Gino Conti's Posts - RecruitingBlogs2024-03-29T10:58:33ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1526883897?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1https://recruitingblogs.com/profiles/blog/feed?user=10xub5kx9x0nw&xn_auth=noWhy I Wouldn't Hire My Clonetag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-11-18:502551:BlogPost:7949102009-11-18T16:47:47.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Having the technical competencies necessary to perform a job function seems to be a pretty universally accepted requirement in order to be considered a viable candidate. However, it is perhaps equally important what the personality and attitude are in the package-deal that is a new hire. With more and more companies adopting behavioral or corporate culture-based interviews it seems the trend is to hire based on soft skills as well. The only question is, what makes a person a good fit for a…
Having the technical competencies necessary to perform a job function seems to be a pretty universally accepted requirement in order to be considered a viable candidate. However, it is perhaps equally important what the personality and attitude are in the package-deal that is a new hire. With more and more companies adopting behavioral or corporate culture-based interviews it seems the trend is to hire based on soft skills as well. The only question is, what makes a person a good fit for a group?<br />
<br />
If the firm has established a strong culture it is certainly beneficial for a new hire to already exhibit many of the traits the organization values. Aside from reducing the costs associated with training and development it will allow the new hire to be effective much more quickly. This is because the style of interaction he or she brings to the organization will be similar to what is expected and accepted. While it is important to have cultural considerations in mind in order to ensure a smooth transition period into the department we need to be careful because this is an area where you can have too much of a good thing.<br />
<br />
There is an important distinction that must be made between corporate culture and group dynamics and tendencies. Corporate culture is a high level operational philosophy, but each department is likely to have a slightly different dynamic and some customized norms they follow. Making sure a person is a good group fit is a common requirement, but I submit that this is where hiring managers need to be careful. Although I agree that hiring somebody into a group who is drastically different can prove to be destructive, hiring too many like-minded people can be crippling to an organization as well.<br />
<br />
There is a need for constructive conflict to occur within work groups in order for the most creative and dynamic solutions to be generated. If the employees in a department are either unquestioning followers of the manager, or habitually agree with one another it is unlikely they will be truly optimizing the solutions. This is because there is nobody there to question the status quo, poke holes in an argument, play devil's advocate, or provide a unique point of view to consider. In other words, hiring too many like-minded people into a group can effectively put a limiter on the productivity and effectiveness of their work.<br />
<br />
So while we still need to be conscious of the need to ensure a good culture fit overall, letting managers continually hire more of the same can prove to be a recipe for disaster.Maybe those brainless single-celled blobs have it right after all...tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-07-28:502551:BlogPost:7172312009-07-28T15:56:17.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
It certainly has been a while since I've done any active posting, and while I've enjoyed taking in some of the posts and discussions as a lurker figured it is about time I put something out there of my own again.<br />
<br />
Over the past couple of months there have been a couple of big wins and some equally disappointing mishaps. Oddly enough, I find myself crediting and blaming the same thing in both instances...the process. My recruiting team has a very well-defined process by which a manager can…
It certainly has been a while since I've done any active posting, and while I've enjoyed taking in some of the posts and discussions as a lurker figured it is about time I put something out there of my own again.<br />
<br />
Over the past couple of months there have been a couple of big wins and some equally disappointing mishaps. Oddly enough, I find myself crediting and blaming the same thing in both instances...the process. My recruiting team has a very well-defined process by which a manager can request a requisition, candidates are sourced, reviewed, and interviewed, an offer is made, and the new employee is on boarded. One of the last hires I had was a textbook example of why the process works. During the approval process of the requisition I was able to get out ahead of the opening and do some proactive networking. Once it was officially open I had candidates at the ready, we moved them seamlessly through the process, and the position was filled in less than 30 days, compared to the 4+ months it took last time.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there is a position which is still in process and has been for over 3 months now. It started with a Friday afternoon phone call from a Director telling me to find a bunch of people and have them ready for interviews by the middle of next week. Oh, and by the way, the position hasn't been approved yet, the location is still up in the air between a couple different states, there isn't a job description, and we can't tell you what the salary package is because we haven't defined it yet for this role. This is the kind of assignment that makes me lose sleep because I can't refuse the work like my counterparts on the TPR side of the business. At first I attempted to persuade this director to follow process and formalize the request, work with the appropriate parties, and make sure all the I's were dotted and T's crossed.<br />
<br />
That conversation ended rather abruptly with my opinion not being given much consideration.<br />
<br />
As a result making progress was difficult and there have been a few bumps in the road. As was to be expected with this kind of request there have been numerous changes to the position, location, reporting structure, and the role itself. This was initially a very big headache and I allowed it to be more of a problem than it should have been. The issue is that around this time last year the recruiting team got together to hash out the new, improved version of the process and we all agreed to buy into it fully and completely and educate our manager groups how it was to work. I went full steam ahead with this initiative and it worked [nearly] flawlessly until this rather large disturbance.<br />
<br />
So what gives?<br />
<br />
The process clearly works. I offered proof of the improvements it has to offer, yet this Director did not bend to my will. Clearly I am right and he is wrong, no?<br />
<br />
As it turns out I'm not right, and I had a hard time admitting it. I was blinded by the hours my team and I spent writing and re-writing our process to the point that it was very difficult to admit there may be another way to go about this.<br />
<br />
A couple of weeks ago I was reminded how silly of me this was and that I need to be more adaptable while watching my not-so-guilty pleasure, a mini-series on microscopic life, specifically the ever-changing amoeba. It was like being hit by a brick and I knew exactly what to do - I threw the process out the window and took a wildly different approach with management and candidates alike. I actually found myself saying, "I don't know the answer but I will find out, and by the way, thanks for your patience considering the fluid nature of this process." Strangely enough I was OK with it, and wouldn't you know, we are actually making progress in filling the position.<br />
<br />
I am still very much a believer in a process, especially when you have a large organization to recruit for and there is the potential for many hands to be involved in a job. However, I have very recently warmed up to the idea that sometimes the best approach is much less rigid and linear, and more amoeba-like. Those guys are way cool and seem to just roll with the punches, and that is exactly what I needed to remember to do.Dignity in Downsizingtag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-04-28:502551:BlogPost:6328802009-04-28T20:24:05.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Having friends and contacts in the industry (both recruiting and automotive) I've been involved in numerous conversations about layoffs recently. One in particular stuck out to me, though. A fellow corporate recruiter at another local OEM was groaning to me about how one of their contract agencies handled a recent round of staff reductions. I'll withhold the name of both companies since I'm not looking to drag any names through the mud, but it is worth discussing what happened.<br />
<br />
This particular…
Having friends and contacts in the industry (both recruiting and automotive) I've been involved in numerous conversations about layoffs recently. One in particular stuck out to me, though. A fellow corporate recruiter at another local OEM was groaning to me about how one of their contract agencies handled a recent round of staff reductions. I'll withhold the name of both companies since I'm not looking to drag any names through the mud, but it is worth discussing what happened.<br />
<br />
This particular company uses several staffing agencies and had to make cuts to contract labor. As such, each agency lost people, with some losing more than others due to their numbers at said customer. Each of them handled the cuts in their own manner, but one left a pretty bad impression on the company, the employees losing their jobs, and the remaining staff in the building. This particular staffing company sent in a team of representatives armed with quick-assemble banker's boxes and location codes for each employee whose assignment was ending. They then proceeded to walk over to each employee's desk, assemble the box, and request that they pack any personal belongings they wished to keep as their assignment was over and would be escorted off the premises once the packing was complete.<br />
<br />
It was completely and totally inhumane, cold, impersonal, and a downright tragedy.<br />
<br />
I place some of the responsibility on the OEM for not making any specific requests about how the contract agency should handle the task, but this is more the fault of the agency. I realize there were likely a lot of people to meet with that day, and perhaps this was determined to be the most time-efficient way to handle the situation. Regardless of the convenience for the agency, I am floored that anybody thought this was an acceptable way to handle the situation. Somebody had to anticipate this being an emotional issue for some people and it would have gone a long way to offer some privacy when delivering the news instead of the very public version opted for.<br />
<br />
Before coming to the corporate side I was at an agency and witnessed more terminations than I cared to at the start of the automotive decline, but they were done with respect for the dignity of those affected. I'm curious to know what others on both the agency and corporate side alike think of this method, and how you handle the delicate situation that is a layoff.I won't blame them for their ignorancetag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-04-17:502551:BlogPost:6252322009-04-17T20:17:40.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Being on the corporate side I have both enjoyed the benefits and suffered the frustrations of working directly with hiring managers. I find that the two are very closely related, though, and I have the ability to impact some the of trouble areas. In fact, I feel it is my responsibility in order to be productive and effective in my job.<br />
<br />
I speak of the responsibility to educate hiring managers as to what the heck I actually do as a recruiter. Even though the managers and I are on the same team…
Being on the corporate side I have both enjoyed the benefits and suffered the frustrations of working directly with hiring managers. I find that the two are very closely related, though, and I have the ability to impact some the of trouble areas. In fact, I feel it is my responsibility in order to be productive and effective in my job.<br />
<br />
I speak of the responsibility to educate hiring managers as to what the heck I actually do as a recruiter. Even though the managers and I are on the same team and share the same end goal, it is amazing how many misconceptions there are and how little they know about what a recruiter does to fill a position. As the title suggests, though, I won't blame them for this ignorance. They are not recruiters so I can't assume they have any knowledge of the work that is done to produce a candidate and fill a position.<br />
<br />
