Bounty Jobs -- Wrong For Recruiters? HR! -- Nope because you’re not a car guy!

Ok. I'll admit it. I too got pulled into believing that as a newly independent IT Recruiter I could jump-start my desk with Bounty Jobs by getting right into the recruiting as the job orders are already there, (due to non-compete agreements, I had no JO's initially.) Also there are big companies involved and the playing field is somewhat leveled with big firms. Their model clearly has potential.

It was as simple as coming up with a clever quip and clicking the engage button after which the potential client for your new business is provided a seven day window to determine whether they are ready to hire someone. The cost to the recruiter is 25% of the bounty. I thought "well it's certainly not ideal but after a couple quick shots in the arm, future engagements with Bounty Jobs will be as a supplement to my desk and not a primary source of income which continues to be my approach.

Well after my last two experiences with Bounty Jobs, I have determined that "this is for the birds." The fundamental flaw with the entire Bounty Jobs concept is the jobs are all submitted by the HR departments, forcing you to deal with a department that simply isn't equipped to deal with IT positions effectively and efficiently, (in my humble opinion). I liken it to taking my car in for repair at the local subway sandwich shop. "I'm here for car repair Mr Subway-samich-guy!" and leave my car (hoopdie as the kids say). Now he can look at it, scratch his head and even tinker but in the end you’re going to a car guy! Let me say that I am not anti-HR, (or anti-shade tree mechanic) but I have found in the case of HR, their department is generally a pain to work with. Let me provide you just one example.

Let me preface my example by telling you that I stated clearly in my profile with Bounty Jobs that I require one-on-one phone time with the hiring manager to speak to the position beyond the typical job description, (Not those exact words but you get the point). In HR's defense many times they are simply cutting and pasting the IT Hiring Managers words. (On a side note I don't believe that Hiring Managers are necessarily good at written job descriptions).

I got engaged on what I thought to be a great opportunity, a lead applications developer. I had a limited amount of time with the hiring manager (by conference call with HR! HA!) but felt I had the necessary information to conduct a good search. It's interesting that while on that conference call the HR individual said several times "thats a good question." as did the hiring manager which told me that they found me to be credible, In their eyes I deserve a spot at the table so to speak. At the end of the talk he agreed that I had a grip on what he was looking for and offered his cell number, (good stuff.) I found a couple great candidates, managed a send-out with one (logistics issues), and really looking forward to the next send-out (great candidate, salary, location, ability, attitude etc).

Then things started going south. First off, the HR, talent acquisition 20 something year old could not break herself of the 10-15 minute "phone screen" with my candidates! What!?! In the words of Ken Starr "I'm not a potted plant here!" My candidate, phone screened? If it must be so, then let the hiring manager do it, (the car guy!). Skip your completely unnecessary, counterproductive, senseless phone screen when all you ask is "Do you happen to have any experience in things that I know absolutely nothing about?" "What are your salary requirements?" Someone please help me here! The very fact that I have introduced him is enough for an on-site interview with the hiring manager, period.

I prepped my candidate before this phone screen reminding him that this isn't a money discussion and thought I had covered that ground pretty well with the HR Chickie. Obviously not! What does she do? She asks (according to my candidate verbatim) "What would you like to have as a starting salary?" My candidate feeling compelled to answer, answered as he did with me initially "115K." to which HR Chickie replied "OH!" ("OH!" being 5K north of target on the position). In retrospect, based on the generality of the question I'm equally surprised he didn't say 3 million!

The candidate during my follow-up explained that he would've rather not been asked that as he hasn't spoke to the hiring manager to further discuss the responsibilities of the position and struggled to add that with HR, fearing that he may come off cute or sarcastic.

In my conversation during the initial interview, the candidate gave me the same answer of 115K, after which I asked the candidate, what if I presented you with the "right opportunity", the work, the people, the culture, the commute, growth, opportunity, upward-mobility etc, etc, etc. What kind of pay-cut would you take? His response was 90K! (20K below their max pay).

So here we are. I received an email from HR Chickie, "At this time, we are not going to be moving forward with Bob or Bob."

