implemented our recruiting and onboarding process. A 3rd party recruiter would do him or herself an extreme disservice in trying to circumvent me, although some have tried. they no longer work with us, and here is the best part-our hiring managers made the decision to end the relationships, not me. As a caveat, I did spend the first 9 years of my career on the staffing side, so I do run our recruiting dept. a little differently than others might.
-Culture: no matter how many site visits, bagel drops, or lunches a TPR makes, they will never be able to get the true feel of the inner workings of a company as an internal recruiter will.
-Objectivity: Since I'm not being compensated per placement anymore, the pressure of "selling" my candidate isn't there anymore. If my candidate is the best one, then hire that person. If the TPR candidate is the best one, then hire that person. If the referral from our team lead is the best candidate, then hire that person. My duty and obligation lies to the company I work for. As a TPR, you have that same responsibility to your company. TPR's have to walk a fine line between selling a candidate who might be marginal and doing what is best for their client that I as an internal recruiter don't have to walk.
The real answer to your post is this: TPR's need to do a greater degree of due diligence in identifying potential clients, the players inside of a company, and what the strategy for account penetration should be. Not every internal recruiter is a gatekeeper, just like not every external recruiter is pushy. But in today's marketplace, many more internal recruiters are a part of the decision making process than ever before, and our staffing brothers and sisters need to adjust for that.…
de while I was recently an internal, corporate recruiter with a manufacturing facility in my area. The premise for siites like these are great....basically they handle the sales piece for recruiting firms and how could that possibly be a bad thing? They seem to round up larger corporate clients and keep the fee range reasonable (unlike Dayak and other sites that have ludicrous "referral fees"). So the problem? They are terrible time wasters for everyone involved. On the agency side, you will spend time on a job and submit candidates and almost 100% of the time get little or no feedback. You are competing with literally thousands of other firms chasing the same candidates. The clients get discouraged quickly because the majority of submittals are absolute unqualified garbage, so their responsiveness drops off fast. On top of that, bounty does not cut a check until after the 60-90 guarantee period is over so the full cycle will take 4-6 months. Long and short, these are good tools that should be in a recruiters repertoire, but you should NEVER put yourself in a situation that you will succeed or fail based on these types of tools alone. In this economy, there is only one right solution....pick up the phone...and market. There's still clients out there. Bounty will just kill your business.
My two cents...…
st a backdrop of Recruiters that want to 'bill bigger'. Maybe it's just me (admittedly so), but I don't believe the world has changed so much. Our ability to collaborate and communicate has, and I believe that education frees the mind (i.e. we finally elected a minority President), but is the notion of human community so different in a hyperlinked world?
At the sake of sounding funny, I've attended Danny Cahill's training and heard marginal producers question him - I've been there in person. He fields those questions and I can promise you he answers them point-blank. However, this is day-long training as opposed to a keynote. I'd also be remiss not to mention that his material isn't for an Internal Recruiter (hence his partnership and presence at Bullhorn).
This conversation will likely go on for the foreseeable future, but I do find myself asking where Leaders have gone? I recall an article I read about how Massive Multi-Player Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) have led to extreme collaboration and teamwork, but many in Gen-Y are afraid to grab the mantle and lead. Of course, this was an opinionated article, but it led me to reflect on where society is heading. Surely, there must be a middle ground. Providing motivation to others doesn't have to be indoctrinational or drill instructor-esque. For example, my younger brother just lost his job . . . and I'm trying to motivate and empower him through other ways rather than booting him in the rear (as hard as that can be) :)
P.S. I do think there is a time to be binary, and a time not to be . . . but I ponder the following about Danny Cahill: Has his charisma and motivational qualities become a cross to bear? I see so many position him as nothing more than a 'motivator', but I ask why? His material is rock-solid, however is his method of delivery (foundation-shaking) the reason for the positioning in the market? I wonder why I'm one of very few to step up and say they've learned something from Danny and become a better TPR as a result? Perhaps I'm in the minority.…