Search Results - pre-paid

Blog Post: 13 Ways To Make More Money As A Recruiter - Using Skills You Already Have

Ideas are powerful because they give us hope.

The more ideas…

Added by Clinton Buelter at 9:51am on January 28, 2016

Blog Post: The Kids Are All Right: The Secret History of Gen Y Theory: SEO Alert: This is an #HREvolution preview post, but since if you…; Added by Matt Charney at 11:05am on October 4, 2013

Blog Post: Contingent Search - Still A Very Flawed Industry: No big news here. I often write simply to crystallize thoughts, so much so in…; Added by Skip Graham at 2:23pm on July 18, 2016

Topic: The Longest Deal: job by default” At some point in every professional recruiter’s career, there is a certain deal that will be the defining moment in his/her career. A few will survive the experience and become great recruiters, while most will leave the profession, as a result. Here is the story of my defining moment; a deal that took two years to close. In November of 2009, a candidate, whom I have known for 15 years and have placed with her last two employers, sought my expertise in finding a suitable role in another country. I engaged in this search because her motivation to return to her homeland was a sincere one and there was a need for her skill-set in that part of the world. However I had no international recruitment experience and I was unfamiliar with the Asian business culture-but I thought the exposure could possibly lead to a new market for our services. MARKETING STRATEGY I went above and beyond my usual candidate marketing process on this particular assignment. I invested a significant amount of time in creating an on-line profile that would be accessible on the web. She has lived in the US for 20 years, so to market her international attributes, I created a profile that consisted of her resumes, photograph, personality test results, yearly sales performance graph, and a listing of countries in which she had reside. I also created a Twitter account, which was linked to her profile. The marketing strategy was to research/identify and follow executives/recruiters/employers; anyone on Twitter with a China interest or connection. I asked questions, participated in discussions on Asian oriented LinkedIn groups, created Google Alerts and RSS feeds for activities in that part of the world and learned as much as I could about China, as a market. In addition, I researched Asian niche job boards, created job alerts to email a link of her profile to potential hiring contacts. INTERVIEW PROCESS Two months into the strategy, one particular job lead prompted me to make phone calls to multiple people across the US in hopes of identifying the right person in China to present the candidate. I discovered that the right person was the head of the entire Asian pacific region for this global employer. The break came when one individual indicated that she would send an email along with my contact information to that individual. The challenge was to operate with a 12hr time difference; coordinating telephone interviews with folks in Beijing, Shanghai, Singapore, Australia and the US operations to move this 3 month interview process along. Looking back, all that effort was the easy part, because the problems started after the hiring manager decided to make an offer. CLOSING THE DEAL I learned that this particular hire would be the first of its kind for this particular region. This meant that new processes had to be created and implemented on the fly. It was also more challenging because China’s technological advancement was definitely about 10 years behind what we are accustomed in the United States. Also, the candidate’s demands from an acceptable offer perspective were even more challenging. (compensation, relocation, cost-of-living, retirement) as we had to take into account the before & after taxes, currency exchange rates, fluctuation in exchange rates and reporting responsibilities. I suggested that the hiring manager and candidate negotiate directly on these offer issues because the candidate certainly had more expertise on than I. During that period of time I received numerous phone calls of an urgent nature from the candidate -what’s taking so long? I really need to get out of here, dadadadah! After a few days without a call, I followed up with the candidate and I was shocked to learn that an unacceptable offer was verbally presented, but it didn’t matter because her current employer became aware that she was seeking to leave and is now trying to create a role for her in their China office. (A recruiter’s worst nightmare) A month later there was an announcement that her company was acquired by a competitor. I followed up with her and learned that her internal transfer was put on hold as her company now needed her skills to assist in the integration of both firms. Playing an instrumental role in the transition would create more meaningful opportunities for her career, she was told. SAVING THE DEAL She contacted me 3 months later and informed me that she is now willing to accept my offer if it was still on the table and