Your odds of placement were not that strong and your position was not strong from the get go. You didn't have your backup candidates for them.....
Now, if this is the first time this has happened to you, then you are one VERY LUCKY or VERY NEW recruiter! :) BTDT. It's not easy, but the reality is is that your client (the CEO AND The Manager) have to work with the new employee for the long term and if something doesn't sit right, it doesn't sit right. There is most likely more to the story than what you were told AND if it is a vendor whom they work with...... then the client will take their word. There may have been some issues and the candidate was pulled from the sales account etc.... we recruiters don't always hear the FULL story. Bottom line, sounds your candidate did not overcome the objections in the interviews, no matter how well they seemed to go.
I personally might have taken a different approach from the beginning and worked with not only the CEO, but the Manager as well since it seems like he/she was at least partially the Hiring Authority. I would have found 2 or 3 more candidates who fit the role to a tee and 10% above and beyond so that there was strength to the search. I probably wouldn't have pressed for the ONE candidate. The client is is your client, not the candidate. I hate thinking that the candidate is "just one candidate" but that is the reality in our business. Frustrating? Definitely. Reality? Yes.
As for moving onward, a couple of my top clients are relationships that started similarly. You have the benefit right now of having their ear and being able to develop a strong relationship. Once that true partnership is established, you will then be in a better position to influence the hiring process. I personally would tread carefully on this one and take the long view of the client. Then make your decision whether it is worth pursuing a relationship.
Building relationships and long term partnerships are the cornerstone to our business. You can take the approach of a one-off job to place or a long term highly profitable relationship with a client. Remember, you can always maintain a connection with the candidate, and maybe use him as a MPC. That way if you are back-doored, you will know it without sneaking around. As for inference about the client turning into a source company, I feel that is poor form.…
ged with names sourcing and he asked me, "Does it teach them WHAT to say?"
I answered that it did not teach so much WHAT to say (though it does have plenty of examples of that) as HOW to say things - that the lessons were really about communication techniques - how to approach a Gatekeeper and ask her questions in such a way that would deliver responses with higher percentages of useful information contained in them.
"Huh?" he said.
"It's not so much WHAT you say but HOW you say it," I answered.
"Oh, right," he said. "Isn't that the truth? You can ask the same question three different ways and get three different answers. I understand that," he said. "Yes, I understand - sign us up!"
When I hung up, the conversation lingered in my mind and I've been turning it over there ever since. It even appeared in one of my dreams, in a crazy theme but there nonetheless. And the reason it seems to be lingering for me is all the Hellabaloo that's on my mind that's broken out in some of the groups lately. There are important lessons to be learned for all of us about the importance of propriety, civility and politics.
It's not so much WHAT people are saying to each other - the info is usually prized and extremely helpful; rather it's HOW it's being delivered. Being as this is a written medium that many of us prefer over telephone calls that can be interruptive and might become long-winded, some of our responses in here can be interpreted a multitude of ways in the reading.
The addition or lack of just ONE WORD or phrase can be devastating to the message. "That's your opinion and I respect it but remember, it's JUST/ONLY your opinion" might feel good to the typist flailing out a response to someone disagreeing with him but the impact it has is very sour and complicated. The shorter "That's your opinion and I respect it" would be a far more correct (and elegant) response that truly does respect the respondent's space.
Anyone else have any sentiments on this?
"The trouble with talking too fast is you may say something you haven't thought of yet." ~ Ann Landers…
ng as nobody is being harmed, I'm in favor of open and honest discussion. Progress isn't always made through snuggie parties, so as long as we can discuss and debate healthily, I'm in favor. I understood the shutting down of conversations, though - when there are advertising dollars coming into play, you can't always have a "Wild West" model. You need some rules - there was even a long post and conversation about the role of "rules" in a community.
Anyway, when I did come back a few weeks later, I thought I had come to Recruiter Earth. I would love to see RBC go back to being RBC. If I wanted to go to Recruiter Earth, I would go there. And if I wanted to go to ERE, I would go there. Our market doesn't need another "me too" network. I know this is an odd thing to say, but from the outside looking in, it's almost as if RBC started copycatting Recruiter Earth . . . while ERE started copycatting RBC. The market has moved toward commoditization - in fact, it's many of the same voices on all the networks . . . mine included as I try to keep an eye on what's new, exciting, interesting, strange, etc.
But what was broken? Each network had its own place; its own stake in the ground. It was easy to know what each network stood for. Somewhere along the line, it was forgotten that the key is differentiation. Web 2.0 hasn't shuffled marketing basics so much that differentiation is no longer king. Just ask Michael Porter.
RBC initially wasn't a place for education or engaging content written by "Influencers", "Thought Leaders", etc. When it started, it was a place for community and dialogue. It wasn't an online magazine; it was a true community. It was a place to exchange new ideas and discuss old ones - it's beauty is that WE (the community members) could steer where discussion went. We could also make some new friends as well, which was really cool to say the least.
I remember John Sumser commenting quite early in RBC's evolution that part of the beauty of RBC was that it was a speedboat that could change direction easily (yes, I'm paraphrasing as it's useless and petty to quote specifics). Well, again in IMHO, the speedboat isn't a speedboat anymore . . . however, if I'm reading everyone's concerns correctly, the desire is for RBC to go back to its roots. Although RBC isn't the speedboat it was, that doesn't mean the key players can't grab the sails and change direction.
There was a place and niche for RBC, and there still is. It just happens to be temporarily vacated.…
the Internet working with me solely cause I don't, uncovering candidates they at present still can't. They get irritated if a TPR constantly duplicates their efforts with the same candidate.
@Bill--I agree, and excellent insight IMO. There will likely remain a need for TPR's.
It's about market relevance as Ken Forrester's money savings angle piece is the crux of the issue. With increasing technological capability going forward what can we do as TPR's that companies can't? Directly recruit into competitors? I've read about prominent business people ready to toss out ethics in a "war for talent" attacking competitors directly, recruiting wise. Don't know if they're willing to risk it at present. Confidential searches/replacements? Purple Squirrel jobs companies have quit on? I know Sandra McCartt gets miffed at my bringing these issues up but, as you mentioned, this impacts all "middle men," not just recruiting. I raise it expressing concern for the industry and my vocation, and look for comments/reasons dispelling my point of view, as Sandra does.
But one I read closely here is Amy Alaa. She's been on both sides of the desk and very astute. Listen to what she looks for in a TPR partner, how frequently she uses TPR's, and the positions she releases to TPR's. The answers I've heard--and I hope she'll correct me if reading this thread if I'm in error--perhaps 3-4 recruiting outfits seemlessly easy to work with, uses them perhaps twice a year, and for positions she's unable to fill and unsure if they're even "fillable."
That's much closer to my experience than Sandra's. So, as Sandra has stated, staying in the game finding market relevance providing services a company can't provide on its own in order to justify a fee is my only focus. She's able to beat her clients at the technological game prospering remaining market relevant.
Today. A technological race to stay ahead of clientele. She could well be right.
@Bill, how about the insurance industry?
Used an agent paying $3200 a year insuring 3 cars. Went online to Geico now doing so for $1900. What did that agent do I couldn't do, myself, using technology? Just coming full circle posing the question…