This means if I want managers who are more engaged, easier to work with, and more understanding of the process I must educate them. My role as a recruiter should not be to simply deliver a candidate, but to ensure the management team understands what I do and how their actions play a role in the successful completion of the hiring process. They need to know why I ask questions that seem totally unrelated to the job requirements and why I care how many people they will interact with daily. They should understand why I press for specific feedback rather than settling for "I'm going to pass on this one."<br />
<br />
I'm currently in the process of developing training materials for our management team to educate and engage them in the recruitment function and would like to know what misconceptions and misunderstandings you've overcome with hiring managers.Exit Interviewstag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-04-17:502551:BlogPost:6246612009-04-17T15:59:12.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Whether due to a layoff, a firing, or a voluntary separation exit interviews tend not to be very enjoyable. Generally speaking people don't line up to be the company punching bag when an employee sounds off about what upset him/her enough to leave, or how he/she feels about being released. That said, I think as recruiters we need to be the ones making ourselves available for these sessions.<br />
<br />
In many cases it was us who brought the employee on in the first place, so it is appropriate that we…
Whether due to a layoff, a firing, or a voluntary separation exit interviews tend not to be very enjoyable. Generally speaking people don't line up to be the company punching bag when an employee sounds off about what upset him/her enough to leave, or how he/she feels about being released. That said, I think as recruiters we need to be the ones making ourselves available for these sessions.<br />
<br />
In many cases it was us who brought the employee on in the first place, so it is appropriate that we close the loop and exit them as well. If we did well enough to form a good relationship during the recruitment process we may be able to leverage this into a productive exit meeting. More importantly, though, there is much valuable information that can be gathered that is helpful for recruiting a replacement, especially in the case of a resignation. For better or worse, this is often the only time we get a truly honest picture of how employees feel about their employer. Many larger companies currently use employee satisfaction surveys, but these only do so much. They tend to be rather general and only give a high-level overview of what is going on.<br />
<br />
Ideally each and every employee would be met with one-on-one a couple times per year to see what issues he or she is facing, thus allowing the company to implement solutions when and where possible. Unfortunately for many organizations this is just too large a task, so an exit interview is often the best source of this information. This is when we discover what some of the underlying and less obvious group dynamics are like, what our competition is offering, and often get suggestions on what personality we should target as a backfill.<br />
<br />
Although they aren't something to look forward to, exit interviews can be a great learning tool and the valuable information gathered should not go to waste. What do you do to make the best of an exit interview?The more I do my job the more I like ittag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-04-14:502551:BlogPost:6219192009-04-14T20:07:02.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
I've previously <a href="http://recruitingblogs.ning.com/profiles/blogs/corporate-recruiting-or-public">expressed my views</a> on the role corporate recruiters need to play in delivering a good message on behalf of the company, so it should come as no surprise that I put a lot of effort into making sure any candidate I recruit is really pumped up about coming to work here.<br />
<br />
I generally let the candidate take a lead role here, directing me on the tour of my company to the various points of…
I've previously <a href="http://recruitingblogs.ning.com/profiles/blogs/corporate-recruiting-or-public">expressed my views</a> on the role corporate recruiters need to play in delivering a good message on behalf of the company, so it should come as no surprise that I put a lot of effort into making sure any candidate I recruit is really pumped up about coming to work here.<br />
<br />
I generally let the candidate take a lead role here, directing me on the tour of my company to the various points of interest he or she has to avoid information overload, or simply taking up time discussing items they are already well informed of. While there are some items I make sure to mention to every candidate (even if it is a very brief refresher), this allows me to tailor the rest of the conversation so that the candidate stays interested and engaged. In doing this I have realized two major benefits.<br />
<br />
1. The candidate gets specific information he or she needs without feeling as though I am delivering a stock sales pitch about why my company is so great.<br />
2. I am constantly being reinvigorated about my company, why I like working here, and why I enjoy my job.<br />
<br />
To the first point, I place a high degree of importance on a personalized experience for each candidate. I think there is very little purpose to creating a general introduction that is presented to all applicants. Clearly there is some information that will be important to provide to all prospective employees, but this should be minimal, otherwise the enthusiasm for the delivery will wane as will the interest level of the candidate. Conversely, adapting which areas are given more attention on the fly serves a couple of purposes. The candidate knows you are paying attention to their needs, wants, and desires, and are willing to put in the effort to work closely and personally with them. In addition, it proves that you truly know what you are talking about and serves to increase your credibility. Just about anybody can read a company info sheet with some highlights, but having the ability to quickly change directions and alter your presentation on the fly comes with knowing your organization (or customer for that matter) very well.<br />
<br />
Now, what's in it for me? Aside from having a candidate who just got a great, personalized overview of the company which increased his/her enthusiasm exponentially, it should be a reminder of just how great your company is to work for. I am self-aware enough to realize that for better or worse a great deal of my enthusiasm is rooted in my sincerity. The more I believe in something the more excited I get and the easier it is to portray that level of excitement. Each time I talk with a candidate about the things my company has to offer, it reminds me of many of the reasons why I took the job I now have. It may seem a little hokey, but it is the truth. Each time I talk with a candidate about why he or she should want to work here, I find myself invigorated, energized, and excited to be where I am.<br />
<br />
To an extent I can liken this to the fact that despite my mood if I smile long enough eventually I start to feel happy. In this case I think there is a little more to it, though. I enjoy getting other people excited about something I've found to be good, I truly believe in what I am doing, and I have a whole lot of fun doing it.Downtrodden and defeatist attitudes need not applytag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-04-09:502551:BlogPost:6186362009-04-09T18:17:19.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Being on the corporate side of the recruiting world I regularly field calls from agency and independent recruiters looking for business. There is nothing wrong with this, and I actually enjoy many of the conversations I've had with these recruiters and salespeople. Many of them are quite personable and have begun to cement a pretty good relationship regardless of the number of jobs I can have them work on.<br />
<br />
Earlier today I got a call from one such person, but rather than feeling good about the…
Being on the corporate side of the recruiting world I regularly field calls from agency and independent recruiters looking for business. There is nothing wrong with this, and I actually enjoy many of the conversations I've had with these recruiters and salespeople. Many of them are quite personable and have begun to cement a pretty good relationship regardless of the number of jobs I can have them work on.<br />
<br />
Earlier today I got a call from one such person, but rather than feeling good about the call I hung up feeling worn out, frustrated, and a bit disappointed I picked up the phone.<br />
<br />
The call started out just fine. This salesperson hadn't spoken to me in a while and just wanted to touch base to say hello and catch up a bit. We exchanged a few pleasantries and discussed a bit of what is new and exciting at the moment. Had the conversation gone no further it would have been perfect and I would have been quite happy that this person took the time to call just to build the relationship.<br />
<br />
Then came the beginning of the end.<br />
<br />
"Yeah, it's just really bad out there right now. I mean, we could definitely stand to have more work to do. It's just scary right now things are so bad."<br />
<br />
Even though this was not necessarily a sales call I couldn't believe me ears. This person, a prospective supplier to me, is complaining about the economy, a lack of business, and the state of the industry. I cringed, my head hurt, my eyes started to roll back in my head, and my toes curled inside my shoes. This is the kind of thing I never want to hear during a sales call!<br />
<br />
Now I don't want somebody to call trying to spread sunshine and rainbows when I already know that things aren't going well, but for heaven's sake don't call and gripe about how bad things are to me! Moaning and complaining about how bad things are isn't exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to jump at the opportunity to do business with a recruiter or agency. I'd rather hear a couple of recent successes that have come despite hard times. This type of thing might set the agency or recruiter apart from the competition having the ability to overcome hard times and is worth the fee they charge.<br />
<br />
No, the conversation was not about success, perseverance, or setting oneself apart. This was a conversation about struggling just like everybody else and it made me wonder how a call like that was supposed to build a relationship or earn future business.So maybe a hiring freeze isn't such a bad idea...tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-04-09:502551:BlogPost:6183442009-04-09T13:35:33.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
To say that my recruiting team is stuck between good old Scylla and Charybdis is putting it nicely. For several years we've had strong relationships with colleges and universities to hire summer interns and entry-level talent each May/June. Unfortunately we've been on something of a hiring freeze for a few months now.<br />
<br />
While we are still recruiting for key strategic positions bring a bunch of interns and entry-level employees has not exactly been deemed as business critical hiring activity by…
To say that my recruiting team is stuck between good old Scylla and Charybdis is putting it nicely. For several years we've had strong relationships with colleges and universities to hire summer interns and entry-level talent each May/June. Unfortunately we've been on something of a hiring freeze for a few months now.<br />
<br />
While we are still recruiting for key strategic positions bring a bunch of interns and entry-level employees has not exactly been deemed as business critical hiring activity by the big decision makers. From an immediate cash perspective I see the argument. New, inexperienced hires and interns are expensive. Even though they don't command a high rate of pay, they generally require a good deal of training to get going. This takes away from the otherwise productive time of the paid senior engineering staff and management. Unfortunately this argument has been a big stopper by itself, but combined with some other factors the task of convincing management to loosen the reigns has gotten more difficult.<br />
<br />
In an effort to protect cash some new product releases have been delayed meaning there is slightly less work to be done. While this has reduced, if not eliminated, the need for overtime, it is beginning to toe the line of some folks not having enough work to do. The argument then is, what type of message does it send to add staff when those we have are asking for more work? The answer is - not a very good one. As it stands our management has been implementing some relatively unsurprising and minimally painful programs to avoid cutting heads. This is both good and bad, in that jobs are saved, but it makes justifying the expense of a hire that much harder.<br />
<br />
Great - jobs are being protected, as is cash, to make sure we can keep the lights on and people working. This is nice for those of us currently here, but what does this do for our future employees?<br />
<br />
The current dilemma enters, stage left.<br />
<br />