WHAT? That second Bob is a great candidate! She has decided not to schedule an interview with the hiring manager. (The first Bob had to withdrawal as his circumstances changed and had my blessing.)

I felt like saying "Hey, 20 something yr old Subway-samich-HRchickie your making a big mistake, shouldn't we consult with.... you know the car guy" I didn't of course!

When I once did attempt direct communication with "Car Guy" through email (& cc) earlier on I received a smack on the hands from HR-Chickie "I would appreciate it if you would direct all communication about the candidates and process through me." Really!

Well, that’s where I'm at. My concern with Bounty Jobs is their model should close the gap between the needs of recruiters and those of HR and I'm sure they try to do so. After all, Bounty Jobs relies on placements to make dollars (as do we all.) Honestly, the companies that use Bounty Jobs are stuck in their same way of doing things and the HR departments are stuck in their processes. Someone should come up with a model that works as certain aspects of the Bounty Jobs model appeal to me. As I said earlier the ability to get your foot in the door with larger organizations and being placed somewhat on a level playing field with the big agencies is cool. My thinking is -- make placements, build relationships, Bounty Jobs offering me that leg up.

The bottom line is that one on one interaction with the hiring manager is necessary as he/she can offer insights to the work, skills, culture, soft skills, expectations etc. that cannot be gleaned from the five sentence paragraph that describes the $120K job!

Gut punches come with the territory in this profession and I don’t claim to have all the answers. I continue

to have a teachable spirit as well as the tenacity to keep swinging.

Certainly I’ve learned over the years to let the car guys be car guys, the sandwich guys to be sandwich guys.

(At times I do shade-tree mechanic & fix sandwiches.)

HR, if your company has agreed to a fee, it’s likely that it’s due at least in part to your inability to fill the position efficiently through traditional means. Your company feels that paying me thousands of dollars for a few weeks work puts them further ahead than leaving it to your department.

I guess what I’m getting at is, stop dropping subway sandwich lettuce under the hood. I know what I’m doing and I’ll have this puppy purring like a well oiled machine.

Disclaimer: This is Travis’ second blog post (resubmitted) that hopefully will not alienate more than a few thousand people. Travis understands fully the necessity in forging lasting, mutually beneficial business relationships with Human Resources Departments and continues to move in that direction and he’s just getting started. Also Travis would like to admit to the entire community that he has gotten a little out of hand with the pictures but wishes to point out that it makes up for the complete lack of them in his first post. :)

Comment by Lisa Doorly on March 14, 2011 at 4:53pm: HR Chickie???????? If any recruiter ever referred to me as an HR Chickie it would be the last time I ever used their services. Stop viewing all of us in the HR profession as idiots - I may not be the SME for the job - but I know the culture, the team and whether or not your candidate is a good fit initially. Let's try to remember that we are only getting half the story here - it would be interesting to hear the HR professionals perspective.

Comment by Terry Cobb on March 14, 2011 at 4:54pm: Yours was an interesting read and I enjoyed the tongue in cheek humor. Actually, the information on Bounty was very interesting and I liked the different perspective. I have 25+ years of experience in the recruiting business, both in HR departments and as a headhunter. I know that ideally, any recruiter will want to speak directly with the hiring manager in order to get details and specifics that may not be as easily found via the HR recruiter. The problem exists that most hiring managers are way too busy to field every phone call from every headhunter that wants a piece of the action. The HR folks are generally tasked with being the buffer zone and filtering in the candidates that meet the criteria. The most successful headhunters I dealt with during my HR years, were very good at establishing a good relationship with me because they knew they weren't getting anywhere in the IT department unless they did. The ones that worked best with me, were often rewarded with direct conversations with the hiring managers. As I went out into the world of headhunting, I used my HR experience to cultivate a network of HR contacts and found it much easier to get inside to speak with the people I needed most. During my HR years, I had one IT Director that would black ball any headhunter that tried to by-pass the system he put into place. You do need to be aggressive in this business but sometimes a flanking movement is better than a frontal assault.

Good luck in your new endeavor!

