Claudia - again I request that you post the letter YOU are reading. The one you've shown to us is leaving out all these details you seem to have in your back pocket......
How are you determining that "all of the issuses and objections" were not addressed?
We must see this in 2 very different ways. To me - the candidate who has "no concern at all is all about accepting the postion no matter what" is the one who is going to bail out. The candidate who DOES have concerns to look into, issues to explore - THAT is the candidate who is REALLY thinking about this change.
So you're looking for the exact OPPOSITE scenario than my instincts have always guided me towards.
If my candidate has concerns, questions and real life "fear of the unknown" then I know this person is REALLY in this with me. (as much as the recruiter can be "in it")
The candidate who never brings up a concern or objection is going to bail almost always. The phrase "too good to be true" never rings more true than in the "easy placement" we all dream of......
So please Claudia - give us the real letter.
OK, wait.... so the candidate took the offer, has worked there for a year and the transition seemingly went well. Now you, as the recruiter, are supposed to be concerned whether or not this candidate made the right decision..., now, unless the recruiter had fore-knowledge that there was potential that this division was going to be acquired, this issue is NOT the recruiter's problem. The candidate obviously made the right decision. Just the cards fell a way that no one was expecting...
Claudia Faust said:Aren't offers supposed to go to real candidates? I mean the kind that are ready, willing, and able to do the job? A candidate who hasn't fully committed isn't ready for an offer yet - and it's the recruiter's job to sort that out. Up front.
Rayanne said:What problem is this of the recruiter?
Claudia Faust said:ROFL :)) Guys, we're on the same page about counter offers! But here's the thing: it never should have gone to offer until all of the issues and objections were addressed. If that had been done well, a counter offer never would have happened because an offer would not have been extended in the first place.
When candidates show tentative behavior in the interview process (especially those who weren't looking before you came along), I think it's the job of the recruiter to explore the issues and put them to rest. Offers extended to people with unresolved issues become another problem for your client: turnover.
In this situation, there was no turnover. It sounds like the candidate transitioned well, and yes I'm reading between the lines. But here we are, a year down the road, and this candidate is once again facing not just her boss, but her concerns about the decision in the first place. And I think the recruiter could have done a better job of putting those concerns to rest BEFORE the offer was extended.
Just my .02
How about this letter for next week?
I am the host of the world's only on-line call in radio talk show for recruiting based out of Toronto, Canada. Though my show is wildly successful I am considering "dabbling" back in the Staffing Arts. It is my opinion that drastically cutting my fees will give me a competitve edge and help me drag in a little Starbucks Coffee money. (I love that stuff.)
A few leaders in the industry have recently given me the "Oh no! Don't do it!" talk and so I'm wondering: is it good to cut your fees in this economy?
Anonymous Recruiting Figure (in Toronto)