Companies all over are reducing hiring activity and are cutting back (or just plain cutting) intern and entry-level programs at the moment. These cuts are frustrating career resource centers at the schools we have worked so hard to forge good relationships with. These are the people that internal recruiters and HR departments work closely with to identify and target talented students and we now appear to be turning our collective backs on them. Universities need to boast high placement statistics to attract more students, otherwise the huge expense of an education seems less worth the investment if gainful employment is not imminent. While many of these folks say they understand the circumstances, disappearing for too long may have employers finding themselves scratched off the list of companies the school refers students to.<br />
<br />
However, a company that has the resources available to continue hiring interns and entry-levels right now will clearly stand to strengthen their position with these key schools. This kind of hiring activity in a faltering economy can move a company higher on the 'preferred employer' list of students and advisors alike. This positioning will attract more students, and more importantly, more top students.<br />
<br />
It is a long-term investment strategy in human capital and not all companies have the free cash to pump into programs like this, but those who do will likely reap the rewards when others try to climb back into the game. As it stands my recruiting team is still pushing to maintain a presence, if only a small one, with they key schools whose students we tend to like hiring. Hopefully this will keep us from ending up out of sight, out of mind...Yes I hold out on my candidates, but I also tell them everythingtag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-04-07:502551:BlogPost:6164502009-04-07T15:28:43.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
I'm not really much of one for a bait and switch, holding an ace up my sleeve, or pulling any sort of trickery on a candidate. It doesn't seem to foster a good relationship and tends to cause trust issues. For this very reason I provide as much information as I possibly can while maintaining a level playing field - I just happen to be pretty particular about my timing.<br />
<br />
There are a lot of things a candidate should know prior to an interview. He or she should have a good idea of the location,…
I'm not really much of one for a bait and switch, holding an ace up my sleeve, or pulling any sort of trickery on a candidate. It doesn't seem to foster a good relationship and tends to cause trust issues. For this very reason I provide as much information as I possibly can while maintaining a level playing field - I just happen to be pretty particular about my timing.<br />
<br />
There are a lot of things a candidate should know prior to an interview. He or she should have a good idea of the location, the facility, the environment, the job duties, the team size, and the reporting structure. There may even be a few more here and there, but those basics are usually enough information for a person to have interest in a job and generate the desire to have it. The thing is, they don't need any of that information to convince me whether or not they are qualified for said job.<br />
<br />
In a perfect world I would have all the freedom to determine what kind of job postings I put out. If this were the case the job description would be relatively short and bare-bones, would include the mandatory minimum qualifications, and <i><b>a lot</b></i> of information about why my company is great to work for. My goal is to have the candidate very excited about working for my company and this should be the main focus of the initial conversation. If the benefits of working for a company are great enough, the specific role within said company may be less important and then the recruiter is free to do some front-end qualifying of a candidate without a job-specific bias.<br />
<br />
This is sometimes more difficult to do with a candidate who has seen a job posting, especially if it provides detailed information about the job at hand. They will be armed with a relatively stock lecture of their related experience and why they should be granted an interview.<br />
<br />
Very bland, very boring, very useless.<br />
<br />
Ok, so I admit, not <i><b>entirely</b></i> useless, but not entirely useful either. This is why I love doing my own sourcing. When I make contact with prospective candidates it is a very good possibility they have not read the job posting, have no idea what job I am talking about, and the conversation is free to be more general. Although there may be a specific position in mind, the discussion can be initiated under the guise of general interest in the corporation, or even a segment or group therein. Some information should be given out at this point to generate that interest, and then the recruiter can begin asking about the candidate's background to assess their general profile. During the course of this discussion it should become clear how much or how little experience the candidate actually has in the areas needed for the position to be filled. A strategic use of probing questions will ensure that you get more information on certain subjects when needed without fully tipping your hand or 'leading the interview.'<br />
<br />
Once you've done a full review of the candidate there are a couple of routes that can be taken. One is to state that you will review their background with your current openings to determine where they can best be utilized and will contact them with potential fits. The other is to immediately transition into a discussion about the specific role you are looking to fill. The approach will depend on the type of candidate you have on the line.<br />
<br />
This is the point at which I will 'give up the goods' so to speak regarding the opportunity that is available. I already know that the candidate wants to work for my company and that he or she is qualified for the job at hand. I should also have a good idea whether or not the level of the position is appropriate if I did a good job during the initial screening. This makes the 'selling' of the job much easier and should be a very exciting conversation for the candidate. I also engage in more in-depth discussions about the candidate's job specific qualifications at this point. This is a very natural transition and candidates are generally happy to expound a bit more on the experience which relates to a specific opportunity.Recruiting in a vacuumtag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-04-02:502551:BlogPost:6127342009-04-02T18:44:23.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Having spent almost a year in my current in-house role I've started to reflect back on where I came from. I took a look at my previous agency experience and compared what I did there to my current responsibilities and realized that although accidental, the format of my last job prepared me very well for what I was walking into.<br />
<br />
The setup was such that every recruiter had one skill set within which he or she was to become an expert. The thought was for each recruiter to become fluent in the…
Having spent almost a year in my current in-house role I've started to reflect back on where I came from. I took a look at my previous agency experience and compared what I did there to my current responsibilities and realized that although accidental, the format of my last job prepared me very well for what I was walking into.<br />
<br />
The setup was such that every recruiter had one skill set within which he or she was to become an expert. The thought was for each recruiter to become fluent in the recruitment of a specific type of individual, build a talent network, and have candidates ready to draw from at a moment's notice. I understood the theory behind it, but something about it didn't sit right with me. Luckily enough for me, the sales team did not bring in enough requisitions within my skill set, so I was allowed to dabble in several different areas. I was still mainly focused on gaining expertise within my area and considering the low volume of work quickly learned the value of a strong network.<br />
<br />
Everybody else there seemed to have a very good handle on the networking and talent pooling piece of the job, but I realized there was a serious downside to this style of recruiting. Some of the recruiters were so specialized that while they could place people within their skill set in no time flat, they almost never had success going outside of their comfort zone no matter how long they had to work on the job. I never really gave it much thought at the time, but looking back it makes perfect sense for a few reasons.<br />
<br />
<b>Sourcing</b><br />
Although some recruiters still did a little sourcing here and there, most did almost none. They relied on the database of people they had built and did all of their recruiting and networking from there. This was not necessarily a bad thing when the volume of work orders was high, but if oddball requests came in, or work in a skill area was low, these recruiters looked like deer stuck in headlights trying to figure out how to creatively source candidates.<br />
<br />
<b>Knowledge</b><br />
While it seems relatively obvious to me, it is still worth mentioning that recruiters who almost never went outside of their specialty a much longer time to learn the details of a new requisition and what a qualified candidate looked like. Even though 90% or more of our work was within the automotive industry these people were so focused on their area that even moving to another skill within the same industry required spending a significant amount of time doing research to get up to speed.<br />
<br />
<b>Flexibility</b><br />
This is the area I feel as though recruiters benefit most from going outside of their comfort zone every now and again. It is very logical that professions attract a certain personality profile. At the risk of oversimplifying, engineers tend to be very numbers oriented and analytical, while salespeople are more gregarious and like to form a relationship. This isn't very important (or necessarily apparent) when reading a resume, but it most certainly is when you actually go through the recruiting process. Although the recruiter can still follow his or her basic routine, some things need to be tweaked to cater to these personality differences. I found that recruiters who stayed strictly within the confines of their skill set had little or no success when asked to work another discipline because they were recruiting for the wrong type of personality profile and had a very hard time building a relationship with any candidates.<br />
<br />
I realize there are plenty of independent recruiters who have made a living by mastering a niche to the point that they are <i><b>the</b></i> source for candidates within said specialty. However, I firmly believe it is invaluable to get outside of your comfort zone now and again as a refresher on how to recruit from scratch. If the worst should happen and the bottom falls out of your niche, starting up a new network won't be so painful. If your role should change you can adapt more easily. Although it seemed like a curse at the time I'm very thankful I was forced to work in a variety of areas previously because when interviewing for my current job it was made very clear they did not want a one-trick pony.Blind dates and retention metricstag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-31:502551:BlogPost:6103312009-03-31T18:19:19.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Recruiting and matchmaking - not entirely the same, but not so different either.<br />
<br />
A friend is single, yet can't manage to find a guy/girl because work/school/life is too hectic - just like the customer who has a vacancy yet can't seem to find the right candidate on their own. You get to work thinking about who you know that would be interested and has a personality that will mesh with your single pal - sounds like sourcing a qualified candidate to me. You set up some sort of meeting, a blind…
Recruiting and matchmaking - not entirely the same, but not so different either.<br />
<br />
A friend is single, yet can't manage to find a guy/girl because work/school/life is too hectic - just like the customer who has a vacancy yet can't seem to find the right candidate on their own. You get to work thinking about who you know that would be interested and has a personality that will mesh with your single pal - sounds like sourcing a qualified candidate to me. You set up some sort of meeting, a blind date perhaps, to see if your friends will hit it off - just as a customer interviews your candidate. The ultimate goal is the development of a relationship that pairs two of your friends together - a job offer for the candidate and a placement fee for the recruiter!<br />
<br />
An oversimplification of what a recruiter does, but the idea is similar enough, as is the measurement of a successful pairing. I was engaged in a debate with a good friend about what should be more important to a TPR - speed to market, or the tenure of the employee. He maintained that while retention is nice, assuming that the guarantee is met, it is all about speed. I felt obligated to disagree, not just to play devil's advocate, but because I truly feel as though retention is far more important. Persuading him was tough, but I'd like to think the use of my dating analogy made a bit of headway.<br />
