ty Recruiter be called/compensated for in the market place, as it's cheaper for companies to utilize their own internal good to very good recruiting staff despite, perhaps, taking longer or missing some candidates providing the ones they do find are hireable? What I hear most frequently in my pursuit to work with old or find new customers is:* "We have no requisitions"* "We have no requisitions we need assistance on as we're able to cover them ourselves for the time being."* "We don't use recruiters as we have our own internal staff."
* Hiring managers defering to Human resources as "HR calls the shots on whether or not to use TPR's and spending."* And in the defense industry which is my specialty "the government has decreed that Defense Contractors reduce their cost per hire making it difficult to cost justify using a Third Party Recruiter."So we can and should be superior to internal recruiters, but they're mostly pretty good and up. Will companies require the services of a superior recruiter when "pretty good" is getting the job done?
axed for what some might call out of line. Who decides what out-of-line means? What is excessive and what is reasonable?
To create statutes that limit the free market system is to accept mediocrity. We already have it in education and we see what this has brought us.…
be a great recruiter with results. Absent results, you're out of business.
Candidates work with you cause you have a superior job. Companies work with you cause you have superior people. If you have both style is irrelevant.
ecruiters are obsolete no matter how superior they may be.My comment had no intention of putting down Corporate Recruiters.However, it stands to reason repetition makes for perfection. The more calls you make the better you are at it. Making 150 will almost always over time make one with reasonable skill superior. In the end, though, it doesn't matter if their services aren't required. Tiffany Branch said:
Every TPR isn't superior just like every Corp recruiter is just some recruiting flunky. I've headed up a top notch in house recruitment team that had various sourcing and recruiting strategies for each position / group they supported. They were the top at finding talent. As a result of building the strength of the team we were able to reduce our use of TPS's, overall cost per hire and time to fill. What makes you think CR's don't know their competitors, market, industry people, etc???? What makes you think all they do is sit around and play with their thumbs???? One recruiter that worked for me spent time on the street, literally, looking for talent, when I worked for a high-end retailer. My recruiters can cold call and build networks just as well as a TPR.
Just because you may have experienced "poor" corporate recruiters doesn't mean that all are. I could say a ton of nasty things about TPR's but it wouldn't be right to stereotype. There are good and bad on both sides. bill josephson said:
Superior recruiting technique expertise.
There's lots to recruiting strategy, specially when it comes to finding/approaching passive candidates that a phone recruiting intensive TPR can be constantly sharpening.
A phone intensive TPR is far more in the trenches gaining proprietary information about companies and candidates than almost all Corporate Recruiters applying them daily getting their respective uniforms dirty every single phone call requiring superior phone dexterity and adaptability, along with seamlessly knowing how to most effectively respond as we can suffer every indignity at any time necessitating thick skin/varied approach.Not only asking the right questions but knowing the protocol when best to and how to ask pursuing our objective.The fact down and dirty over the phone recruiting is what some TPRs do ensures they'll be superior at it than Corporate types more on the Internet. Just like if we're both basketball players and I'm taking 500 practice shots a day whereas you're taking 50 while playing a simulated basketball game on the Internet, I'll likely become a more accurate shooter than you.The issue is, is that your shooting success, if the company's "winning" hiring employees, may well be enough to not require a better shooter's services costing additional money.
Good or very good is good enough. For the added cost great simply isn't required.