Comment by Randy Alexander on March 14, 2011 at 4:54pm: WOW Doug, that's pretty deep. While I believe it is important for an agency recruiter to prep its candidates, an overly prepped candidate is going to come across as overly prepped. And more times than not, that add's a level of risk to the hiring decision that wont be overlooked. You are going to hate me for this, but here goes. I always ask my candidates their current comp structure very early in the process (first phone interview, or second conversation). I don't ask comp expectations because I agree it is a bit premature prior to my organization determining a candidates skill set, and prior to a candidate having information about the scope of the role. Having said that, I am not into wasting my time, a hiring managers time, or a candidates time. To me, a highly prepped candidate screams of insecure recruiter. Who am I getting, the candidate or the recruiter? You are an agency recruiter, not a sports agent for the NFL. If you want to build trust with your candidates AND the companies that pay you a fee, try respecting the process of those said companies. My goal isn't to nickle and dime a candidate, or to underpay them. My goal is to pay an equitable rate based on skillset, scope of role, market conditions, and sometimes even internal equity issues.

Comment by Randy Alexander on March 14, 2011 at 5:18pm: Doug,

After reading your post again, what irks me (most) is your last statement. "Your credibility and expertise is discounted, and it is difficult to control an HR person who looks down on you." Why is it you feel a need to control an HR person? What about controlling an HR person allows you to be a strategic partner with the HR person's organization? IF they look up, down, or side to side at you, your credibility and expertise are discounted the moment you attempt to control a business partner - regardless of what functional area that person works in (HR, Finance, Marketing, etc). Your post is pretty indicative of the games you play. I have news for you, companies aren't into playing games and wasting time with these games. Have a bit more respect for your profession, and for the people you partner with (which includes your candidates). If a recruiter gave me a "script" on how to answer a question I would be highly offended! I imagine I am not the only one....

Comment by Doug Boswell on March 14, 2011 at 5:48pm: Randy,

My post was directed to recruiters not HR folk. You have, as I would expect, misinterpreted the content and intent of my post because you have, understandably, viewed it from the HR perspective. Plus you seem a bit defensive, perhaps even insecure about how recruiters see you.

We recruiters use the word "control" in a sales-type fashion, not in the fashion that your boss uses it in regards to you. It is the word we use to discuss optimizing the interactions, educating the parties involved in "best practices", and making sure the candidate and the employer don't get so caught up in internal policy & procedure that they both loose.

I don't over prep my candidates. This is what recruiters do. We educate our candidates in the employment/hiring process, as they are not expert in it. Most only gain a small amount of experience in the process a couple times per decade. I see it, and all that can go wrong with it, every day. You know that star candidate your company just hired? That person who said everything right, did everything right and gave that great impression? That how my candidates come across, because I prep them for the process, coach them as to how to best respond and how to properly present themselves. It's still them that you see. I've just taught them how to make the presentation.

This is no game. This is recruiting. And don't tell me you have any insight into me, my processes or level of respect for the people I deal with based on a couple of posts.

Comment by Travis Yeager on March 14, 2011 at 6:50pm: Randy, Doug, my isn't this good stuff. Randy, like I said this was just an instance, not a rule. This was just an example of how things went south in this particular instance. I have dealt with plenty of folks inside HR and generally don't have an issue.

Lisa, no offense intended with the nickname I chose. I would think you would feel the HR community has been well represented up to this point in these posts. I think you would also agree that you've run into some pretty crappy recruiters in your time right? Isn't it equally so that there are HR folks in the drivers seat that shouldn't be? I'll say once again that I'm not lumping anyone together and understand that HR is instrumental in the hiring process.

Terry, "The ones that worked best with me, were often rewarded with direct conversations with the hiring managers." Thats the culture. I work with HR okay and maybe get a reward. That speaks to the issue I would say. And to your other point, I understand hiring managers don't need hundreds of calls. So limit the number of people you engage but allow those you engage to do their job, thats all. I'm certainly not of the opinion that my way is better than any other and I'm not here to plead with multi-billion dollar corporations to restructure for the sake of the recruiting world. If we, meaning the HR departments and the recruiters are engaged then lets work together towards the goal of finding the best candidates for the position. (Not re-run everyones work.)

I continue to learn everyday and stay very passionate about what I do.