<br />
While I agree that time to first submittal and time to fill are metrics that are difficult to ignore, I simply cannot see either of them being more important than retention! In my opinion, time to submittal and time to fill don't really prove a lot, especially time to first submittal. These are numbers that tell me a recruiter works quickly, but gives no reference point to the quality behind the speed. Much like a blind date, a candidate can be coached well for the initial meeting such that a relationship is started, but once the honeymoon period is over things can turn ugly and end quickly. This reflects poorly on more than just the candidate, it reflects on the TPR as well. If a customer notices that candidates from a particular agency or recruiter tend to fall off shortly after the guarantee period is met, chances are that firm may find themselves on the wrong end of a supplier optimization.<br />
<br />
Of course, my friend had a rebuttal at the ready - if the guarantee period is met, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the customer to make sure the candidate sticks around? If they can't keep people happy it surely must be their own fault! I had to admit that I agree with the theme of his argument here, but not the claim in its entirety. In the grand scheme of things, retention is the responsibility of the company hiring the employee. It is their job to keep the employee happy, busy, and engaged enough to want to stay. That said, if the candidates are regularly exiting after a few short months, we need to look at the job the TPR is doing as well. Regardless of the guarantee period, I feel as though a candidate who sticks around for less than a full year leaves a bad impression and raises concerns about the quality of hire.<br />
<br />
This responsibility is not entirely on the shoulders of the recruiter. Obviously the interview process of the customer needs to be examined if bad apples are getting in on a regular basis. However, the fact that a TPR is providing candidates who will likely move on to the younger, prettier, and less-inhibited prospects makes you wonder how much they care about their friend who will soon be single, searching, and perhaps a bit bitter very soon.Never have another offer declined again!tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-26:502551:BlogPost:6034282009-03-26T13:12:03.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
There is very little in the world of recruiting that is more disheartening or frustrating than having an offer declined. After all the work that was done to source the candidate, sell them to the customer, arrange interviews, and negotiate an offer, the whole deal falls through and you're back to zero. It stings, most notably in the wallet area for my compatriots on the independent/agency side. As a result, developing a method to boost offer acceptance is key for any recruiter.<br />
<br />
There are a…
There is very little in the world of recruiting that is more disheartening or frustrating than having an offer declined. After all the work that was done to source the candidate, sell them to the customer, arrange interviews, and negotiate an offer, the whole deal falls through and you're back to zero. It stings, most notably in the wallet area for my compatriots on the independent/agency side. As a result, developing a method to boost offer acceptance is key for any recruiter.<br />
<br />
There are a variety of tactics currently employed to close a candidate. You can implement the 'yes' method of using many little yeses to increase the odds of one big yes at the end. You can use the ABC method of closing, and re-closing the candidate on the offer amount, opportunity, etc. at every step of the process. You can even go really old-school and use the Ben Franklin two column pro/con approach. All of the above have their merits, but each one has downsides as well.<br />
<br />
The fact is, none of these methods are perfect, and I can only think of one surefire way to avoid getting turned down: never make the offer.<br />
<br />
Clearly this is not a very good solution if you plan on getting people hired, making money off of placements, or keeping your corporate job. So offers must be extended at the risk of having them turned down. It seems as though we're no further along than we were before! However, there is a lot that can be done to better your odds, and it doesn't involve using any closing tricks, tactics, or techniques.<br />
<br />
Simply put - be the candidate's career coach.<br />
<br />
The ultimate goal for the candidate/recruiter relationship should be one of mutual trust and respect. Ideally, the recruiter should know enough about a candidate to give actual consultative advice to them regarding career decisions. This takes a lot of work, hours of phone time, and a concerted effort to know what makes your candidate tick. This is why recruiting is hard work - you need to crack the shell of each and every person you get deep into the process and actually understand them.<br />
<br />
Everybody has several spheres of influence and our job as recruiters is to make sure we make it into one of them. Which one we enter is largely dependent upon the approach taken during the recruiting process. If we give sound, honest advice, take time to listen to the candidate's needs, wants, and desires, and treat them accordingly, their stock in us will increase rapidly. In all reality I truly feel that a candidate who has been recruited properly will need almost no closing at all. The relationship you have built will do it for you.<br />
<br />
When I look at the approach I take to recruiting, I am very hands-on with my candidates and do my best to be their confidant, advisor, and go-to person in the job search process. In fact, if I get a candidate to the offer stage and have failed to memorize every active phone number they have chances are very good that I have not built a strong enough relationship. This isn't because I'm necessarily a numbers guy, I just haven't spent enough time on the phone with them! If this happens they take advice less seriously, don't instill as much trust in me, and I have less influence over the end result.<br />
<br />
Essentially you don't want to be closing your candidate at the end of the process. If you've made it that far without gaining their trust it is unlikely they will suddenly turn to you for advice on a decision as important as a career move. This is why I truly believe the best closers don't close the candidate, they advise the candidate beginning with the first phone call.Chimps and Dartboardstag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-23:502551:BlogPost:6004362009-03-23T20:01:51.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Let's face it, people love to be in control. Not only that, but we like to think we have control over (or at least a handle on) things that are completely and totally unpredictable. Take, for example, the stock market. There are plenty of people who are supposed to be experts, yet it has been proven that even the experts don't get it right all of the time.<br />
<br />
<i>A Swedish newspaper gave $1,250 each to five stock analysts and a chimpanzee named Ola, to test who could make the most money on the…</i>
Let's face it, people love to be in control. Not only that, but we like to think we have control over (or at least a handle on) things that are completely and totally unpredictable. Take, for example, the stock market. There are plenty of people who are supposed to be experts, yet it has been proven that even the experts don't get it right all of the time.<br />
<br />
<i>A Swedish newspaper gave $1,250 each to five stock analysts and a chimpanzee named Ola, to test who could make the most money on the market in a one-month period. Ola the chimp, who made his choice of purchases by throwing darts at the names of companies listed on the Stockholm exchange, won the competition.<br />
<br />
For years, the Wall Street Journal did this every month, enlisting four Wall Street stock experts to pick one stock apiece, and then having someone throw darts four times at the paper's stock listings. After six months they'd compare the average returns on the four stocks the experts picked versus the four stocks the darts hit. Very often, the "dartboard portfolio" won; almost always it beat at least one or two of the pros' picks.</i><br />
<br />
So how in the world does this translate into recruiting?<br />
<br />
Recruiters deal with something perhaps even more fickle than the stock market - people and the emotions that come along with them. We discuss candidate control all the time. Training sessions are held to make us expert negotiators, great closers, and better predictors of our candidate's behavior. However, what if we're like the experts in the stock experiments above?<br />
<br />
The fact is, people are very difficult to control. Considering the fact that we are not in their heads, nor are we with a candidate 24/7, we cannot completely impact what they will do or how they will react to things like a job offer, a counter-offer, or a sub-par interview experience. There are a multitude of other factors to be taken into account, and while we do have an impact on the final decision, we don't exactly <i><b>control</b></i> it.<br />
<br />
Don't get all up in arms quite yet, though. By no means am I suggesting that we throw our hands in the air, walk away from the situation, and let the chips fall where they may. Come on now, we're recruiters; some of the most control-oriented people on the planet in my opinion! No, we can't just give up, but perhaps a slightly different approach is in order.<br />
<br />
Instead of candidate control, I propose a more reasonable approach - candidate influence, perhaps. The art of skillfully developing a relationship and rapport such that the candidate trusts your judgment, thus allowing suggestions and advice to guide them through the decision making process. This, combined with the minuteman-esque preparedness that things can (and occasionally will) go completely haywire is a powerful tool. Imagine how much easier it will be to ‘control’ a candidate if they think of you as a trusted source of information rather than a used car salesman pushing your wares on them. Imagine how much better you could have handled the objections which came out of left field during a seemingly smooth process had you constantly been prepared for the worst.<br />
<br />
On the surface it may seem like a very pessimistic method of recruiting, but quite frankly that's not my style. I prefer to be cautiously optimistic, overly prepared, and flexible to change directions at a moment's notice. I think this level of readiness and a slightly different model of candidate interaction makes a good recruiter much more effective than a primate armed with a few darts.Do underdogs even stand a chance?tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-20:502551:BlogPost:5971302009-03-20T15:16:30.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Right around this time of year I always seem to have a soft spot for the slightly (or severely) disadvantaged. For some reason March Madness is something I can't pass up and I always love a good Cinderella story. Which got me to thinking - there are underdogs everywhere, not just in sports, and in times like these it must be tough to be in the shoes of the little guy.<br />
<br />
Clearly recruiting feels the sting of a bad economy, and I'd wager to say it makes things very tough for the 'mom and pop'…
Right around this time of year I always seem to have a soft spot for the slightly (or severely) disadvantaged. For some reason March Madness is something I can't pass up and I always love a good Cinderella story. Which got me to thinking - there are underdogs everywhere, not just in sports, and in times like these it must be tough to be in the shoes of the little guy.<br />
<br />
Clearly recruiting feels the sting of a bad economy, and I'd wager to say it makes things very tough for the 'mom and pop' shops to stay in business. Sure, the national (sometimes international) powerhouse job shop firms who employ thousands of robot-like recruiters worldwide will weather the storm. They may have to cut back in an area or two, but they will likely still be around and doing rather well once things turn the corner.<br />
<br />
But what of the little guys?<br />
<br />
The smaller shops can't hang their hat on huge placement numbers like the big boys. They don't have the luxury to quickly change industries, or refocus parts of their team to the hotter areas. Unfortunately it seems to me that the smaller shops are usually the ones who understand the personal nature of our business the best, though. The success or failure of a deal is far more personal to these folks because it is not just the next paycheck, but potentially their very livelihood that can be affected. These are the people who still send hand-written cards to their best customers, make personal visits whenever possible, and actually care enough to learn about the people they do business with. Their customers and candidates alike are more than just a number, a metric, or the next fee.<br />
<br />