if it was an improvement above the initial offer. I contacted the hiring manager and the offer was increased, plus a huge upfront and back-end bonus .plus relocation and living allowance; everything that the candidate asked for. She verbally accepted the offer and requested a start date of 4 months; because the Christmas holidays were approaching and it would allow her to collect her bonus that was not yet paid. And also to follow through on her present employer’s planned trip to China. Another purpose of the trip was to meet with the hiring manager, who would travel from Singapore to China to sign the offer letter and discuss plans and strategies. Upon her return to the States, she indicated that she had some concerns about the healthcare delivery system in China as she had a health related emergency which the medical professionals suspected to be cancer. Follow-up test were done in the US and thank goodness, all results were negative. That’s the good news; the bad news was that she was so concerned about her health while in China; she returned home without connecting with her new boss. (Who can blame her, given her state of mind!) Now that her health was no longer an issue, she needed to resign from her current employer and begin making plans to start her new job with her new employer in a new country. However, the hiring manager has not contacted her or retuned her phone calls. (My calls to the hiring manager were also unreturned) The candidate was devastated as she told me (90 minutes conversation) that her new boss was unaware of her health issues and totally mis-read the situation. (Since she left China without signing the offer letter; it was portrayed as not only as a turn-down, but she (hiring manager) was played for a fool after putting her neck on the line to get her what she wanted in an offer) But upon hearing the actual story, the hiring manager expressed sorrow because she had extended the offer to another member of her team-who was not qualified to handle the job done. (At that time I realized that after 20 years in recruiting, this was the worst deal of my career; one in which everyone involved came out on the losing end, including the individual who was given the job by default.) Three months later I received an email for the China HR Director indicating that we needed to discuss my placement fee. I contacted my candidate and learned that the hiring manager had kept in touch with candidate, made some changes in the division and had re-extended the offer-which she has accepted. Also, she had turned in her letter of resignation; a start date had been determined and the relocation process was in progress. Fast forward, a few days prior to her departure to China, I received an email from the candidate, indicating that the work-permit was declined as she had failed her physical examination. (A work permit is a requirement for non-citizens to work in China) Instead of getting on a flight to leave the country, she was checking into a specialty hospital for further evaluations. The candidate called a few days later to inform me of her specific condition (it was serious) with also a dose of reality. She was unemployed, unsure of her own health situation, paying expensive cobra health insurance premiums and not knowing her next step in life. For a period of six months, the hiring manager, as well as myself continued to keep in touch with the candidate, providing guidance and support. Follow-up test were conducted and happily, the results were favorable which led to the issuance of a work permit. After another month of internal red tape and new batch of signature authorizations, I received a voicemail from the candidate (Oct 21 2011) thanking me for my efforts and that she will reconnect when she get settled in China. What have I learned from this experience? Nothing new, but this experience certainly solidified many things that I have heard before. Technology, specifically social media tools in the hands of a good recruiter, will make that recruiter more effective in creating placement opportunities where opportunity did not exist. The skills of the old school recruiter is valued more in other countries where people still care about people, and have not yet replace them with the latest, cheap, fast and easy automated solutions. To recruit top talent, it is the reputation and track record of the hiring manager that should be sold; more so than the role, the employer brand or the career opportunity. The successful hiring managers win by exceeding expectations to show how much they care. Sometime it involves breaking rules to make it possible. And, restricting a recruiter from interacting with a hiring manager is one rule that should be broken. How much pain, failure or frustration should you endure before you give up on a goal that is important to you? The candidate and the hiring manager demonstrated that you should never give up because the pain is nothing; compare to the satisfaction and feeling of accomplishment that you will receive when that goal is achieved. …; Added by Ken Forrester at 9:05pm on November 5, 2011

