)

Heck even if the technology were way better than it is today, there would always be information asymetry because this is a human business. We lie. We misunderstand. We over-react. We under-react. We act with too much self-interest. We act with too little self-interest. We gamble. We stand pat. We spin. We live in a world of in group amnity and out group emnity, and our groups shift by the hour. We over-value perfection. We under-value the good but not the great. We over respond to our senses. We mistake correlation for causation.

Find me some software to handle all that !
Donato, I think your products and services are awesome. I wish I could afford all of them . . . or at least be able to extract enough value from them to justify consumption (considering I had the volume).

Let me ask you something, and I ask from a position of respecting you: My thought is that vendors and technology trailblazers like you are creating amazing ways to locate candidates, or profiles, or bits of intel that lead us to the ideal candidate, etc. But even with these amazing technologies, someone still has to be recruited. Would you agree? In the words of Tom Watson (Founder of IBM), "nothing happens until a sale is made." Thoughts?

I recall a military mindset that a good troop is well trained in the art of field craft and marksmanship before learning to leverage technologies. Therefore, the foundation is strong. For example, you need to learn the art of camoflague before learning to operate a laser range-finder. In that sense, I believe your pioneering tools will marry exceptionally well with a foundationally solid Recruiter. Thoughts?

Donato Diorio said:
Now, when Danny starts talking about technology this is where I differ from him. About a year ago he was pontificating that everyone would eventually have access to all information, ergo, great recruiting skills will be the only differentiator in the competitive landscape for recruiters. (this is great propaganda for a recruitment trainer). I missed his talk at Bullhorn Live, so I am not sure if he is still toeing that line. From someone who knows technology, that statement shows a total lack of understanding of technology as it relates to the growth of information vs. the capabilities to index and store it. Information growth is occurring logarithmically whereas the ability to store and index is it not. Many people would say that disagreeing with Danny on this point because it furthers Broadlook's interests. Absolutely correct, but you cannot escape the basic math that I am right and he is wrong ;) Sorry Danny.
You are right, this is a human business. While we can't develop software (yet) to automate the human aspects of the business, we can use technology in combination with best practices to polarize our processes. At Bullhorn live, my talk was how to add a dedicated research resource (a human). I did a deep dive into how a recruiter can analyze their day to determine which things can be removed/offloaded, so they can spend their time on revenue generating activity. This is a *simple* process, but maybe a single percentage point has performed this activity. In the words of Rumi:

"Anyone can bring gifts. Give me someone who takes away"

Technology, done right, should simplify things. My goal has never been 100% automation; that is a fools task. My goal is to develop technology which is the right mix between automation and human interaction. The realization of which yields the most efficiency and well as job satisfaction.



Martin H.Snyder said:
DD with the self-interest ! Good for you ;-)
Heck even if the technology were way better than it is today, there would always be information asymetry because this is a human business. We lie. We misunderstand. We over-react. We under-react. We act with too much self-interest. We act with too little self-interest. We gamble. We stand pat. We spin. We live in a world of in group amnity and out group emnity, and our groups shift by the hour. We over-value perfection. We under-value the good but not the great. We over respond to our senses. We mistake correlation for causation.
Find me some software to handle all that !
I think I encapsulated an answer to this in my response to Marty. Broadlook's recruiting software was developed to speed the process of passive candidate sourcing. If a recruiter relies on Job Boards, and they never learned to actually recruit, they would fail with our technology. So yes, give me someone who can recruit with nothing with a phone and then let me put Broadlook's tools in their hands. Magic!

Joshua Letourneau said:
Donato, I think your products and services are awesome. I wish I could afford all of them . . . or at least be able to extract enough value from them to justify consumption (considering I had the volume).

Let me ask you something, and I ask from a position of respecting you: My thought is that vendors and technology trailblazers like you are creating amazing ways to locate candidates, or profiles, or bits of intel that lead us to the ideal candidate, etc. But even with these amazing technologies, someone still has to be recruited. Would you agree? In the words of Tom Watson (Founder of IBM), "nothing happens until a sale is made." Thoughts?

I recall a military mindset that a good troop is well trained in the art of field craft and marksmanship before learning to leverage technologies. Therefore, the foundation is strong. For example, you need to learn the art of camoflague before learning to operate a laser range-finder. In that sense, I believe your pioneering tools will marry exceptionally well with a foundationally solid Recruiter. Thoughts?

Donato Diorio said:
Now, when Danny starts talking about technology this is where I differ from him. About a year ago he was pontificating that everyone would eventually have access to all information, ergo, great recruiting skills will be the only differentiator in the competitive landscape for recruiters. (this is great propaganda for a recruitment trainer). I missed his talk at Bullhorn Live, so I am not sure if he is still toeing that line. From someone who knows technology, that statement shows a total lack of understanding of technology as it relates to the growth of information vs. the capabilities to index and store it. Information growth is occurring logarithmically whereas the ability to store and index is it not. Many people would say that disagreeing with Danny on this point because it furthers Broadlook's interests. Absolutely correct, but you cannot escape the basic math that I am right and he is wrong ;) Sorry Danny.
DD I've been at this for almost 11 years. (when I say "I", I always mean "we" because I do so little of the real work ).

We have customers from global household names down to any number of one-man-bands. What I have learned is that there are as many approaches to just about every aspect of staffing and recruiting as there are people doing it. What we support is something as broad as "sales" or "manufacutring" or "housing"- in other words, functions that are so basic that the variations are endless. Sometimes the technology is a critical part, other times less than an afterthought.