So what does this mean? Are we doomed to be overrun by the industry Goliaths that care more about metrics than personal service? I, for one, sincerely hope this is not the fate our industry is meant to suffer. I root for the little guy, and in this case, I really hope that those recruiters who understand what it means to build and maintain a relationship can weather the storm. They are the ones who deserve all the success they can handle.You can't just give the candidate everything they wanttag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-18:502551:BlogPost:5942022009-03-18T13:14:49.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
For whatever reason, people don't tend to appreciate the things in life that take little or no effort. Think about the lucky kid whose parents bought him a brand new car for his 16th birthday - did he treat it with half the respect you had for the 1962 clunker you spent your life's savings on? Probably not.<br />
<br />
Whatever it is, most people have a greater appreciation for that which takes some work to achieve, be it a possession or a new job.<br />
<br />
When I think back to the hires I've facilitated, both at…
For whatever reason, people don't tend to appreciate the things in life that take little or no effort. Think about the lucky kid whose parents bought him a brand new car for his 16th birthday - did he treat it with half the respect you had for the 1962 clunker you spent your life's savings on? Probably not.<br />
<br />
Whatever it is, most people have a greater appreciation for that which takes some work to achieve, be it a possession or a new job.<br />
<br />
When I think back to the hires I've facilitated, both at an agency and in my current role, the candidates that had the most drama during the process usually turned out to have the best longevity. The candidate had more job satisfaction, did better work, and stayed in the role or with the company for longer than those who landed the job with relative ease.<br />
<br />
Not so coincidentally I have a theory about this.<br />
<br />
The more I get to thinking about it, the more it makes sense. If a candidate sticks with it through any of the innumerable mishaps that are made possible by dealing with people as a product, chances are it is because they badly want the job. While this could be due to unemployment, it could also be a dream role, a targeted company, a much needed career change, an exciting new technology to work on, and the list goes on. Each person has his or her own reasons for searching, and having the perseverance to work through a few sticky patches will make the reward of getting the job that much sweeter. Whether or not we consciously think about it, good recruiters must somehow instinctively know this.<br />
<br />
After all, why else would we ask tough closing questions? Why tell a candidate that the scope of the job has changed slightly? Why admit that the bonus amount had to be cut a bit? Why tell them the location changed and the commute will be double what was anticipated? On one hand, because we need to keep the candidate abreast of the situation, but on the other, to test them a little. If the candidate runs off at the first sign of trouble perhaps it is for the best. We know there is no such thing as a perfect job, and once the honeymoon phase is over with the new employer a decision will have to be made - stick it out, or pack up and move along.<br />
<br />
Chances are, the ones who had to run the recruiting gauntlet to get the job will dig in and stick around much longer than those who had a cakewalk.Is Honesty Really Worth It?tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-17:502551:BlogPost:5933672009-03-17T19:34:20.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Well, well, look who finally decided to remember how much fun it is to blog!<br />
<br />
To say it has been one of those weeks sounds so very cliché, but quite true. To say I minded would be a lie, though. Work has been an absolute whirlwind of activity in the last few days and I'm glad to have hardly had the time to justify taking a peek at my guilty pleasure that is RBC.<br />
<br />
Those of you who have read my previous material know I'm a big proponent of the candidate's experience, taking care of them, and…
Well, well, look who finally decided to remember how much fun it is to blog!<br />
<br />
To say it has been one of those weeks sounds so very cliché, but quite true. To say I minded would be a lie, though. Work has been an absolute whirlwind of activity in the last few days and I'm glad to have hardly had the time to justify taking a peek at my guilty pleasure that is RBC.<br />
<br />
Those of you who have read my previous material know I'm a big proponent of the candidate's experience, taking care of them, and generally doing the right thing. I know, all warm and fuzzy already, right? I still hold strong to that belief, but something that happened yesterday stood to very nearly shake me from that foundation. Before we go there, though, a little back story.<br />
<br />
I have been doing some recruiting for a notoriously tough to please manager on a position which is strategic and has job requirements that seemingly change with the wind. We've all had orders like this, so when you finally get a candidate on the line it makes things even more exciting. As of last week, the leading candidate was flown in for an interview and knocked it out of the park. Without wanting to get too far ahead of myself, I allowed a brief moment of elation before terror struck.<br />
<br />
Less than 24 hours after the interview was complete some announcements were made that stand to alter (although not significantly) the candidate's pay and bonus structure. Over the next three days I played a delightful game of phone tag day and night calling across several time zones without success until yesterday afternoon. Because accepting the position will involve a major relocation and a small step back in annual salary I swallowed hard and delivered the news knowing it could well lead the candidate to reconsider or decline.<br />
<br />
I held my breath and waited for what seemed like five or six minutes...underwater.<br />
<br />
Luckily, she appreciated the candor and honesty, but will now need more time to consider in lieu of these new details. Of course the most positive light possible was shed on the subject, but that was essentially limited to touting the virtues of a company willing to be honest even if it wasn't the greatest of news so long as it is in the best interest of the candidate. The conversation ended quite nicely with me feeling quite a bit better about it than anticipated.<br />
<br />
That is, of course, until another party involved heard what had been done.<br />
<br />
I won't name this person, or even make mention of their relationship to me be it professional or personal, peer or superior. The fact is, it is somebody whose opinion I generally trust, and they went bananas on me. I was appalled. The second this news came out I put myself in the shoes of my candidate and knew I had to tell her. After all, I would be extremely upset to accept a job and find out afterwards that the terms had changed! My lector was unrelenting, though. I should have left it alone to ensure the hire was secured and let things get sorted out later.<br />
<br />
I spent the better part of the evening with my head spinning, but finally came to the conclusion that I did the right thing. I haven't gotten an accept or decline notice from my candidate yet, but communication has been open which encourages me further that things are still going in the right direction.<br />
<br />
Although things have not come entirely to their conclusion in this mini-saga, I am curious to know what others here think. Is it better to be honest and allow the candidate to make the most well-informed decision possible, or hold the bad news close to the vest and let them accept on false pretenses? Of course, my position is obvious, but then again, I'm also no longer on the agency side and I have to deal with the drama after the fact if I opt to withhold...No thanks, I'm just not that nice...tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-09:502551:BlogPost:5812692009-03-09T15:12:26.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Piggybacking off of Steve's post about undermining your career I feel inspired to delve a little deeper into the topic of when enough is enough. By way of a little setup, I'm notorious for my inability to say no...<br />
<br />
About four or five weeks ago I had a gentleman walk into the lobby in my office requesting to meet with somebody in HR or recruiting. The receptionist dialed my extension and I was promptly connected with him. He stated that he was working on a class project and needed no more than…
Piggybacking off of Steve's post about undermining your career I feel inspired to delve a little deeper into the topic of when enough is enough. By way of a little setup, I'm notorious for my inability to say no...<br />
<br />
About four or five weeks ago I had a gentleman walk into the lobby in my office requesting to meet with somebody in HR or recruiting. The receptionist dialed my extension and I was promptly connected with him. He stated that he was working on a class project and needed no more than 5 minutes of my time to ask a few questions promising that he was not there peddling his resume. My gut told me I was just asking for trouble, but it was a slow day, I was at a good stopping point in my work, and I could use a short break from staring into my monitor. Sure, I'll do my good deed for the day.<br />
<br />
We met, I answered a few questions about interview tactics, resume writing, and my view on the industry. As promised he only took 5 minutes of my time, didn't hand over a resume, and went on his merry way. I happily got back to my desk having had a little breather and finished out my day. No problem, right? Wrong.<br />
<br />
This gentleman now thinks I am his personal career consultant. Without being rude I made it very clear that I have a job which keeps me busy and I can't be helping him re-write a resume or set meetings with him to discuss job search strategy. Generally speaking patience is one of my strong suits, but mine is starting to wear thin in this instance. That said, I (as politely as possible) have for the third time asked him to quit calling because I am not the person to help him.<br />
<br />
This got me to thinking: when do we reach a point, professionally, when enough is enough? I try to make sure that whether the request comes from a job seeker, another department, or a peer, I do what I can within reason to accommodate. However, there comes a time when no more can be handled, or the requests have become unreasonable. How do you know you when you've been pushed too far. Further, how do you respectfully decline without damaging a relationship?<br />
<br />
I don't think there is a perfect solution, but I suspect that successfully sidestepping such issues requires a good amount of tact and diplomacy.Who need a talent pipeline?tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-06:502551:BlogPost:5794312009-03-06T20:26:55.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
With restrictions being placed on essentially every aspect of our hiring it has made talent pooling an interesting endeavor. Sure, we have a few 'future opportunity' positions posted here and there, and the plethora of unemployed engineers in the area means I have a steady flow of unsolicited applications from experienced professionals.<br />
<br />
But what of our entry-level talent?<br />
<br />
Historically my company has had a strong co-op and intern program that was something of a farm system for our incoming…
With restrictions being placed on essentially every aspect of our hiring it has made talent pooling an interesting endeavor. Sure, we have a few 'future opportunity' positions posted here and there, and the plethora of unemployed engineers in the area means I have a steady flow of unsolicited applications from experienced professionals.<br />
<br />
But what of our entry-level talent?<br />
<br />
Historically my company has had a strong co-op and intern program that was something of a farm system for our incoming talent. We brought in some of the best and brightest students from college career fairs, gave them summer jobs, and essentially tested them out. Those who did good work but had more schooling left were either placed on our hot list to hire after graduation or were invited back for another internship the following summer. It served as a great barometer for talent and has resulted in the hire of many talented employees.<br />
<br />
This process is clearly not a new phenomenon, and I doubt the information above comes as a shock to anybody. What floors me, though, is that many companies are looking to scrap their intern programs altogether because of the economy! This is something that truly does not make any sense to me on several different levels.<br />
<br />
<b>College interns are inexpensive:</b><br />
Let's face it; pay rates for college interns are nowhere near as high as full time staff pay. In fact, even the highest paid interns rarely make much more than half the hourly rate of a staff employee and they don't get things such as medical benefits or vacation time. On top of this, many college students are willing to work for free in order to gain experience. This turns into a very cheap (if not free) method of try-before-you-buy!<br />
<br />
<b>Good interns add value:</b><br />
