business with us and part of our process is to whittle down the list that we have and take a hard look at any new ones that come across.
As a former agency recruiter, I have my personal network of contacts but don't want to be biased either.
Some things that folks have mentioned to evaluate include:
Areas of expertise
Size of talent team
Methods of sourcing and recruiting
Years of overall/mean experience
Prior experience with placements
Guarantees on hires, if any
For anyone who's done this (or does an annual review process on it), what's did your company look at?
And how well did it work?
Thanks in advance.…
this business, it is more than just "putting feet in the seat". I believe in having a career roadmap and identifying the critical path of success....and following the path. Easy to say, harder to do especially your first few years in the business....…
@Ken...I'm sorry, perhaps I'm missing something but I still can't understand the correlation between proving you've evaluated a large pool of candidates against the number of candidates submitted as a value proposition. If I submit three of my best, and the client is satisfied with my submissions, it shouldn't matter if I evaluated three or two hundred and thirty three...no? I would argue that I don't need to evaluate two hundred and thirty three if I know my client...and in that case I'm more a trusted adviser.
@ Alpha...to your last sentence...like the Yankees? Sorry, as a Yankee fan I couldn't resist...it's baseball season! No harm meant.…
testing. Sometimes you just have to evaluate all of the information and make an educated decision. But in this case, Birkman testing was done on many individuals at this company, but not on this individual. I think the traits would have shown that the managers managing style would not have worked well with Baker. Heck- I think all of us over-evaluate things! …