Randy, you used a larger font earlier as to bring my attention. :) I do feel that the candidates I introduce should have an interview. I've spoken to 80-100 (sometimes more, sometimes less) in that role your hiring for, interviewed 10-15 that made the cut and introduced the very best I could find. (My numbers say I'll intro 3, you'll interview 2, hire 1.) I would think that the recruiter would lose credibility and control of a candidate that was interviewed for a couple hours by me and then asked the same questions by you for another hour. A passive candidate I would think would feel like "why didn't travie just send Randy my resume". I think perhaps you misunderstand the role of a recruiter or maybe I'm working entirely to hard. I don't just screen the candidates I send after looking at buzzwords (although I know some do). There is a process and it involves everything from skills and abilities to their goals, family and potential issues, negotiation, relocation, etc.. A snapshot if you will of their lives and lives are what were dealing with here. It's a serious business that deserves our best. Yes, responding to all of these post does take some time. I think it's worth it don't you?

Doug, were on the same page I believe. "control", "lead" etc.. As a recruiter I set expectations for my candidates and for the hiring managers. I, by having access to the hiring managers find out what they are looking for and try my best to find that person. I don't hit every time. But I've been "on" a lot more than "off". I sometimes feel that HR (I don't mean all here Lisa, no lumping!) can get in the way of what should be a simple business which is why for the most part, they come in at the latter stages after the hiring manager has indicated that he found the one he wants to hire.

< not lumping

Comment by Lynsey Driscoll on March 15, 2011 at 11:22am: I could not agree with you more! In addition to all the correct comments, there is such a false sense of security as well. When you have 10 Bounty's going on at once, which is their limit, you feel like you are going to make a placement because you really put in the time....for me it was MONTHS!! And after months and months of getting the run around, the HR folks changing positions mid-stream or not calling you back at all, and the rules, rules, rules where you have no control except on the candidate side....I will take my own Clients with my own contacts any day!!! There is much more control and you can build that personal relationship which is KEY to recruiting!! With Bounty Jobs you are just a number...face it!! I don't want to be a number....I want to make a difference!!

Comment by Ted Fitter on March 15, 2011 at 11:30am: Travis:

To get around the comp question might suggest two answers:

- First time it's asked something like "We're a bit early in the evaluation process so it would be difficult for me to say what compensation the position might support."

- If the interviewer persists, then perhaps a second response might be something like "In my last position my compensation was $xxx,xxx and I'm sure that, at the appropriate time, a company with your reputation will present a fair and equitable offer."

Comment by Robert Wilson on March 15, 2011 at 1:47pm: Travis,

I normally don't read blogs, much less respond. We all need to occasionally to get a pulse of what the rest of the world is doing. I wanted to say thanks for bringing this issue forward.

There has been lots of lively discussion, from which we all see there is room for relationship improvement if you are going to be a partner. I like Randy's and Ted's approach on the 1st interview to only discuss their current/last salary and get into comp discussions and negotiations later on.

We need to harness the passion in both of the "HR as client" and "Recruiters as service provider" perspectives. In the end, the client pays so we have to deliver what they want if we want to keep the business. Recruiters need to dig for clues as to the perfect candidate and turn over every rock to find better matches. The client will also have an easier employee acquisition if they learn most service providers work as hard as they do and pour sweat blood and tears into searches and at times get jaded after bumping into numerous non existant job openings, lack of feedback on candidates, or changed job status. Yes, the better ones will deliver and they will get the repeat business. There are some good firms and many diamonds in the rough firms that get polished when the clients works hard at giving clearer expectations and feedback. In the end we are all working to fill the talent pipeline with quality people so the companies can grow and everyone prospers.

Comment by Carlos Gil on March 15, 2011 at 4:03pm: I'm with everyone else on this one - great article Travis! It definitely grabbed my attention via my email inbox (the newsletter) But also kudos to Mike at BountyJobs for gaining enough heat to draw this amount of viewership to their brand. In my opinion, any sort of exposure (whether good or bad) is better than none. Can you write about my site JobsDirectUSA (see: http://www.jobsdirectusa.com) next? LOL....