A good intern can be a great way to add some serious value to the company with a very small investment. Considering the low level of pay, any ROI from an intern is going to be high assuming they are a good, hard worker. Any good intern is going to be very eager to make a good impression because they are working for a job they don't have yet, and that is a pretty big carrot dangling in front of them.<br />
<br />
<b>Interns turn into entry level hires:</b><br />
If a company has a solid intern program in place it makes recruiting entry level candidates very easy. At the end of the summer, or partway through the school year, job offers can be made to the top interns. You've had an entire summer to interview them and see how they work, so a job offer can be made with a great degree of confidence.<br />
<br />
<b>Interns have friends who are looking for jobs:</b><br />
A good internship program will get a company a bunch of great PR for free. Let's face it, students talk with each other...a lot. If they had a good experience as an intern they will have it on their Facebook and MySpace pages, will talk to classmates, tell professors, and generally build up excitement about working for your company. If an intern program is strong enough, entry level hiring can sometimes be accomplished without going any further than the referral system and drawing on the network your interns have built for you.<br />
<br />
<b>Schools love companies that hire their students:</b><br />
Hiring students for internships or entry level positions absolutely thrills colleges and universities. They want to boast great employment statistics, so they tend to get their hooks into companies that hire their graduating seniors. If a company begins to show a trend of hiring students from a particular college the career centers and professors will practically do the recruiting for you. They will start providing lists (and even resumes) of their top performing students with degrees that apply to your industry.<br />
<br />
There are clearly plenty of benefits to having a strong intern program, and a company stands to lose quite a bit when they suddenly pull the plug on their program. Even if hiring has screeched to a halt for staff positions, I still think it wise to employ a few interns this coming summer. After all, building those relationships and getting the positive word of mouth traveling around is hard work, but grinding them to a halt is pretty easy to do.Recruiter Mantag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-05:502551:BlogPost:5782472009-03-05T21:04:15.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Taking a little inspiration from one of my all-time favorites, I re-wrote a song to cheer up an agency friend of mine who had a string of bad luck. I realize my lyrics aren't nearly as genius as the original, but hopefully this at least brings a smile to a few faces.<br />
<br />
It's five o'clock on a Friday<br />
The clock watchers all punching out<br />
My manager he walks up to me<br />
And he looks just a bit down and out<br />
<br />
He says, "Son, can you find me a resume?<br />
I'm not really sure where to look<br />
But I know that you do…
Taking a little inspiration from one of my all-time favorites, I re-wrote a song to cheer up an agency friend of mine who had a string of bad luck. I realize my lyrics aren't nearly as genius as the original, but hopefully this at least brings a smile to a few faces.<br />
<br />
It's five o'clock on a Friday<br />
The clock watchers all punching out<br />
My manager he walks up to me<br />
And he looks just a bit down and out<br />
<br />
He says, "Son, can you find me a resume?<br />
I'm not really sure where to look<br />
But I know that you do which is why I chose you<br />
To help get me off of this hook"<br />
<br />
La la la, de de da<br />
La la, de de da da da<br />
<br />
CHORUS:<br />
Find us a resume recruiter man<br />
Find me the right candidate<br />
Well, we need you to make this next placement<br />
Or you and I share the same fate<br />
<br />
Now I take the req and I look at it<br />
My boss he smiles with glee<br />
I just get settled in and go right back to work<br />
Because that’s how I’ll earn my next fee<br />
He says, "Kid, it is just this economy."<br />
As a smile ran away from his face<br />
"We’ve cut all our fees and still we lose heads<br />
I can’t see us winning this race"<br />
<br />
Oh, la la la, de de da<br />
La la, de de da da da<br />
<br />
My boss is not much of an optimist<br />
Who never looks on the bright side<br />
But he's preaching with fervor about why he’s so sure<br />
That we’re all in for quite a long ride<br />
<br />
I search the database and call my networks<br />
As the hours they slowly roll past<br />
Yes, it’s late and I’m tired, but I’ve been hard wired<br />
And I just can’t give up that fast!<br />
<br />
CHORUS<br />
<br />
It's a pretty hard req to be working on<br />
And my manager gives me a smile<br />
'Cause he knows that it's me who will earn that next fee<br />
And keep the doors open awhile<br />
And the offer, it comes like we wanted it<br />
And the candidate says ‘yes’ thank you!<br />
And my boss slaps me five and I feel more alive<br />
I say, "That’s why I love what I do!"<br />
<br />
Oh, la la la, de de da<br />
La la, de de da da da<br />
<br />
CHORUSDo LinkedIn Recommendations Really Mean Anything?tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-04:502551:BlogPost:5767792009-03-04T19:03:37.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Just this morning I received a request from one of my contacts to write a recommendation for his profile. Although I had met and spoken with this gentleman a few times before I didn't quite know him well enough to write anything but I clicked on his profile out of curiosity all the same. Not very surprisingly he has a lot of recommendations which were likely solicited in a similar manner from his other contacts. What did shock me was the sheer number of them, though - over 1,400!<br />
<br />
Now, the…
Just this morning I received a request from one of my contacts to write a recommendation for his profile. Although I had met and spoken with this gentleman a few times before I didn't quite know him well enough to write anything but I clicked on his profile out of curiosity all the same. Not very surprisingly he has a lot of recommendations which were likely solicited in a similar manner from his other contacts. What did shock me was the sheer number of them, though - over 1,400!<br />
<br />
Now, the first problem with have four digits worth of recommendations is that his profile was a mile long and better than 90% of it was taken up by recommendations. Of his recommendations the vast majority were incredibly generic messages reading something to the effect of "Joe Blow is a great guy and I'm glad he's in my network." In all fairness there were some very legitimate write-ups on his page as well, but they were so few and far between it would take quite a long time to find enough recommendations of any substance to make reading them worthwhile.<br />
<br />
From my understanding, the purpose of having recommendations on LinkedIn is to have something of a built-in reference system. Obviously nobody in his or her right mind would approve a recommendation that is slanderous, but the intent is still good. If this is the purpose, what good does it do to have literally hundreds of relatively meaningless one-liners written by people who hardly know you? In a word - zero.<br />
<br />
In my opinion recommendations are one area in which quality should <b>always</b> be more important than quantity. No matter how many connections you have, or why you have them, recommendations should still be treated with a little more reverence, otherwise even the legitimate ones seem a bit tainted quite frankly.Tech Heavy Sourcing Tools Mean Nothingtag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-03-02:502551:BlogPost:5732482009-03-02T15:39:10.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
All the tech tools that we have for sourcing are great, but don't mean a whole lot if you can't use the information you gather. Click <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bz746k">here</a> to read more.
All the tech tools that we have for sourcing are great, but don't mean a whole lot if you can't use the information you gather. Click <a href="http://tinyurl.com/bz746k">here</a> to read more.Don't be a lemming...just like metag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-02-27:502551:BlogPost:5709382009-02-27T19:43:03.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Lately candidate treatment, technique, and discussions of the like have been pretty hot, and two posts in particular got me to thinking. One was Becky's admission to on-the-job bullying, and the other was Dan's response touting the virtues of being true to yourself. The more I thought I about it the more I realized that I actually had a very hard time coming to terms with these issues when I first began recruiting.<br />
<br />
When I accepted my first job as a recruiter I actually had no idea what I was…
Lately candidate treatment, technique, and discussions of the like have been pretty hot, and two posts in particular got me to thinking. One was Becky's admission to on-the-job bullying, and the other was Dan's response touting the virtues of being true to yourself. The more I thought I about it the more I realized that I actually had a very hard time coming to terms with these issues when I first began recruiting.<br />
<br />
When I accepted my first job as a recruiter I actually had no idea what I was to be doing. The only recruiters I had ever heard of were the marines who stood in my high school cafeteria trying to coax unassuming teenagers into enlisting. I was assured I would not be 'that guy' but was still very green. In lieu of a formal training course I was fortunate enough to be seated right smack in the middle of several senior recruiters, all of whom had very different styles. It was an outstanding, if not overwhelming, learning experience that almost burnt me out before I ever got started.<br />
<br />
The problem was that every time I heard something I liked in their intro, process, or close, I would try to do the same exact thing. In no time at all I was a hodge-podge mess of recruiting blather that didn't flow very well or make much sense at all. I was terrible on the phone and I knew it. How could I be surrounded by such successful recruiters, use each of their best techniques, and still just flat-out stink?! It was truly maddening until I figured it out. I was not being one bit of myself on that phone. It was as if the clouds parted so I could bask in the heavenly glow of my revelation. I was faking it.<br />
<br />
Starting with my very next phone call I did almost everything differently: no more rigid structure, no more kung-fu death grip close; just a relaxed, conversational approach of getting to know my candidates. I immediately started feeling better about my calls, starting getting more quality candidates submitted on jobs, and starting getting hires on the board. It was amazing what a difference it made to do things the way I was most comfortable!<br />
<br />
Over time I've continued to tweak my approach adding to my repertoire my version of somebody else's successful approach. I'm still far from perfect, but I'm getting better and I think it has a lot to do with refusing to just copy and paste somebody else's style.Recruiters are jerkstag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-02-26:502551:BlogPost:5693062009-02-26T19:57:22.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Imagine the shock when I actually had a candidate tell me this on the phone today. His statement was so matter-of-fact that it blew my mind. He was adamant about it too, completely unwavering in his opinion. Fast forward through several minutes of conversation and although his tone had lightened, he stuck to his guns. "Think what you want, but I'm still convinced recruiters are jerks…"<br />
<br />
What could possibly have led him to such a fervent belief? Why automatically classify all recruiters as…
Imagine the shock when I actually had a candidate tell me this on the phone today. His statement was so matter-of-fact that it blew my mind. He was adamant about it too, completely unwavering in his opinion. Fast forward through several minutes of conversation and although his tone had lightened, he stuck to his guns. "Think what you want, but I'm still convinced recruiters are jerks…"<br />
<br />
What could possibly have led him to such a fervent belief? Why automatically classify all recruiters as jerks? I'm sure that some recruiters are jerks, but so are some managers, candidates, employees, you name it. There also happen to be some really great people in all of those categories as well. The guy I was talking to refused to believe it, though, and I really wanted to know why.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
When I first picked up the phone to call I never would have anticipated the conversation taking such a drastic turn right off the bat. Then again, perhaps this was a good reminder to always expect the unexpected, which is sort of a conundrum in and of itself. Our conversation began amiably enough exchanging a quick hello, confirming that the timing of the call was convenient, and informing him that I wanted to discuss his application to our company. Without skipping a beat he launched into a series of extremely technical questions before I could even tell him my name or what I do.<br />
