A very simple question...well, perhaps two.

I'm consistently impressed with the folks on recruitingblogs. Specifically, the varying philosophies and methodologies that span this blog all pointing to one common goal; client satisfaction. With this in mind I have two questions:

1) What is the value that you, as an external recruiter offer your client - (what do they pay you for?)

2) Do your clients give a hoot where/how you source your candidates? Specifically, if they are impressed by your candidates but not how you sourced them, would they punt on a hiring decision or continue to work with you?

Comment by Paul Alfred on March 31, 2011 at 9:04am: Christopher ... Don't take my expressions seriously they are not meant in any personal way - It's the way I speak and Christopher there is a reason why this site is popular. Its provocative, edgy, off the cliff while still being professional and if we challenge bloggers and readers force them to think from a new angle, then how does the site keep interesting ... I am always going to challenge a proposed position as I would want to be challenged on my own blogs every time. Its the reason why I read write and participate in blogging ... If we are not continually thinking about how we can improve processes and innovate how do we stay competitive in Business. That's my point ... Please don't take my bugging personally its my style. We can always meet up for a beer after.

Comment by Martin Burns on March 31, 2011 at 11:12am: First: What Slouch said. Nicely bottom-lined my friend. I'm about to be less so....

When I was doing agency recruiting, job boards came online - a big part of our pitch to fight them was "the best candidates aren't on there", "we can find you a passive candidate - and passive candidates are better, right??" The reality was - IMHO - there's no rational connection between being a passive candidate and being great at your job. It's more a matter of timing - average employees are often not looking, and great employees get active too. What I think makes passives seem better is kind of like what makes gold seem better (because it's really just a yellow piece of soft metal, in the end). We want what we think it's hard to get. For whatever reason. Clients bought the pitch that our ability to get people who weren't on the job boards somehow made us better, based more on an emotional rationale than a reasoned one.

So. On a job board, off a job board, doesn't really matter in practical terms. Job boards are a place we can source raw material, same as LinkedIn, Boolean searching, phone sourcing, etc etc. It's the person we deliver that matters - are they really precious metal, or just fools gold? (Uggh - that line sounds like something out of a middle school paper, sorry).

When I was on the corporate side, I never asked the agency where they got a good candidate, and on the agency side I'm rarely asked where I get people. If anything, the client asks because they're interested in improving how they recruit, and I'm happy to share my methods.