A start-up Web Design Firm needed to hire a UX Designer for their rapidly expanding portfolio. After being reasonably impressed by an array of recruiters, they "authorized" one of the recruiter’s named Tom to find a talented programmer to add to their team. Tom is a solid citizen who does his best to perform well for his clients. With the job specifications fresh in hand, Tom quickly prepares his plan and begins scouring an array of tech job sites and crafts a few boolean searches and narrowed the search to a few dozen resumes. Within hours, Tom begins making phone calls to interview the candidates to see if they possess the right skills for the Design Firm. After several days of recruiting calls, reference checks and further interviews to vet the candidates, Tom narrows his search down to the top three candidates that he thinks best embody all the attributes that the new company needs in a UX Designer. In fact, everything seemed to be moving along rather nicely.

The problem is that a few days prior, that same start-up company openly discussed the need with a different recruiter who happened to call in one day, unsolicited. Once recruiter #2 hung up the phone, he quickly ran a similar search online and downloaded a handful of resumes that he thought would fit the company's needs. He then proceeded to email these resumes directly to the Design Firm’s executive. By the time Recruiter Tom got the chance to present his top three candidates to the executive, the executive had to inform Tom that he had already received the same resumes from another recruiter. You guessed it, it was recruiter #2 who beat Tom to the punch. Guess which recruiter got paid?

You're a recruiter, so you already know the answer. The guy who deserved it the least got paid and Tom got Jack-Squat. These are the Rules of Engagement in the contingency world. The first recruiter who sends a resume in wins! So what is the logical outcome from such an incident?  The obvious reality is that if Tom wants to feed his family, he’d better quit vetting candidates and instead be the fastest trigger. Tom cannot afford to do what is in his client's best interests or he loses. It is pretty simple. That isn't to say that you can't still make money flinging resumes. "Quick Draw" recruiters do it all day long and can make a decent living. 

If technology hasn't caused you to re-think your value proposition as a recruiter, then you are being marginalized. You just don't know it yet. 

Views: 226

Comment by Sandra McCartt on February 24, 2012 at 2:14pm

Some of us are smart enough to book in a name pending interview and reference check to prevent the resume flingers from beating us.  We can then report to the client that we are withdrawing the candidate and why.  Instead of being marginialized we have just built more credibility with our clients. as well as marginializing the resume flingers.

Elementary and the first rule of good contingency recruiting instead of working in your bubble thinking there is  no one else out there working on something.  Sorry you didn't learn to work smart.  Using technology correctly builds  value as well as proving up speed.  and there are many better candidates than those who are easily findable.  It's not recruiting if all you do is run an internet search. A monkey can run a keyword search.

Comment

You need to be a member of RecruitingBlogs to add comments!

Join RecruitingBlogs

Subscribe

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

Just enter your e-mail address below

Webinar

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2020   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service