argest employers. Strong belief in rewarding high performance with
1. high commissions
2. good base salaries
3. solid benefits
4. company wide incentives (current involves a Disney trip for employee and family) based on achievement of company goals & objectives.
If you are a high energy technical recruiter in the Atlanta area, then I would like to discuss our this exciting opportunity.
Contact Alex Putman @ firstname.lastname@example.org…
tter or for worse? What we CAN predict is what we can do right now or in the near future:
1) Analyze your recruitment processes, better yet- have the people actually doing the work analyze your recruitment processes- they know what's REALLY going on.
2) Determine what areas are the most valuable uses of your staff's time.
3) Eliminate, automate, or outsource the least valuable parts of recruiting- for example, you shouldn’t have to pay more than about $3500 per month for high quality, cold-call telephone sourcing to identify candidates or hiring managers in companies with a gatekeeper/”name generation,” $1250 per month for internet sourcing, or $800 per month for interview scheduling and coordinating between candidates and the hiring team.
4) If your people can’t effectively do the high value-add work remains, consider training them.
5) If there isn’t enough work remaining to go around, consider reduction-in-work before reduction-in-force. (Those who object to the former are good candidates to for the latter.)
6) As conditions improve, continue following Steps 1-5- don’t go back to paying “*guru” salaries to folks to do lots of “grunt” work.
Keith Halperin email@example.com
* High-touch, high-skill, high-value add, creative work.
** Low-touch, low-skill, low-value add, routine work.…
and having a frank discussion with the CEO before doing the work would seem to be prudent. If you hear that everyone of them was an incompetant idiot, left for more money or whatever perhaps the fall off can be eliminated by discussing the cost of a competant idiot instead of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I don't know what kind of guarantee you are offering but if you do a 90 day replacement at no additional charge you might have to refill the position but you should get paid.
However, if you put yourself in a situation where there is high turnover due to culture you are taking the risk that the odds of fall off are high and you may not get paid unless you have your terms agreed to in advance that for the guarantee to be in force the fee is to be paid within 10 days of start date.
We can only operate on the information we are given. If the money is too low or the culture is bad don't hard close a candidate into the job. Be sure that the candidate knows what they are getting into and that there has been high turnover so they can ask the right questions up front. I have seen a lot of recruiters who can hard close a candidate then wonder why they have a high fall off rate. In that instance it is the recruiters fault.…
sly. LinkedIn is a very, very powerful tool for seeking passive candidates in the area I work - senior level candidates for high tech start-ups. Which is not suprising given that those who work in high-tech tend to use high-tech as early adopters. It also seems to work much better for more senior candidates than junior ones. It also enables me to work outside the UK not just in Europe/EMEA but also in the US so while your figures for the UK LinkedIn memebership are interesting I would suggest a recruiter who is confined to the UK and using LinkedIn is perhaps missing a trick!…