Comment on: Blog Post 'Recruiting is a game of failure.': each and offer my counter-point below: 1. Delivering a single consistent attraction strategy across all potential candidates which eliminates any potential ambiguity in how the job is perceived by those candidates. Removing that ambiguity at the outset has a positive impact on how long candidates stay in a job. Multiple “attractions strategies” delivered by multiple quality recruiters (in conjunction with clear client guidance, market research and the tenets of honesty) allow candidates multiple perspectives which is a positive not a negative. It’s the reason we ask for multiple “opinions” whenever making important decisions. Candidate retention has far deeper qualifiers than that of “ambiguity” during initial presentation, and done properly (with the guidance of a good recruiter) gets flushed out during the candidates due diligence, business model aside. 2. Benchmarking all candidates through a consistent assessment and interviewing methodology. Clients like it when candidates have been interviewed and undergone some kind of meaningful assessment before they meet them. The retained recruiter doesn't need to sell candidates because he/she owns the process. Consistent assessment is by no means exclusive retained firms. Your implication that it is, is just silly. I’m lost regarding how “owning the process” equates to not “selling the job”. Quality passive candidates (the only candidates I work with) always need to be sold on procession each step of the way, until comparative analysis (due diligence) reveals the deal the recruiter is presenting to be “better “than the prospects current / future condition. High integrity recruiters counsel prospects honestly refusing to engage if the candidate’s condition will not be significantly improved, while also ensuring the best possible fit for their clients. This is not a retained vs. contingency model issue, it’s about the recruiters integrity and skill-set. 3. Not wasting any of the client's time client through them not having to weed-out any ineffectual recruiters. Companies generally much prefer only having to deal with one supplier, for obvious reasons. Infers ALL retained firms bring high quality, implying clients don’t have any “weeding” to do. Of course they do under both models and when they find quality in suppliers, they prefer doing business with them. Under contingency however, they get to move on a dime if they feel the need. 4. Owning the job means the retained recruiter is far less likely to cut any corners in a race to get candidates in front of the client ahead of other recruiters doing the same thing. Again, implies contingency recruiters somehow “get a pass” and can send garbage to their clients. Cutting corners under either model ensures loosing clients (and candidates) and a client’s ability to switch suppliers to improve quality exists under contingency offering a built in incentive for contingency firms to perform, not so easily stated under retained firms with “money in the hand”. 5. Like others on this thread have mentioned, the client is perceived as taking recruitment more seriously by taking a more focused approach rather than the rather ad-hoc nature of giving the job to several recruiters in the hope that they might come-up with suitable candidates. Candidates prefer this. I agree clients may take the process more seriously when they have skin in the game and certainly its preferred by all recruiters regardless the business model, that clients are engaged. But you are veering off the point. This does not support your premise of higher quality production through retained agreements and which model ensures it. Quality recruiters know their space, and judging quality is not exclusive the subjective measure of any “single” employer, engaged or not. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) is not exclusive retained or contingency engagements, and quality recruiters of either stripe know the difference, and do not (should not) work with a client who’s not fully engaged regardless the business model. Respect for ones TIME spent working a project and Candidate opinion (how candidates are treated by uninterested clients) should be as important to a recruiter as is the client relationship, or cashing their "up-front" check. 6. The client pays roughly the same fee as they would have paid to the contingency recruiter that happened to come-up with the successful candidate. Only difference is they pay a third upfront and the balance on completion. In some cases, having that exclusivity can enable the retained recruiter to actually undercut the contingency recruiter, again, for obvious reasons. Again, you’re veering off the point regarding quality. Not sure how potentially “cutting fees” improves quality but contingency recruiters have options for cutting fees also, but should be the fodder for another discussion. Overall, because the retained recruiter has eliminated the competition, that frees him/her to invest a lot more time and money in getting the attraction pieces right, developing greater intimacy of the client's business and ensuring that a large enough cross-section of the target candidates are sourced, assessed and presented to that client. Quality contingency recruiters enjoy similar exclusivity due to client’s preference to deal with one provider; however, the decision is made not through contractual agreement, but through free will. Mastering the attraction piece, intimacy and search diligence MUST occur, or under both models the recruiter goes out of business. These qualities are not exclusive retained firms (your inference). In the