<br />
Taking shorthand notes at breakneck speed to avoid missing any of his queries I let him go on for a couple of minutes then politely interjected that perhaps some of the heavier technical issues are better left for a conversation with the hiring manager than me, the recruiter. Rather than the expected cordial response I was met with something much more abrasive. "You're a recruiter? Why would I waste my time with you?" Clearly not what I was expecting.<br />
<br />
Equally motivated by curiosity and a desire to defend my profession I decided to push the issue a little bit and figure out why he was so opposed to speaking with such a base form of life as me. As it turns out, he has been on the short end of a few recruiting deals conducted with less than the usual regard for ethical behavior. Specifically having a current (although now former) boss called for a reference despite the specific request not to do so as his job search was completely confidential. He was immediately terminated and is still holding a pretty healthy grudge.<br />
<br />
I did my very best to explain that not all recruiters act only on behalf of themselves and their customers; many actually care about the careers and livelihoods of the people they recruit. I hate to admit that I made little to no progress, but I can understand why. It is like dating somebody and getting cheated on. Your trust is broken, and is generally very difficult to earn back. Even if you move on to somebody else, defenses may still be a little stodgier than before even if it is unwarranted.<br />
<br />
In an effort to re-instill a little bit of faith for recruiterkind in this candidate I made the following offer. He was to spend the time necessary with me to discuss the position, his qualifications, and his level of interest. Assuming he desired to proceed I would present his resume to the manager and provide feedback be it good, bad, or indifferent before the weekend. If I held my end of the bargain, he had to loosen up a bit and admit that not all recruiters are horrible people.<br />
<br />
"Think what you want, but I'm still convinced recruiters are jerks...but I'll give you one shot to prove me otherwise."<br />
<br />
You'd better believe I'll be calling before the weekend.No thanks, I just don't like themtag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-02-24:502551:BlogPost:5653742009-02-24T19:22:43.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
There are a plethora of reasons why a manager can (and will) disqualify a candidate. Sometimes this decision is made for a logical reason, other times it seems as though they reject resumes a la cranky toddler rejecting vegetables. If the latter is the case, how and what can a recruiter communicate to the candidate?<br />
<br />
I have been in this dilemma before and if the explanation was too outlandish or altogether nonexistent I could be vague and apologize to the candidate that our customer wasn't…
There are a plethora of reasons why a manager can (and will) disqualify a candidate. Sometimes this decision is made for a logical reason, other times it seems as though they reject resumes a la cranky toddler rejecting vegetables. If the latter is the case, how and what can a recruiter communicate to the candidate?<br />
<br />
I have been in this dilemma before and if the explanation was too outlandish or altogether nonexistent I could be vague and apologize to the candidate that our customer wasn't cooperating and never told us why. It saved a likely unpleasant conversation and probably kept the egg off of a couple people's faces. Unfortunately I no longer have that luxury, and I've made the discovery that even corporate recruiters get the runaround from managers.<br />
<br />
Part one to implementing a solution involves a little sit-down with the manager. We owe it to ourselves, our candidates, and the hiring manager to carve out a bit of time if the disqualifications start to get a little arbitrary or discriminatory. If the DQ is an issue of discrimination the discussion should probably have some HR involvement, but is self-explanatory. The seemingly random 'no thanks, but I didn't really like the font on the resume' variety can be a little trickier. There is usually a reason the manager doesn't like the candidate and we need to find out why for a couple of reasons. First, if we figure out what it is, we can avoid sending similar candidates in the future. Second, we can potentially offer some advice to the candidate about how to better present him or herself. Most importantly, hashing this out will give you a better understanding of the manager's thought process and will make the process go more smoothly anytime you work on his or her positions.<br />
<br />
Part two is handing disseminating this information back to the candidate. Even if you've gotten to the bottom of things with the manager, this task may not be any easier. After all, you could discover that the manager did a little digging with industry peers and found some not-so-favorable references. This is particularly likely to happen when recruiting in a niche area. While doing this discovery on your own is always the best policy, well-connected managers will lean on their networks to get the real scoop that sometimes goes unsaid in a reference call. This, along with other issues such as industry tenure, can prove to be very touchy subjects. Normally I would opt for honesty and full disclosure, but occasionally less is best when it comes to negative feedback. There is a lot to be said for a tactful and diplomatic response that leaves the candidate feeling as though you did your best to get them a legitimate answer.Why source candidates if I can't use them right now?tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-02-23:502551:BlogPost:5641242009-02-23T22:00:00.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
When business is booming and time is at more of a premium than gas was a few short months ago it sometimes becomes hard to justify spending the time to source excess candidates and fill your talent pool to the brim. Unfortunately for most, that time is not now.<br />
<br />
So, what to do with your free time? Why not source a few A+ candidates?<br />
<br />
Sure this takes work, and the time could be spent chasing down leads on jobs to fill. However, if you dedicate a little bit of time each day to sourcing some great…
When business is booming and time is at more of a premium than gas was a few short months ago it sometimes becomes hard to justify spending the time to source excess candidates and fill your talent pool to the brim. Unfortunately for most, that time is not now.<br />
<br />
So, what to do with your free time? Why not source a few A+ candidates?<br />
<br />
Sure this takes work, and the time could be spent chasing down leads on jobs to fill. However, if you dedicate a little bit of time each day to sourcing some great passive candidates in your niche, once the job orders come in you have a more current talent pool to draw from. The fact that you don't have any specific jobs to talk about may not even be a disadvantage. After all, these are passive candidates you will be sourcing.<br />
<br />
The cold (or perhaps lukewarm) call to them will be much less threatening if you can honestly the only purpose for the call is to network and discuss with them how you can both work together to further their career goals and aspirations. It is truly a win-win scenario and there is no downside to the candidate and nothing they have to commit to right away. Chances are if you take this consultative approach during slow times you'll have a lot less hang-ups.<br />
<br />
One reason this approach works and can be well-received is that even a passive candidate who likes his or her job can almost always think of a way their situation could be improved upon. There is no such thing as a perfect job, so invest a little bit of time now to find out what would get that candidate a little closer to experiencing Nirvana on the job. You just might find that it makes yours a lot easier down the road.Holding an ace up your sleeve?tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-02-19:502551:BlogPost:5599962009-02-19T22:18:55.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Honesty is the best policy.<br />
<br />
Certainly a phrase we've all heard, and likely one of life's first big lessons imparted on all of us. Why, then, do we have the temptation to keep information to ourselves or tell half-truths? Do we really think we are getting ahead? Will this sneaky tactic truly pay off in the long run? Considering that the majority of my career is ahead of me I won't make any claims to be the foremost authority on the subject, but some of the most honest and forthright people I've…
Honesty is the best policy.<br />
<br />
Certainly a phrase we've all heard, and likely one of life's first big lessons imparted on all of us. Why, then, do we have the temptation to keep information to ourselves or tell half-truths? Do we really think we are getting ahead? Will this sneaky tactic truly pay off in the long run? Considering that the majority of my career is ahead of me I won't make any claims to be the foremost authority on the subject, but some of the most honest and forthright people I've ever met have been far more successful than their seemingly dodgy counterparts.<br />
<br />
To me, there are a number of reasons why honesty is so important in our profession. Some are obvious while others may be less so. In either case, I think every now and again it is important to think about the most basic elements of our work, the core of how we operate - our own personal code of ethics, if you will. Here are the top two reasons why I am honest to a fault while conducting business.<br />
<br />
Honesty builds relationships. Not necessarily in a direct manner, but over time, and in conjunction with some other elements, being honest will not only build the relationship, it will ensure its longevity. This goes for both customers and candidates alike, and it is hard to tell which one honesty is more important for. While honesty with a customer is important for securing a payday (and hopefully the opportunity for more down the road), why be honest with our candidates?<br />
<br />
<b>Considering the following scenario:</b><br />
Customer XYZ has asked you to fill a position in New York and you find the perfect candidate who happens to live in Ohio, but is willing to make the move provided the job is good. Mr. Candidate begins interviewing and the job seems to be exactly what he wants, the pay fits, and he likes the idea of living in New York. Company XYZ loves Mr. Candidate and offers him the job. Mr. Candidate is still a bit nervous to quit his job, pull his kids out of school, and relocate, but is putting his trust in you that this is a good move. However, before the deal is done, company XYZ tells you the job will only be around for about a year but they haven't told Mr. Candidate for fear of scaring him off. They will still pay a full fee because they can't get the work done without Mr. Candidate.<br />
<br />
I feel like I'm back in a college ethics course, but I know what I would do. I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I did it any other way. I'd have to come clean with the candidate. It is almost a guarantee that he will turn down the job, but imagine his gratitude! Further, the next time you present an opportunity for him his confidence that the role is legitimate will be through the roof because you've signed off on it. I know that personal satisfaction doesn't pay the bills, but pulling the rug out from under an entire family isn't worth the extra cash in my pocket. No, I'd rather conduct honest business.<br />
<br />
Shedding the slimy stigma. Let's face it, there are some recruiters out there who will do anything to make a buck and have given those of us who operate in a morally and ethically upstanding manner a bad name. Unfortunately this is a tough image to shed, and most customers inherently don't like hearing from us (even when you're an internal recruiter). Perhaps it is the fact that some associate us with the used car sales type pushing our wares on an unwitting shopper just looking to kick the tires. Perhaps it is the candidate who never got feedback, or worse yet got bogus reasons or a bland 'thanks, but no thanks' letter after going through three rounds of interviews. How do we go about shedding this image? Start by meaning what you say, and backing it up with actions. To cite another cliché, if actions speak louder than words, how loud will your actions speak if they always match what you say?<br />
<br />
I think the guys from Spinal Tap had the right idea adding 11 to the dial...Why do I blog?tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-02-19:502551:BlogPost:5584612009-02-19T13:31:54.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
My hat's off to Dan for inspiring this post. After reading his I began thinking about why it is that I blog here.<br />
<br />
