We have seen many blogs/posts about what it takes to be a successful recruiter in the agency world. I would love to hear from the corporate recruiters about what makes you successful in your role.

Views: 372

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I may stir up a bit of controversy here but in my opinion the answers are identical! I will take it one step further and say that good corporate recruiters are those that have served successfully on the agency side. I spent 15 years on the agency side learning the craft before making the move to the corporate side.

Most corporate recruiters I know are recruiters in name only as they do not truly know how to source, recruit, etc. I am successful because of all that I learned on the agency side and that puts me heads above most other corporate recruiters. Most corporate recruiters "post and pray" while I use the tricks I learned on the agency side to seek out and find the folks we wish to hire.

 

Only major difference is my interaction with my hiring managers that is at times difficult to build from the agency side.

 

As far as skills needed...the same!

I agree and disagree as I have never been on the agency side and I don't think it has hurt me in any way. It's funny, in the region where I started my recruiting/HR career, agency recruiters were at that time frowned upon in some industries. Times have definitely changed. I got into recruiting when corporate recruiters were expected to RECRUIT. As a Recruiting Director, my team had to come up with sourcing strategies for each one of their reqs. Creativity was key. No one was afraid to cold call and utilize various other methods of sourcing. We even had to "write ads" vs today, when you just upload the compensation approved description to a posting site. When I was in retail, I allowed my recruiters to"hit the streets" to identify talent. They also had the challenge of building relationships with the business units they supported. Sitting in on their staff meetings and learning their world. In one firm I was with, the recruitment function came up with the Marketing campaign to attract and RETAIN top talent.

 

At one point in time, working with a third party agency was reserved for specialized/VP level and above positions or if you became overloaded with reqs and needed extra hands. I was always evaluated on cost per hire, sourcing strategies, client (hiring manager) satisfaction and cycle time to fill. In addition to the actual sourcing, recruitment and selection, I had to manage the administrative piece (except when I was lucky enough to have coordinator/admin help).

 

I think when more agencies started to offer the "we can do all of this for you" coupled with the advancement/enhancement of applicant tracking systems, some organizations started to rely more on agency and thus seeing corporate recruiters as more of the "liaison."

 

Not being on the agency side hasn't hurt me either.  I started recruiting in large corporations and we definitely didn't post and pray.  It's easier because talent is attracted to the name and you have a lot of options to choose from, but we were always focused on finding that perfect person for the role and not just the best of the applicants.  I'm now the in-house recruiter for a small company and I'm the only recruiter.  This role didn't really exist before and we're still establishing ourselves as a company so I don't get a large number of applicants.  I'm generally acting as a agency recruiter (sourcing, cold-calling, networking) to find the top talent in my area, in addition to setting up and coordinating interviews and phone screens.  Perhaps I've been lucky in the places I've worked but I feel like I could easily work as an agency recruiter or a corporate recruiter and have the skill set to thrive in both arenas.

I agree. Unless I'm ill-informed, I think the only thing I wouldn't like about agency is the "numbers" game that I heard some agencies impose upon their recruiters. I know the money can be wonderful on the agency side, but I feel some comfort in knowing that if I put in a ton of work and the candidates flakes, I still get paid. LOL

Katy Theranger said:

Not being on the agency side hasn't hurt me either.  I started recruiting in large corporations and we definitely didn't post and pray.  It's easier because talent is attracted to the name and you have a lot of options to choose from, but we were always focused on finding that perfect person for the role and not just the best of the applicants.  I'm now the in-house recruiter for a small company and I'm the only recruiter.  This role didn't really exist before and we're still establishing ourselves as a company so I don't get a large number of applicants.  I'm generally acting as a agency recruiter (sourcing, cold-calling, networking) to find the top talent in my area, in addition to setting up and coordinating interviews and phone screens.  Perhaps I've been lucky in the places I've worked but I feel like I could easily work as an agency recruiter or a corporate recruiter and have the skill set to thrive in both arenas.

I agree with that too :)  I'm disappointed enough when they flake!

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

© 2020   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

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