retained approach, what the client is ultimately buying is not a single candidate. They are buying a process that gives them greater confidence that they have hired one of the best people currently available because that retained recruiter has worked that particular candidate niche well and as a minimum has replicated the amount and quality of candidates that the multiple contingency recruiters might have produced. Doubletalk… and frankly conjecture. Your inference that contingency recruiters are just selling a “single candidate” is misguided. Business’s need “partners” to survive and contingency recruiters are no exception. Inferring the retained search process offers greater [client] confidence bla bla bla, is all speculative hype. You just saying these things doesn’t make it so. One last thing, Nick. I'd like to raise your point about free market ideology and how you see the retained approach as somehow being contrary to that. One of the popular aims of businesses operating in a free market is to win as much market share as possible. Agree with this, Nick? OK, good. Yes Mitch, I agree that gaining market share is a popular aim in a free market business model! So, if lets say that I, along with 4 other recruiters, have the opportunity to pitch for a piece of recruitment work and that I am able to convince that company that it's in their best interests to only use me to perform the work and to formalise that arrangement through the provision of a retained fee (part of which will be used to spend on identification and attraction tools). Then what I am doing here is winning market share. Eliminating the competition is what all companies want and on a micro level, this is what I am doing by selling the retained option. When you have competition, you also have winners. Agree here also Mitch! So Nick, your argument really carries no weight, either in the wider context of the free market system or on the micro level of the multiple contingency approach producing better quality results. More often that not, it won't. Lol… your final conclusion is as convoluted as I’ve come to expect from this volley. At the macro-economic level, eliminating competition whether it be in the automobile industry, the food industry, widget sales or recruiting, is about delivering a better product and winning market share through loyal customers, not contracted agreement. Consumers want the freedom to select product based on merit (to include process where applicable). The telecommunications industry has seen the fall of term agreements that “locked” customers into one provider and out of “free choice”, as has Cable TV and other media outlets, which once their monopolies broken down, had no choice but to COMPETE for the loyalty of their customers. Pick any industry in any part of the free world that limits its customers to wholly exclusive engagements through contractual agreement (usually after a slick salesmen locks them in), and I’ll show you a business model on its way out! At the micro-economic level when considering both business models, as painful for many as this is to come to terms with (me too, believe me), the retained model has become obsolete in most corners because the premise I mentioned early in this thread of the mystique a recruiters “guarded, little black book” (metaphorically recruiters monopoly) equaling “superior quality access” has become a “misnomer” with the advent of social media and mass media communication platforms accessible globally, and the perception (if not reality) they perpetrate. Your attempt to justify the retained search model’s continued importance in spite of this “reality” based on a “quality” delivery or process argument is sheer nonsense. Further arguing its beneficial for your customers (and not espoused to serve your business model) and believing any unbiased observer (much less recruiters “in the biz”) would buy into such subterfuge is pure folly. Basic fact in a Global Economy: Eliminating choice for customers through contractual agreement by “deluding” them into believing its “better for them” (through a slick sales pitch given before any product (process) delivery)), is the main flaw in your argument, and only works on consumers lacking access to unbiased market / product information, which is a rapidly shrinking pool thankfully due to mass communication platforms like the internet! Perhaps you can prove me “all wet”, by providing unbiased statistical evidence from a reputable industry source showing the growth of Retained Search Firm Market Share outstripping that of Contingency Search Firms. I think…not…; Added by Nick Lagos at 4:01pm on April 23, 2012

Blog Post: Top Exec Secrets to Hiring Unleashed: Added by Sean Pomeroy at 9:56am on January 19, 2016

Blog Post: A Talent Hacker's Manifesto: Nick Marsh of Makeshift recently introduced the term …; Added by Matt Buckland at 12:28pm on July 16, 2014

Blog Post: How to Recruit the Under-Sourced Veteran Talent Pool: Added by Sean Pomeroy at 9:46am on October 7, 2015

Blog Post: Top 3 Technologies Used at a Recruitment Fair You Should Know About: Recruitment fairs have always been one of the most effective solutions for job seekers and recruiters throughout the years. When our world is getting more digital, recruitment fair planners must…; Added by Rakuna at 9:30pm on October 5, 2021

Blog Post: 19 Recruiting Text Message Samples to Reel in High-Quality Candidates: In times of rapidly evolving communication technology, it is extra challenging for recruiters to get the attention of their prospective candidates. Job opportunities often get lost in someone’s…; Added by Rakuna at 9:59am on December 26, 2021