Wednesday Wisdom: Lucy, you've got some 'splaining to do

Dear Claudia,

I placed a Director with a new client less than a year ago. It was a classic case of headhunting a passive candidate away from the competition, and before we were done there was a messy counter-offer and some hard feelings on the part of the old boss. Since I stay in touch with all of my candidates, I wasn’t surprised to get an invite to lunch this week from this new Director; I was surprised to learn that the sale of her division is about to be announced – and the buyer is her old employer. She was nervous about leaving her old job to begin with, and rumor has it that her old boss isn’t over it yet – so she’s concerned about what will happen next. What advice would you give the candidate under these circumstances?

Middle Man

Dear Middle Man,

It’s hard not to see the handwriting on the wall for this candidate: new boss (sort of), old score (for the boss, anyway), and a candidate who was nervous before the last showdown (but at least in control of her destiny). Now it seems that the pendulum has swung the other way, and the right of refusal has shifted back to the boss. I smell another job change in the air for your candidate, my friend – and the kindest thing you can do as a recruiter is to speak the truth to her about it, and lend a hand to connect her with a new job.

Speaking of the truth, you might also consider your own role in this mess. If I understand you correctly, this passive candidate was nervous about leaving her former employer and vascilated in the counter offer. My take? You saw a fee instead of a person and put your own interests ahead of hers on the way to the bank. Your reluctant bride had some inner conflict about loyalty to her employer vs. opportunity for herself, and you didn’t explore it with her. So the truth was that she hadn’t made the emotional decision yet to leave her former employer, and you influenced her to act before she was ready. No wonder she’s nervous about the situation at hand: she’s dealing with issues that should have been put to rest before she started her new job, and they're a year older and uglier now for having hidden in the back of the closet. No, my friend – I’d say you hold a lot of responsibility for the situation she’s in today.

In every life-changing decision there are three body parts that must be aligned:

The heart, where we give ourselves permission to change; the head, where we figure out the logistics; and the feet, where we carry out the intentions of the heart and mind. If any of those three aren’t committed and involved, the change won’t stick.

After you've been a recruiter for a while, it's easy to put deals together; the harder part is knowing when to say "no" to someone who hasn't committed. And since recruiters are the brokers of major life changes, it’s imperative that we poke hard at fear, which is often disguised as nervousness, concern, bravado, or even delay.

I think you have some ‘splaining to do – and another placement to make for this candidate. But this time, I suggest that you watch and listen more carefully to the language of commitment.

**

In my day job, I’m the Head of Products for Improved Experience, where we help employers use feedback to measure and manage competitive advantage in hiring and retention. Learn more about us here.

Do you have a question you'd like answered in this weekly forum? Drop me a line!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Claudia Faust on June 3, 2009 at 2:27pm

The "real" letter is posted, Jerry. I gladly admit that my response most definitely contains my personal bias (that's why they pay me the big bucks for my opinion here :)) - and when I read "passive candidate," "nervous about leaving her old job to begin with," "messy counter offer," and "hard feelings from her boss," in the same paragraph, red flags go up for me about the recruiter's role in the situation.

Let me be clear: candidates are responsible for their choices. But so are recruiters - and they wield a strong influence in the process while (dare I say it?) being rewarded financially to make a placement. It's a double-edged sword. All I'm saying is that the time for discovery is before the offer is extended, and a good recruiter helps the candidate to manage the offer process well (including counter offers).

Beyond that, we're all in agreement on the details. Sheesh!

Jerry Albright said:

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbara Goldman on June 3, 2009 at 2:37pm

Rayanne, I agree! What is our role a year later? None. Recruiters bring candidates to the table, and negotiate the deal. Our clients pay us to fill a position. It's dollars and cents. The candidate doesn't pay us for emotional support. The good candidates are never easy. I don't know what a "real" candidate is. All I know is that my candidates go to work in the morning almost happy with the job. By 5:00 that day, I have called and enticed him/her to look at what my client is offering. If all goes well, within a couple of weeks, we have a job offer.

Isses along the way? You bet there are issues. Boatloads of them. And yes, we discuss them. Most of the issues the candidate has, he will always have. I am just helping him with coping with change in his life. The change that I started when I called him. Of course he wants the change, but there are issues. And, we address them. Hopefully, by the time my client hires the candidate he has resolved his temporary fear issues. Of course my client saw the "real" candidate. The one without issues. Only because we discussed what was approiate for him to disclose. Is my candidate real? I created him. Are his issues real? Yes. Do his issues make him less of a candidate, or one that isn't real?

My job is to create a candidate where none existed. He's real. He is currently employed, almost happy.

Only unemployed people leap at jobs. But, my clients don't want those people. That's why they pay for recruiting.

Rayanne said:

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

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on June 3, 2009 at 2:55pm

How about this letter for next week?

Dear Clauda,

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?

Signed,
Anonymous Recruiting Figure (in Toronto)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pam claughton on June 3, 2009 at 3:10pm

Claudia,

I'm with Jerry and the others on this one. When I read your reply,

"My take? You saw a fee instead of a person and put your own interests ahead of hers on the way to the bank. Your reluctant bride had some inner conflict about loyalty to her employer vs. opportunity for herself, and you didn’t explore it with her. So the truth was that she hadn’t made the emotional decision yet to leave her former employer, and you influenced her to act before she was ready. No wonder she’s nervous about the situation at hand: she’s dealing with issues that should have been put to rest before she started her new job, and they're a year older and uglier now for having hidden in the back of the closet. No, my friend – I’d say you hold a lot of responsibility for the situation she’s in today."

I scrolled back up to reread the letter to see what I missed, because this just made no sense to me. I'm not seeing where you are assuming all of this from the posted letter.

When you recruit a passive candidate, it's not cut and dry the way it often is with a candidate who is active and had already mentally cut ties with their employer. Even though I do a lot of upfront work with candidates on counteroffers, it's still very difficult for them to make a clean break, especially if the supervisor is blind-sided and doesn't want to let them go. I just don't think it's fair to assume the recruiter is at fault in this. Sometimes breaks are just messy and I can understand how this candidate is apprehensive to have that boss back in the picture.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Claudia Faust on June 3, 2009 at 3:13pm

You're on. Btw, how fabulous of you to refer your friend's question to the column! :))

Jerry Albright said:

How about this letter for next week?

Dear Clauda,

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?

Signed,
Anonymous Recruiting Figure (in Toronto)