I think what it boils down to is my desire to continue learning and expanding my knowledge not only of my profession, but the world around me. That may not sound like it has much to do with me writing blog posts, but bear with me. I think that knowledge and learning are paramount to success. Anybody who tells me they are pondering whether to go straight through grad school or come…
My hat's off to Dan for inspiring this post. After reading his I began thinking about why it is that I blog here.<br />
<br />
I think what it boils down to is my desire to continue learning and expanding my knowledge not only of my profession, but the world around me. That may not sound like it has much to do with me writing blog posts, but bear with me. I think that knowledge and learning are paramount to success. Anybody who tells me they are pondering whether to go straight through grad school or come out and start making money is advised to do grad school first. I <b>love</b> the exchange of ideas, personal growth, and general intellectual development that occurs in the higher education setting. Not so coincidentally this is why I can't wait to start my MBA and have been kicking myself for not just doing it immediately after finishing my undergrad.<br />
<br />
So again, what does this have to do with my blogging activity?<br />
<br />
At the most simple level I feel a duty to give something back. Even if I cannot directly repay the people who taught me valuable lessons, whether they be classroom, professional, or real-life, I want to impart my knowledge and ideas on other people interested in learning more. I won't claim to be an expert, but would like to think that each of us has a unique perspective on the business and therefore has something of value to share. My hope in writing my blog posts is that I am able to put something out that in some way or another helps somebody else, even if it is to remind them of what not to do.<br />
<br />
Dan did mention that everybody is here to get something as well. To be truthful, I am as well.<br />
<br />
I have a couple of not-so-secret ambitions. First and foremost, I am hoping that once I've spent 15-20 or so years in the business community that I will be able to work my way into a university setting as an adjunct professor teaching a night or weekend class per semester. I plan on doing this until I'm ready for retirement at which point I hope to teach full time. This is also part of my desire to give something or perhaps more accurately pay it forward. I consider this to be something of a practice round for me, getting a feel for best methods of delivery for my information.<br />
<br />
I also really enjoy writing. I have had the inclination for some time to do some sort of creative writing with the goal of getting something published. Perhaps a novel or short story, or maybe a screenplay. it doesn't much matter what it is, I just enjoy story telling.<br />
<br />
Again, I tip my hat to Dan for giving me an excuse to take a little time and reflect on myself and what exactly it is that I'm doing here!Surprisingly enough the answer was right under my nosetag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-02-16:502551:BlogPost:5543212009-02-16T21:41:49.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
When working on a position that is open for a while things tend to change a time or two. The manager wants a different certification, more experience, less experience, an advanced degree, or a whole different skill set if you give them enough time. Unfortunately, this is the kind of position I have just recently begun the recruiting process on. It has been open for a few months and the manager has reviewed and declined over 60 resumes (and counting).<br />
<br />
I've only been in the loop a week or two,…
When working on a position that is open for a while things tend to change a time or two. The manager wants a different certification, more experience, less experience, an advanced degree, or a whole different skill set if you give them enough time. Unfortunately, this is the kind of position I have just recently begun the recruiting process on. It has been open for a few months and the manager has reviewed and declined over 60 resumes (and counting).<br />
<br />
I've only been in the loop a week or two, but something seemed curious about the requirements. Upon further review it turns out that originally skill A was imperative and skill B could be taught on the job, but just about 3 weeks ago the manger decided he could not live without B and would teach A to whoever he hires. This is enough to make any recruiter groan. Time to revamp the search and start from scratch, right?<br />
<br />
Wrong.<br />
<br />
Sure, I have been generating some new candidates, but there are still 60 others that were submitted previously. Surely some of those 60 were declined because they were too heavy on B when the manager was ideally seeking A, right? After doing a little bit of digging, this was found to be exactly the case. In fact, there are over 20 candidates the manager labeled as 'high potential' but were too focused on the wrong area. A quick phone call to the manager confirmed what I had hoped - he is more than willing to review all such candidates who are still interested pending the change.<br />
<br />
So now instead going all the way back to the drawing board and having to completely revamp my search, I'm able to leverage some work that was already done and deliver quality candidates to the manager quickly. Sometimes it is all about working smarter and not harder!So the wind was let out of my sails a bit. What now?tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-02-13:502551:BlogPost:5515072009-02-13T15:30:00.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
As much as I hate to admit it, the honeymoon period seems to be coming to a close for me. In no way does this mean I dislike my job, who I work for, or the people I work with. Rather, this week finally brought forth irrefutable evidence that the company I am working for is not, in fact, immune to the recession.<br />
<br />
In all honesty I knew this was the case all along, but at least for a while it seemed as though the proactive stance that was taken to operate as frugally as possible was actually going…
As much as I hate to admit it, the honeymoon period seems to be coming to a close for me. In no way does this mean I dislike my job, who I work for, or the people I work with. Rather, this week finally brought forth irrefutable evidence that the company I am working for is not, in fact, immune to the recession.<br />
<br />
In all honesty I knew this was the case all along, but at least for a while it seemed as though the proactive stance that was taken to operate as frugally as possible was actually going to allow us to ride things out without too much pain caused to employees. Unfortunately this is no longer the case as the auto industry continues to be as popular as a root canal. There have been some disheartening announcements recently, such as a lack of merit increases, stricter standards for promotions, and severely reduced travel budgets. None of this seems unreasonable, unwarranted, or uncommon. Then came the final blow for me - the suspension of our education assistance program. I found out literally a couple hours after I put in my pre-approval application to have funds reimbursed for my MBA.<br />
<br />
Was this news unexpected? Not in the least. Was it depressing? Most definitely. After all, it took me almost two years to get a job here in the first place and now that I had finally reached a point of being able to take advantage of the benefit I most wanted, that benefit was no longer available to me. Now the goal that currently tops my list of 'personal achievements to accomplish before 30' must be put oh hold again.<br />
<br />
I won't lie, I allowed myself a one evening pity party. A phone call to my best friend and brother (same person, in case you're wondering), some mindless TV and a Sam Adams. After an evening of that I was about sick of the woe is me routine already, so now the question is how to move forward.<br />
<br />
Those of you who know a bit about me should realize that I am a huge proponent of being your company's biggest cheerleader, advocate, and PR manager. That said, considering how high my hopes were for starting my MBA this summer I was dealt a big blow this week, but I cannot let this show when talking to my candidates, peers, or management. Further, because there are so many people feeling the effects of limited finances I volunteered myself to be involved in the HR committee responsible for finding ways to boost morale without costing money.<br />
<br />
It has been a long and grueling week, and I am looking forward to the weekend more today than I have in a long time, but I'm also looking forward to the challenge I just put in front of myself. At present I plan on connecting with all the department heads to ask for a couple of recent success stories I can share, then work with our communications team to start a weekly or bi-weekly feature of great things going on in our office. It might sound corny, but it is a start, and I'm sure more (and better) ideas will follow. As for the present, I think that right about now the people here need a few extra pats on the back and I'd be honored to be the one handing them out.Client or Candidate - who is the real customer here?tag:recruitingblogs.com,2009-02-12:502551:BlogPost:5496192009-02-12T14:41:42.000ZGino Contihttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/GinoConti56
Is the client or the candidate the more important customer? When working for a staffing firm I can recall having this argument many times. It usually started when the candidate wanted more out of the client thus making some negotiations necessary. It was a two-way street, though, and the salespeople made their argument loud and clear when the client made similar requests.<br />
<br />
So who really is the customer? The client? The candidate? Both? If both, who takes precedence during tough negotiations?…
Is the client or the candidate the more important customer? When working for a staffing firm I can recall having this argument many times. It usually started when the candidate wanted more out of the client thus making some negotiations necessary. It was a two-way street, though, and the salespeople made their argument loud and clear when the client made similar requests.<br />
<br />
So who really is the customer? The client? The candidate? Both? If both, who takes precedence during tough negotiations? Not to ruin the punch line, but I firmly believe the answer is that both are equally important.<br />
<br />
On the client side of the equation there are several obvious reasons why salespeople not only consider them to be a customer, but consider them to be <i><b>the only</b></i> customer. First and foremost, clients pay the bills that keep the lights on and the paychecks coming. To many people that is enough of an argument to roll out the red carpet and be done with it. There are other reasons why clients should be treated as a customer (although I would further argue they should be a partner, but that isn't the debate at hand). The client is on the receiving end of a service provided by the recruiter or firm. The client has the ability to determine whether or not your product or service is worthy of their purchase. The client can cut you off for any reason or no reason at all. Perhaps most importantly, though, there are far fewer clients than there are candidates. This, combined with the bill-paying argument can be put together for a mean one-two punch.<br />
<br />
Arguing that the candidate is the customer comes at a disadvantage to begin with, since client is essentially synonymous with customer. Additionally, candidates don't pay you the way clients do, and there are [almost] always more fish in the sea if the first one doesn't work out. However, a recruiter firm in his or her beliefs can mount a pretty impressive rebuttal.<br />
<br />
Obviously the candidate plays a pivotal role in the process. Without an interested candidate who meets the requirements and is willing to take the job offer, the firm or recruiter never gets paid. This is usually the biggest ticket item and most elementary of arguments. There are other reasons why a candidate should be considered a customer, though. For one thing, the candidate has a lot to do with building your reputation with the client. If the candidate is not truly happy with the position he or she is placed in, major problems can occur such as not lasting for the guarantee period, being under motivated, or simply not living up to expectations. As such, the candidate must be treated as a customer and placed in a role that he or she will be truly enthusiastic about! Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, a candidate can lead to future business by way of referrals, heads-up on new positions, future placements, or if in a hiring role can select you as a supplier. A good recruiter-candidate relationship will lead to future business in a number of different ways, so that relationship needs to be cared for and treated with respect!<br />
<br />
While it is true that the client is the customer that cuts the check, the candidate is the customer that drives the business. Without one, the other will mean nothing to your business. It is a delicate balance to keep, but each side must be catered to when possible, and roped in when necessary in order to honor their counterpart's requests.