Cahill is obvioulsy wrong to think that technology will somehow level the whole field and leave only selling, leading, or dealmaking skills as differentiators, but he is right in thinking that those skills are harder to develop and apply than technology to a given problem, and at least for the forseeable future, they will have far greater value in our field.

It's a source of amusement for me to read press releases and listen to tech execs (in many industries) spouting off about how life changing and Earth shattering their vision or their products are or are about to be- no doubt a few of them are, but even then its the human power behind them that creates the awesome value.

Google woud not be Google without the vast human knowledge that it amplifies, an MRI machine is nothing without the minds of the MD's who use it, Facebook is not even very much technology at all; but the bonds between the people who use it are certainly amazing. That's why the world's best recruiting software is nothing without the people who use it, making Cahill's point in its way.
Marty, I think we are in agreement. My initial point was to single out a glaring inaccuracy in a series of statements. If you are getting people ready to march, it is best to have a solid war plan. The human equation is the most important and most complex to master. Great technology and process will allow those skills to be focused in the areas of highest impact. I guess to sum up my point: Let the humans focus on the revenue producing activities, let the machines remove as much as of the mundane tasks as possible. Case in point. A simple task like entering a piece of contact information into an ATS. If you enter 11 new contacts per day, typing them, then that is 22 minutes per day of Data Entry. I would like to know how Danny takes a new contact name and moves it into his ATS system (I don't know what he uses). From his talks, he states that he still runs a desk himself. Unless, he has admin enter the data into his system, then he is putting it in with an "add a record" function in his Recruiting CRM of choice; he is doing a task that a machine should be doing. There is no genius in data entry. Alternative: Contact Capture, from Broadlook is 100% free product that works with most major ATS systems, including Bullhorn,PCR, Sendouts, Maxhire and many others. Why shouldn't everyone use it? From Broadlook's surveys, 11 new contacts per day is average for a recruiter to enter into their system. That comes out 2 weeks a year of data entry. Do the math.

The simple idea is that if people try it and like it (over 100,000 now), then they will take a look at the other things Broadlook offers and really save some time.

Everyone from RecruitingBlogs, get Contact Capture here. It is 100% free, no strings, you just need to register with a real email.

And you are right, it takes a human to do something with those 11 contacts per day ;)


Martin H.Snyder said:
DD I've been at this for almost 11 years. (when I say "I", I always mean "we" because I do so little of the real work ).

We have customers from global household names down to any number of one-man-bands. What I have learned is that there are as many approaches to just about every aspect of staffing and recruiting as there are people doing it. What we support is something as broad as "sales" or "manufacutring" or "housing"- in other words, functions that are so basic that the variations are endless. Sometimes the technology is a critical part, other times less than an afterthought.

Cahill is obvioulsy wrong to think that technology will somehow level the whole field and leave only selling, leading, or dealmaking skills as differentiators, but he is right in thinking that those skills are harder to develop and apply than technology to a given problem, and at least for the forseeable future, they will have far greater value in our field.

It's a source of amusement for me to read press releases and listen to tech execs (in many industries) spouting off about how life changing and Earth shattering their vision or their products are or are about to be- no doubt a few of them are, but even then its the human power behind them that creates the awesome value.

Google woud not be Google without the vast human knowledge that it amplifies, an MRI machine is nothing without the minds of the MD's who use it, Facebook is not even very much technology at all; but the bonds between the people who use it are certainly amazing. That's why the world's best recruiting software is nothing without the people who use it, making Cahill's point in its way.
DD, I think this was Danny Cahill's initial point (your excerpt below). You're saying the same thing he's saying - in fact, I saw his statement as a testament to your solutions (as opposed to a detraction). I think his comment is a selling point for you to leverage, not the alternative. If everybody used (some of) the Broadlook Suite, and had comparable levels of acumen (in terms of how to use the tools and the brainpower to enter the keywords in the right fields), then they would have the Internet Research piece of the business [nearly] fully automated. I say nearly because I find many candidates through signatures in image files, as opposed to text that can be pulled with Contact Capture.

Now, I'd be remiss not to mention the following: In a world where Internet Research is reaching insanely efficient levels (through automation), I see three salient issues:

a. You better be able to telephone source (or have someone dedicated to this on an internal or contract basis) because otherwise, every mouse is chasing the same piece of obvious cheese. [Imagine 1000 Recruiting Firms using BountyJobs for business development (chasing the same cheese) and then your tools to find Internet candidates (laser cheese-finder) at the speed of light? Guess what happens? Yep, just like IT Contracting world, it becomes a race to the web . . . Smokey and the Bandit style.)

b. You better have a strong referral business. This takes time - I'm not talking about the "Who do you know?" line that can be employed by any entry-level Recruiter. I'm talking the relationships - the bread and butter that drives big billing.

c. You better be insanely effective on the phone . . . because in a world of the same candidates being pursued for the same jobs, we all have to up our game in a big way.

Anyway, just my $.02 - time for me to hit the phone lines :)


Donato Diorio said:
The human equation is the most important and most complex to master. Great technology and process will allow those skills to be focused in the areas of highest impact. I guess to sum up my point: Let the humans focus on the revenue producing activities, let the machines remove as much as of the mundane tasks as possible.

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

© 2022   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

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