Search Results - turf firms

Comment on: Topic 'Please tell me why (again) I'm supposed to give you all my contacts on LinkedIn…': I've been in this recruiting industry for a very short period of time (2 years + only) and I should say that my network in linkedin are all hard work and not just people that I've found in my friend's list list (if you know what i mean) I've also put a lot of time in mapping and meetings with my candidates and clients to increase the level of relationship between a search firm executive and candidates/clients -- so i totally agree with Ryan too that if you want to expand your network, there should be another way -- so many ways -- can connect offline and send emails to each other and start from there. You don't have to give away all your contacts. One can simply ask for your help or recommendation. In that way, you can both be in touch all the time as well rather than picking people off your list and forgets about you. Linkedin is very useful for me too and my facebook is a totally different issue for me. As for me joining recruiting blogs is one of the amazing ways to networking as I get to find people outside my turf and start gaining friends around the world. This will also help me find some interesting opportunities when i decide to relocate from Asia. I do know that there are people in the financial area who wants to move to Asia and it's just a thought that maybe this will help a little.…; Added by Isabel at 1:00am on June 9, 2008

Comment on: Blog Post 'Advice to a New Recruiter': ey will tell you why they left, what it was like to work there, is management supportive, are people who have been there a long time helpful to new employees or are their turf wars. Keep in mind that those who have left may not have been productive so talk to several if possible and see if there is any common thread,; ie, "they told me they had good training, but that didn't happen. Etc. Then if offered ask the firm owner or manager how many people have they hired in the past four years who are not there any longer and why they left. Again look for a common thread. If it is that they could not produce then ask how quickly they anticipate a new recruiter should be producing or at least covering their base. If your reason for wanting to be a recruiter is that you like people don't do it. If your attitude is you like to make things happen or fix problems, you can handle people and problems you probably have the mind set to have a good shot at being an effective recruiter. The biggest problem I have seen rookies have is getting bogged down with a candidate they like or feel sorry for or not being able to work with a candidate they don't like. Not getting emotionally involved with candidates or clients one way or the other will keep you focused on evaluating both the candidate and the job to make a successful match has worked for me.…; Added by Sandra McCartt at 12:33pm on May 10, 2012

Comment on: Topic 'Shouldn't we just get rid of internal recruiters?': h, "go get them/eat them world" of TPR if we were not very good. And very dedicated. We regard our clients' interests as paramount. We are a boutique executive search firm specializing in hard-to-fill placements. We are dedicated to finding the right person, not just any person. We give all our searches careful, custom–tailored attention. Our process provides better candidates, found faster, hired smarter, with less risk and executive hassle. We are determined that no other search firm or recruiter will outperform us, outsmart us or beat our value proposition. We have conducted searches ranging from scientists and salespeople to senior management and CMOs with total compensation packages ranging from simple to complex, in amounts from $60,000 to $500,000. We have worked with clients and candidates in or from 56 nations on every continent. And we do not think - and act - as if we closed the doors/phones at 5PM. We have negotiated offers over Memorial day weekend, Friday nights after dinner and over Thanksgiving. Our greatest successes have been working with innovative, cutting-edge, emerging companies and those llarger companies which seek to retain or regain that winning spirit. Our goal is to become your partner and align ourselves with your business in as many levels as possible by providing education, useful information and, of course, staffing expertise. This includes internal HR folks. This should not be looked at as an either/or proposition. And good TPRs do not disappear after the deal is done but maintain close relationships still with those whom they placed. Sometimes these are the secret to keeping them happy and productive at their new company. Mary Anne Hebert said:I love your spin and I totally agree. Valentino Martinez said:The questions is interesting but would be more valid if it was stated as: "Shouldn't we get rid of ineffective recruiters--both internal and external?" Internal recruiters are effective when they facilitate the process of identifying, attracting and hiring quality, high potential individuals in concert with the hiring manager or hiring team. However, internal recruiters are ineffective when they block, slowdown or drop the ball in identifying, attracting and hiring quality, high potential candidates. Quality candidates can be overlooked or never submitted because the internal recruiter is protecting his or her turf. External recruiters can be a great asset or a nightmare. They can help find ideal candidates, and even help attract and facilitate the hire of those candidates for a company. The no-nos relate to over badgering for updates; embellishing resume content and/or the candidate's true qualifications, and potential; pushing past HR to speak directly to the hiring manager; and the kill-switch is on when external recruiters can be linked to recruiting employees away from the very company they serve as an external recruiting resource. So your question has value, but it cuts both ways. VB Martinez Group …; Added by Sondra Fuller at 11:44pm on May 12, 2009

