Search Results - difficult-earned money

Blog Post: Are the world's hardest working countries the least happy?

Many of us have stayed later at work to meet…

Added by Caitlin Purvis at 9:31am on August 3, 2020

Comment on: Blog Post 'Quantity vs. Quality, Reason #1 to Reject Contingency Search': send out a minimum of 80 resumes per week and present candidates within a few days, if Im not mistaken. You obviously are filling a short term need for your clients. It is just a vastly different business model of mine and one that I left long ago. I believe recruiters like you will be the first to go away since anyone can spam/blast a JO to a master list of “fill in the blank” titled people. This simply is not what I would consider “search.” This is better called “sift.” If you are only finding people who can be sourced within hours of receiving an order, then they are available to anyone online or through email lists which are not proprietary. So, what then is your value proposition? Speed? Because speed is never high quality. There is a general rule that goes like this, “If you want it to be quick, is isn’t going to be good. If you want it to be good, then it isn’t going to be cheap.” I subscribe to this way of thinking. If you set out to find someone who “can simply do” a job, then how can you be confident that they are talented? By taking their word for it? If we apply the Paredo Principle which is the 80/20 rule, there is a large portion of the market who do a particular job with the performance that falls within the fat part of the bell-curve. If your clients are have such a high urgency that they are willing to sacrifice quality on the alter of speed then perhaps they are willing to have anyone who can do a job in that role. Perhaps that is a function of your industry. I don’t know the automotive industry. My conviction is that talent makes ALL the difference. The best companies have the best talent, regardless of the function. A company can have an average product, but if they hire the top sales talent, they will outperform other companies that have better products than theirs. It happens all the time. My firm’s value proposition is that if just about anyone with a particular skillset will do for you, don’t hire me. Go online and do it yourself and save the money. Or find the bottom feeder firms who can sift the market for you and get a cheap flat rate while you’re at it. But if you want to hire the top professionals in your industry, then lets talk about it. That is the kind of work we are interested in doing. I am not saying that your way doesn’t work. We all know it does for many within the MRI system. What I am saying is that it is the most expendible and least valuable to the clients. I also believe that the type of work you do does more to undermine the industry than it does to help it from a reputation perspective. As for Retained Search ALWAYS being better, that is an over reach and not what I am saying. I too have done clean up work for Heidrich, Korn Ferry, CT Partners and Russell Reynolds. Their model isn’t ideal in my mind either, but that isn’t my soapbox today. Essentially, what I am saying is that if you are working on contingency, you are not ABLE to do the best work for your clients. You cannot do your best work because the terms of the search/rules of engagement incentivize you to take shortcuts and dilute the true effectiveness of high quality search work. How do I know this? Because those who work on contingency must have many searches simultaneously because you don’t get paid on every one you work on. As a survival tactic, you must mitigate your risk by working on as many “searches” as you can at the same time. I am currently working on two searches. (CEO & VP Engineering) This is the kind of work that has you target all the people who can’t be found online and who are not currently motivated to leave their jobs or find employment. Those candidates are not “low hanging fruit,” and “always looking.” If anyone else with an internet connection can find your candidates, and and maybe even beat you to them, what does that say about you? I don’t believe there is a better way to partner with a client than in such a way that you have the freedom to perform the difficult work of finding talent, getting them to engage with you so that you can evangelizing them about your client’s opportunity and bring them to the table to explore a new opportunity. This process takes longer. Not months, but certainly weeks. This person typically has been at their company for several years and it doesn’t take one quick call or an email to get them interested. This is the caliber of candidate that we should be concentrating on to differentiate ourselves from the rest of the noise. I’m not saying contingency doesn’t work. I am saying it is not in the client’s best interest to engage a recruiter in this manner because it forces a behavior that doesn’t yield the best talent. I’m sorry to offend those who make a living by this means. Though it is not my intent to offend, I recognize it happens. Any time that I have needed to make a change, it took an uncomfortable situation to get my attention and motivate me to change. I am not saying it is the fault of the recruiter per se. I believe that the problem ultimately lies with the process that you use. Somehow in the minds of the clients this makes sense. They think it is in their best interests to work on contingency and I get why they do. They simply don’t fully understand the Unintended Consequences of Contingency. I am calling out the process that the vast majority of recruiters default to it because it is easy. The funny thing is that working on retainer, engagement fee, container or whatever you want to call it, changes the process and the relationship with the client. I haven’t done a contingency search in over nine years. Does that mean I never place someone without being retained? No. If I know of a company with a need, and I know a candidates with the requisite skills who I believe fits, then I have made placements on that basis. But that is usually a “one and done” scenario. Additionally, I have received many emails and linkedin invitations from recruiters who read my comments and completely agree with me, however they are afraid of the mob mentality on this site. There are a few very vocal and cranky people who love to call people names rather than engage in an intelligent discourse. Too bad that the loudest voices drown out the reasonable ones and deter people from engaging in the discussion.…; Added by Drue De Angelis at 11:17pm on June 15, 2013

Blog Post: What Hiring Managers Must Know About IT Candidates Supply & Demand: It’s harder than ever to hire in IT, but why is that? Tech hiring managers have a lot on their plates, and it often feels more productive to forge ahead with the recruiting process than to sit and…; Added by Smart Resources at 2:42pm on December 19, 2017

Blog Post: Are Job Postings Worth Money?

I saw an ad recently for one of those major…

Added by Joel McLean at 11:34am on August 26, 2015

Blog Post: Tech Talent Mobility: Trends and Insights

Whether you’re struggling to find a skilled…

Added by Andrew Stetsenko at 7:52am on October 3, 2019

Blog Post: The Sleeping Monster

I've got to get something off my chest.

So here's the thing. I'm…

Added by Stephen Nehez, Jr. at 11:31am on December 5, 2013

Blog Post: The Four Pillars of RPO Excellence for RPO's and buyers of RPO services: We demand RPO Excellence!

When I talk to organisations looking to outsource their recruitment, the most frequent area of conversation typically…; Added by Howard Flint at 6:43am on February 25, 2017

Blog Post: 6 Steps To A Perfect Employee Onboarding Process: In earlier times, organizations did not have a formal onboarding process. New joinees had to learn things on their own and adjust to the office environment.…; Added by Kelly Barcelos at 5:40am on April 19, 2023

Blog Post: Linked In for Everybody: The Radical Version

Radical Quebec: Newbies to Recruiting:

This is a copy of the presentation I recently gave at Radical Quebec. I chose to use it as my blog as I believe many of the points used, should be…

Added by Daniel J Smith at 1:28pm on March 24, 2011