Death of Contingent Search

I read an interesting article over the weekend. It's called "The Death of Contingency Search", written by Adam Robinson, Founder & Editor of Better Hiring Today (http://betterhiringtoday.com/2008/09/10/the-death-of-contingent-search/). He makes some interesting points. One of them is - "Recruiting is no longer about who you know. It's about throughput". I thought this paragraph was particularly relevant:

"Which brings me to the issue at hand - the massive change going on in the recruitment business model. Pre-Internet, search firms would charge you 30% of their candidate’s base salary to access their network of potential candidates…and it was worth it. Back then. Now, those Rolodexes have substantially decreased in value. These recruiting technology innovations have served to greatly increase the amount of candidate information available to a corporate HR team, and HR departments across the country are now dealing with a huge influx of data. Their problem is no longer “how do I find someone for this job,” it’s now “who can help me sort through these 250 resumes?” That, my friends, is a throughput issue, not a recruiting issue. And throughput issues are solved with efficient and low-cost operating models."

Now a shameless plug:
This is where joblish can help. If recruiters, corporate & agency, were to use joblish in their job ads and were to demand that applicants submit resumes with joblish codes, it would allow them to machine search the 250 resumes, reading those that met the criteria and qualifications they are looking for. How much time could you save if you had to read 10 resumes instead of 250? Start using joblish and it will become a reality faster than you think.

Just a thought.

Comment by Jerry Albright on October 22, 2008 at 10:10am: As I follow this thread - and many others around the recruitosphere - I am once again reminded of just how many tools there are to distract us from simply PICKING UP THE PHONE and getting to know someone........

Comment by Jerry Albright on October 22, 2008 at 10:15am: Also - I'll add to Kevin's comment. Mark I do commend you on the work you have put into your tool. I know personally just how much work is involved in creating tools for the recruiting world. I do wish you luck. One of the things I've learned though - even though your idea may be what YOU have determined as revolutionary - the real work is in getting everyone ELSE to see it the same way. Check out what I've done - Verbal Summary

Comment by Paul DeBettignies on October 22, 2008 at 11:20am: I am in a unique position having been a contingent recruiter for 10+ years and for the past 1.5 years as Coordinator of the Minnesota Recruiters group, a 1,150 informal group of corporate, search, consulting recruiters.

Every event we have regardless of role I hear recruiters say we need less tools. We need more training. We need recruiters who understand people and how they work, what they want, what they require.

I hear VP’s and Managers say I need someone to teach my recruiters to build relationships, to learn to listen, to learn what “buying” signals are, to learn to close.

Frequently I hear tools are great but what the Recruiter does with them is what matters.

No doubt some tools will trim from the Recruiter ranks those who only use job boards as their recruiting source and push paper hoping one sticks. I would bet we are seeing that already with the slowing economy.

But I rely on my senior corporate recruiter friends who say next to a well trained internal recruiter their best tool is a well trained, experienced, highly networked search firm recruiter.

Comment by pam claughton on October 22, 2008 at 12:44pm: I took a look at the joblish site. It looks like an ambitious idea, though honestly, a bit complex, lots of manual steps which would be a deterrant for recruiters. This also seems to downplay searching on title. I've found that searching on title is the fastest, most efficient way to get candidates who have the right skillset and level of experience. So, at first glance, this seems as though it may be a tough sell....however, results are everything. If you get a few testimonials of people who think this tool is fantastic then maybe the skeptics will take a closer look. :) Good luck!

Comment by Jim Canto on October 22, 2008 at 12:46pm: Quoting Paul Debettignies: "We need recruiters who understand people and how they work, what they want, what they require."

Very nice. We're all salespeople folks. Understanding your target's needs is fundamental. If we don't meet their needs.... no deal. Simple.

Labels simply help you find someone in a stack. They do nothing to help you get to know or understand the individual's needs, wants and desires.

Comment by Mark Bielecki on October 22, 2008 at 1:21pm: Pam - From a previous post - "We know that titles are a minefield, so we didn't include them in joblish. Titles are chosen for many reasons - organizational philsophy, status, looks good on a business card, presents an image etc. They aren't chosen to inform an uninformed person about duties & responsibilities."

Titles aren't reliable. What's the difference between a Sales Rep, Account Manager, Territory Manager, Account Executive, District Sales Manager, Sales Engineer, Regional Sales Manager, Area Sales Manager, Account Representative, Territory Representative, District Sales Respresentative, Regional Sales Representative, Regional Business Leader and a Business Unit Manager? In my experience, they have mean exactly the same thing every time.......except the times that they didn't. You can make the same argument with education and industry.

You're are right, though - joblish is a little complex. There'll be a learning curve that users will have to go through. We already have an uncomplicated system - it's call English. We have to balance the need for simplicity with the need for accuracy.

Comment by pam claughton on October 23, 2008 at 3:51am: Mark,
Keep us posted on updates with Joblish. I look forward to hearing about user success stories. :) Pam

Comment by Kristin on October 27, 2008 at 2:25pm: Mark,

To me, the unwillingness to pay high "contingent" fees may be more because of the economy right now than anything. While attending a recent networking event, I had the opportunity to speak with a few high level corporate recruiters. They commented that they are seeing more and more applicants, however, those applying are typically not the A+ candidates they are looking for. Additionally, I have worked for some large fortune organizations that are still spending millions of dollars on search firm fees in addition to the large investments in new recruitment tools.