Blog Post: The seven deadly signs of a broken recruitment process (and how to mend it): I’ve observed recently a series of hiring processes in firms from…; Added by Jane Paine at 11:14am on November 3, 2015

Blog Post: Romancing the client - professional sales is a seduction: We all know the kind of clients we would like to work with, but how are we…; Added by james nathan at 4:51am on February 24, 2012

Blog Post: Culture with a little C; don’t let it undermine your business: Probably the most common definition of an organization's culture is "the way we do things around here." If you're an executive describing your culture, you're most likely referring to your…; Added by Kathleen Quinn Votaw at 7:50pm on March 28, 2010

Comment on: Topic 'Wednesday Wisdom: The Right Stuff': efully including internal business partners in the interview process. At the end of the day THEY make the decison as to which candidate is hired and once hired and onboarded, then the process of training and assimilating begins, hopefully using tools that HR has developed in order for that success to be measured and fine tuned. The success of the candidate falls squarely on the hiring manager, NOT the recruiter. I stand firm that the recruiter is NOT accountable for the success or failure of an employee. We don't manage them. We provide HR tools to coach and correct, counsel through difficulties, and praise for success during the appraisal process, if not before. So yes, we are invested from that angle for an employees success, but all parts being equal, at the end of the day the relationships success ultimately falls to the manager. I get what you're saying in your reply discussion and obviously that happens organically for most of us who are invested in the process/company/success/failure. But at the end of the day ONE person is accountable for someones success or failure (beyond the employee) and that is the manager! Claudia Faust said:Peter my friend, I'm so glad you brought up the "recruiters aren't accountable" defense. With respect, I would argue that quality of hire is a must-have on the global dashboard, precisely because it measures the results of decisions made by every contributor to the hiring process ("Did we get what we expected? Did we get value for our investment?"). Everyone owns it, and no other metric more strongly indicates the collective commitment to, or disconnect from, the hiring health of the organization.When Finance reports on the dashboard, they don't report just those things under their control; they report revenue and expenses, the very things that every stakeholder in the business is responsible for. When business silos present only the information that makes their own turf look good, the business is crippled; on the other hand, best-in-class businesses are interested in the metrics that drive discussion and alignment with global goals and objectives.Quality of Hire is a global metric that every stakeholder (read: recruiter, hiring manager, interviewer, and upline manager) has some responsibility for, and should have a healthy interest in. Research released earlier this year from the Aberdeen Group showed that QoH was the preferred human capital management metric assigned by executives in best-in-class organizations.My opinion: Corporate Recruiting is a more strategic contributor when it steps out of the territorial "that's not my responsibility" mode and demonstrates a commitment to speaking the truth - even when it is uncomfortable. The business has to win - not just the recruiting or HR department. If the business fails, recruiting fails too (even if it looks marvelous on the dashboard).And TPRs, although vendors, are more trusted partners when their vetting processes include consideration and discussion of a candidate's potential for performance and retention throughout the first year. Do they own it? Of course not. But as consultants, do they have an obligation to watch for signs of potential mismatch that may lead to turnover in the first year? To the best of their ability, in my opinion, you bet they do.Peter Ceccarelli said:I agree with "fill time" and "cost per hire" as meaningful metrics, but not "quality of hire". The recruiter is not accountable for how well someone is doing on the job. The hiring manager is, and after all they are the ones making the hiring decision based on the interview assessments.I think a meaningful metric is quality of "recruiting", or "customer service" ratings. That typically relates back to fill time and cost per hire, but even an in-house recruiting function should work just the same as a TPR or agency in order to add value. Recruiters drive a process, but if they are driving it wrong, or staying at a red light too long and not pushing the button to turn it to green, then a customer service rating by the hiring manager/team will indicate where the fix might be.Lastly, source code is meaningful. Where are your hires coming from in relationship to where are you spending your time/money to find candidates. …; Added by Peter Ceccarelli at 4:48pm on September 3, 2009

Welcome to
RecruitingBlogs

Sign Up
or Sign In

All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.

Just enter your e-mail address below