A Word on Split Placements and the Continuity of the Close

Just a quick thought here for us split recruiters.

Once the handoff has taken place – it is very important to let the recruiter who is working directly with the client also be the one who the candidate talks to.

Why is this? I have found the phrase “too many cooks in the kitchen” is quite applicable. If another cook comes in, tastes the soup and decides to add a pinch of this and that…..cook number one has no idea what was put into his dish.

Bringing this analogy to a split placement is quite simple. Closing is a series of discussions – all based in part on the previous discussion. If you introduce a candidate to me and I am working on a sendout (or offer) – I need to be the one keeping all concerns/questions on one page. If you jump into the middle just to “see how things are going” you are breaking the continuity of dialogue.

Perhaps the candidate tells you something important – but you forget to tell me. What then? Chances are I’m in a better position to address questions about my client than you. What happens when you make a few assumptions – just trying to keep things moving ahead – and those assumptions are inaccurate? Yet the candidate feels that “since he talked to one of us about it” then it’s been covered.

The reasons to keep continuity with one person are far too many to list here. Just wanted to throw the topic out here for discussion……

Comment by bob on March 1, 2011 at 12:35pm: jerry, thanks for the feedback i thought that there was a 'new' way of doing splits. i think I have done 10 in28 years and they were all torture.. regards

Comment by Travis Yeager on March 1, 2011 at 1:40pm: After the hand off subsequent conversations should take place with the JO holder, not the candidate. Making this clear to the candidate is important. Knowing who your handing off to should be of some concern obviously but if you've entered into a split agreement with someone I would think it's because you believe in that individuals ability to close the deal, and make a placement. If I were the one dealing with Jerry, I would qualify the candidates ability, attitude, salary and influenceability <--- (my spell check says no, but my mind says yes), along with all the other nouns we use and then get the *&^% out of the way. The taste of queering a deal worth thousands would be rather unpalatable. Step aside ego theres money afoot! <- HA! (the dude abides)

Comment by bob on March 1, 2011 at 3:45pm: my spell check says influenza...i am gonna go out and feed the beast .. if anyone needs hi end construction engineering or architectural giants let me know thats where I work best

Comment by pam claughton on March 3, 2011 at 7:24am: This thread has been interesting to me, because I work splits quite differently. Not saying it's any better, just different. I do a lot of splits, 4 so far this week. I think the key is that both parties know and agree how it's going to go. In one of the split scenarios the candidate was pending at my client as well as at a split partner. I wouldn't want my split partner running it, because I also have him pending at my own client. By having it all go through me, I don't have to feel like I am competing with my split partner, it's more like a partnership. I never would influence the candidate to choose my job over the split partner and by staying main point of contact I am discussing both opportunities with him vs. having a split partner sell him on their job if that makes sense. He actually chose and accepted her job yesterday. :)

This does seem to be an exception from the way most of you work though. I think part of the reason I work the way that I do is because it's how I was trained, I grew up in an agency environment that was very heavy on internal splits and most of the folks I do splits with now are people I used to work with so we know each others style.

I do have one split scenario going on now though that is more the way you all do it, and I have to admit I'm not crazy about it and probably won't work this way again. It's a high level guy and I let my split partner take the reigns and when I checked in with the candidate last week to wish him well on his upcoming interview this week he seemed distracted and admitted he was a little confused as to who he should be following up with. I think it makes it harder to establish a candidate relationship and to effectively close them if you're not the contact person throughout.

Which is why, as I type this I'm finding myself semi-agreeing now. It would be nice if I was the client person to be the one in contact directly with the candidate. My group has just never worked that way, and I think it's mostly because when we work candidates we usually have multiple opportunities for them within out group, so it would muddy the waters to have the client person take over because we'd still be talking with the candidate about the other opportunities anyway.

I think if I were in a situation where I was working with a new split partner I might be inclined to do it your way if I was the client side of the split, to ensure I have all the information and to effectively close.

Comment by Jerry Albright on March 3, 2011 at 7:59am: Morning Pam. Congrats on your placements!

My coffee hasn't kicked in yet so I need a little clarification. Are you saying if it is your candidate - then you are the one who works through with the client, even if that client is your split partners?

Or that you continue working the process with your candidate the entire time - and your split partner with the client stays as the client interface?

Comment by pam claughton on March 3, 2011 at 8:10am: Hi Jerry,

Thanks! My coffee hasn't kicked in yet either, felt like I was rambling a bit there! We stay separate, so if it's my candidate, I stay in touch with him the entire time when working with a split partner, the partner is the only one in touch with the client usually...in some instances we know each other's clients as well and will cover for each other or partner. Example, yesterday a split partner and I did a conference call with her client to negotiate a better offer for my candidate. He was one of those candidates who was getting offers every where he went so it was tricky. It worked out though.

What usually happens too is that the split partner will be involved with the initial prep, so for example I'll do my full prep then have the split partner say hello to share any additional insight they have on the company and people the candidate will be meeting.

It works really well for us, but it sounds like we might be doing things a little differently than the majority of split scenarios. I've just never really worked any other way.

Comment by Jerry Albright on March 3, 2011 at 8:22am: I'm just here to learn - so hope you don't mind continuing the discussion....

In most cases - don't you think the recruiter speaking with the client should "really" know the candidate? Like when I'm presenting someone to my client they often ask me "what do you think? or - how are his communication skills?" stuff like that. If I'm only going with what I've learned about this person from my partner - I'm going to be at a loss in those discussions and more or less left with what I can surmise (as well as my client can) from the resume itself.

When I'm doing follow up after the interview I find myself adding in things I've learned about the client during the process - and able to answer questions about either benefits, or upcoming projects, etc. You know - just the stuff you know about your client.

If I'm trying to close a candidate who interviewed at my partner's client I'm really only working with (at best) 2nd hand information. Lots of stuff gets lost in the translation. Now sure there are times when placements just "happen" and we don't need to put our lab coat on. I could probably put my mom on the phone with an offer in hand if it's going to happen no matter what. But I normally wouldn't want to take that chance.

To me there just must be a "closed loop" of information once the client/candidate match has been made. I think there is too much room for misinterpretations, guessing and assumption when one person deals with the client and another deals with the candidate.

Comment by pam claughton on March 3, 2011 at 8:41am: Jerry,

Many times, my split partners do know my candidates well because they meet them in person too. Not always, but often. We have two offices, a main one in Plymouth, and a second in Boston. Most of our split partners meet us every Tuesday in Boston and we discuss candidates, searches and we meet each others candidates, even if we don't currently have a match, just so we'll know who they are when things come in.

When we don't get to meet everyone in person, we do share very detailed candidate writeups and discuss candidates well so that we are able to answer any client questions that come up.

In most cases I also know my split parter's clients well. One of the ones I made yesterday was with a client I've placed multiple people at so I know the process and company well even though it's not my client.

For me, I feel that much more gets lost in translation when I'm not the main point of contact. I'm also talking regularly with my split partners, most of my day yesterday was going back and forth with several of them as we were extending and negotiating offers.

With our group I think it works well because we just all know and trust each other and our process works well the way we are doing things. :)

Comment by C. B. Stalling!! on March 3, 2011 at 10:51am: I have only does maybe 2 splits in my life. That was like 12 years ago. I would do some but right now do not have the time.

Comment by C. B. Stalling!! on March 3, 2011 at 10:53am: I also says what ever side is getting the check before the split is done is the keeper of the client and needs to be the one that seals the deal..

Comment