number like 147. My questions were simple, and not to be avoided by a nonsense parable about Ghandi....that had zero to do with what level placements you focus on, whether they are low level, contract or higher.
You also didn't answer if Paul Wall is a fake name, which I'm guessing it is or you would have been quite proud to provide your website which would answer these questions. I think I may be in Sandra's camp, wondering if you are an old troll that has come back to visit. I recall a similar personality that danced around these parts several years ago and was then banned. Sound familiar?
Paul Wall said:
Recruiting 101: By Paul Wall
Pamela, welcome! Great question!! Before I provide you an answer I believe it would be good to put you in the right frame of mind. Please read the below story in its entirety.
During 1930′s, a young boy had become obsessed with eating sugar. His mother was very upset with this. But no matter how much she scolded him and tried to break his habit, he continued to satisfy his sweet tooth. Totally frustrated, she decided to take her son to see his idol – Mahatma Gandhi; perhaps her son would listen to him.
She walked miles, for hours under scorching sun to finally reach Gandhi’s ashram. There, she shared with Gandhi her predicament. - “Bapu, my son eats too much sugar. It is not good for his health. Would you please advise him to stop eating it?”
Gandhi listened to the woman carefully, thought for a while and replied, “Please come back after two weeks. I will talk to your son.”
The woman looked perplexed and wondered why had he not asked the boy to stop eating sugar right away. She took the boy by the hand and went home.
Two weeks later they revisited Gandhi. Gandhi looked directly at the boy and said, “Boy, you should stop eating sugar. It is not good for your health.”
The boy nodded and promised he would not continue this habit any longer. The boy’s mother was puzzled. She turned to Gandhi and asked, “Bapu, Why didn’t you tell him that two weeks ago when I brought him here to see you?”
Gandhi smiled, “Mother, two weeks ago I was eating a lot of sugar myself.”
Got to love the Gandhi stories right? Now, I want you to do a little exercise with you, replace the term eating sugar or sweets in this story with lower level thinkers and replace the mother in this story with your clients or boss. I thought this would be a good segue into what I am about to tell you.
You have to stop involving yourself with lower level thinkers. I learned this value lesson well when I started in the business of recruiting 7 years ago. You know why lower level thinkers can't see how one motivated recruiter can make 147 placements in a year? You guested it, because they are lower level thinkers. Take Derek for instance, he is frustrated because of his inability to take his career to the next level and when guys like me calls him out on it, instead of heeding the message and doing something about it, he pushes back. Go figure right? This is an example of a lower level thinker; keep your distance from such people.
Second, you must and I repeat must stop playing the fool. Take your education of our industry to the next level or get out of recruiting; yes I said it, quit! It means too much to our industry to have smart folks out educating the industries on the value of using 3rd party talent solutions as their primary option.
Third, stop flexing on your fees, if your client can’t come to terms on your 35% fee, walk away, find one that will. Adopt the CarMax concept, the sticker price is your price, your customer will appreciate you for it in the long run. Forth, stop seeing yourself as a regular player in the recruiting industry, you either sale Hyundai’s like everybody else or you sell to your status- like the Mercedes Benz. Note: By asking me how a 147 placements are possible, you are not ready the start selling Lamborghini Gallardo’s yet, but you are getting there.
Lastly, remember “things that matter most should never be at the mercy of things that matter least. Do you want to see a great example of this? Go back and read this discussion in its entirety, despite my full charge at The Animal and his antics, he did do one thing correct. He put his first thing first (make that your homework assignment to see what that ONE thing was. Now go do likewise and maybe you become a national sensation like me. Wouldn’t it be great! If not, go back to your boring underachieving life like Derek.
PS: Before I start my first morning yawn, I will awake knowing that my 7th placement for 2013 has started, how many do you have?
s a good thing to have. As a client, though, I can see it would be difficult to engage you as a business partner and I'd probably pass were I first meeting you and was endeavoring to do a search for you; I think your caution would become a stumbling block for me.
Especially when you would suggest a search must take less than six weeks to complete. This is too broad a guideline for my taste. I do agree it is a reasonable average but not a realistic 'must-be'.
And what is your fascination with LinkedIn? Were you to ask me if I use LI, I'd probably first want to suggest that 'you be the client and I'll be the search consultant' and when I do present a recruit and you want to know the source, I may be inclined to suggest 'you stick to interviewing and I'll stick to sourcing'.
Do you ask this because you are a recruiter and want to compare notes? As a client, I'd think it more relevant to stick to the fact my recruit comes from an appropriate competitor of yours or comes from your industry.
Did you really say [in one of your videos] that you expect to have all your recruits ready for a F2F interview on the same day? The same day? The same day?
Are you joking? What a perfect world you must live in...
Regarding Guarantees, I generally agree, especially with your premise that if the work done is solid, it should stand the test of time for certainly at least six months and in fact, I've suggested the same with clients but decline offering it since you never know when that bus will be coming around the corner and might, well, you know. I do tell clients, once the search is complete and the recruit is hired that they should call me even ten months later if something is amiss since again, as you said, good work should be sticky in nature and although I may not offer a 'free' replacement after ten months, it is entirely probable I would extend some kind of offering that would, hopefully, suit both parties.
I don't supply short lists. Doing so during the course of a retained search might have me submitting a 'warm body' just to meet the requirement of being issued my second third of the search fee. It is possible that after only thirty days/forty-five days I may have no suitable candidates and I don't want to build into my search contract a barrier to receiving the second third of my recruitment fee.
I do not understand your reluctance to receiving a search fee based on the traditional formula of 33.3% of the total compensation. Your suggesting a fixed fee avoids 'surprises' [not sure you used that word but that is your intent] is not, IMO, a realistic objection since surely, any adjustment of the total amount of the search fee due is predicated most probably on an anticipated range of salary possibilities. In most cases, an example would be an expectation at the start of the search of paying $140K but actually making an Offer of Employment based on $155K or maybe $160K. That is not sticker price shock, that is merely an adjustment to suit the particular recruit, job specification and whatever else may figure into the final salary calculation. In such events, the search consultant should merely be sure the client understands in advance that the anticipated salary may need to be adjusted based on the final specifics.
Any 'discounting' of search fees you execute affects us all, Martin. My request is that you stick to the industry formula.
Psychometrics? No babble, just another way to measure a candidate's capacity for performance. A documented and verifiable track record of accomplishments (given the past job is reasonably translatable to the new job) ought to accomplish the same thing and might save you on testing fees. This would be especially true if your interviewer is reasonably competent in the domain of reading people, Martin.
I'd still like to know what brings you to remark on LinkedIn since, after all, as you yourself said, the source of a candidate is only the tip of the iceberg; that the ability to bring a 'qualified' recruit to your table for assessment is possible only with a series of successful next steps.
And of course, what if I bring you someone I recruited using traditional methods and only used LI to check the person out after I had that person's name? Of what use or concern to you would it be to ask this question since so many professionals are listed at LI but their being there may not have been the trigger for me to have contacted that person in the first place?
If for example I was recruiting a senior actuarial professional for the insurance industry, LI would not be my first choice of resource since there are other, more focused data bases available.
Oh, by the way, if I see "passion" on a resume, it goes into the round file. This is an over-used word someone invented as what they thought was a good idea (it was a marketing person) but has no place on most resumes except for the Arts.
I always suggest 'enthusiastic' or forms of the word, instead.