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 Jerry Albright on March 14, 2011 at 1:08pm: Perhaps my thinking on the subject has been flawed on this from the start - but I just can't get past the general idea.

To me - it seems BJ's is a tool to help keep agencies reigned in. Almost as if the service is "Hey - we know you don't like recruiters - but since they are at times a "necessary evil" let us beat them into shape for you. P.S. We'll beat the hell out of those ridiculously high rates too!"

So as a recruiter - you're starting with a slate of potential clients who don't want to use your service anyway.

For me - I'm not the "make them love me" kind of guy. Far too much business out here (always has been) to mess around in a place designed to meet the needs of companies that don't want anything to do with me to begin with.

I'm here to learn.........

Comment by David Palmer on March 14, 2011 at 1:10pm: Evening All,

I'd like to add some British perspective. We have the children of Bounty Jobs over here (TalentPuzzle, Gatszu etc) and I run a different proposition but in the same "recruitment channels to market" space.

I liked the post Travis and have taken the liberty of re-posting it. I also like @Randy's response. Both go to show how much misunderstanding exists between the supply side and demand side.

It's easy to moan about the process that large companies need when you're small and agile but that's the way it is. It is not the fault of BountyJobs that HR takes a methodical approach that doesn't suit you, they just give you the business connection.

Equally portals that connct demand and supply should I believe treat the supply chain with greater respect and recognise that without it there proposition would be worthless. Over here this is sometimes overlooked!

Finally as much as Agency Recruiters need to slow down a bit, HR recruiters need to act with a little more urgency as the river flows quickly in the recruitment markets.

Finally, finally @Mike when are you going to change the Cowboys and Indians cartoon?

Comment by Christy Spilka on March 14, 2011 at 1:15pm: Also the account execs there are very friendly and I use them frequently to help me resolve issues on my behalf. A useful tool.

Comment by David Palmer on March 14, 2011 at 1:21pm: @Jerry

Me too!
It appears that the agency is locked into a relatively banal process, gives away 25% of the Fee (which tends to be on the low side anyway) and finally receives their 75% after the 90 day rebate period has ended. Who's going to do that for any length of time?

Comment by Travis Yeager on March 14, 2011 at 1:23pm: Thanks for the feedback Randy. First off, it's not a lack of respect for HR or the roll they play in the process of bringing on that next great talent. In fact I love HR, as it is from their budget often that checks are cut! My frustrations more lay with the fact that I was one of the chosen to be engaged on this position and made my expectations clear. I require time with the hiring authority to speak to the position as the typical job posting stinks as well as for follow ups after he/she interviews one of my candidates, not to the benefit of the candidate but to me, and the hiring managers to better target search.

The process depending on the company can be extremely convoluted. I just happen to be one of the few recruiters apparently that doesn't feel it should be. Give me 20-30 minutes with the hiring manager, 5-10 minutes for a candidate presentation and the same for post interview follow up and the hiring manager will have an hour or so invested with me in his next hire.

As far as an HR phone screen before the interview I would ask you Randy, what vital piece of information will your 5-10 minutes with them bring to life, that my 2 hour discussion with them didn't? Who better to present a candidate to a hiring manager than me, the guy that knows the candidate as well as what the hiring manager is looking for in ability, attitude, soft skills etc.?

Time, more so than anything else is the killer. The excitement for a career change psychologically diminishes from the time a passive candidate is presented with an opportunity, even if you spent the time setting those expectations. It's simple nature.

As far as Bounty Jobs goes. It's just the space in which this particular story takes place. With Bounty, my mistake was thinking that as a space catering to the recruiting world, the gap between the needs of recruiters, hiring managers and HR would be closed a little more I guess. I'm sure they work towards that end as it makes sense.

You can't find, attract and bring on the best people with buzzwords, something that in my opinion (probably in the minority here too) HR departments haven't quite picked up on. Cut and paste job descriptions based on the email that the hiring manager sent over to HR for a similar position 6 months ago, just don't cut it. One paragraph to describe the 100K job. (Randy, I could probably even find that at your company.)

I'm getting off track here a bit so I'll sum it up with this. I like everybody as well as HR and I certainly would never dream of offending anyone in this space. Thanks again Randy.

Comment by Jerry Albright on March 14, 2011 at 1:27pm: - How does one play a roll?

Comment by David Staiti on March 14, 2011 at 1:28pm: Randy, my point exactly. I don't like bountyjobs, because the types of hiring companies that I find are using them are not the firms I would choose to partner with anyway. Especially as a small operation, I purposely don't try to be a commodity focused operation. If I'm viewed as such, I'm working with the wrong client.

If I find myself in a situation where a client is "forcing" me to do things through HR, and they can't be bothered, I dump them.

Comment by Randy Alexander on March 14, 2011 at 1:55pm: @Travis,

Thanks for the clarification. You are absolutely right that I wouldn't glean much info from your candidate over a 5-10 minute conversation. That's why I wouldn't have a 5-10 minute conversation with them. It would be a 45-60 minute phone interview. Not only to gauge their experience and exposure, strengths and developmental opportunities, but also their fit from a cultural perspective. Its also important to me to think of not just the position they are applying for, but the next position within the organization (which may or may not be within the original hiring managers team).

Additionally, in response to your question about "who better to present the candidate to". My thought is that you probably want me presenting the candidate to the hiring manager, provided I am informed (which I will be after a thorough phone interview). The hiring manager often times views you as someone who is looking to make 25K off of a hire (right or wrong). So do you think your view will be biased at all? I am looking to make the right hire (short and long term) for the organization. And unless we have partnered before, and have cultivated a strong relationship, you just won't have much credibility. Over time you will certainly earn it, but day one? Not so much. I partner with search firms because I realize the strategic benefit in doing so for my organization. Not because it is a last ditch effort, or I have nothing better to do with my time.

BTW, good luck finding any info about one of our 100K jobs on our corporate website. It just doesn't exist. Our site presents a huge opportunity, and is just one of the things I am tasked with (have only been here for a few months so please give me some time)...

Comment by Travis Yeager on March 14, 2011 at 2:01pm: I think the posts up to this point explain the dilemma. It's the same frustrations that recruiters have felt forever. I'll be the first to admit that there are good and bad in every profession, recruiting, HR (even at car shops and subways! Ha!) In the experience I had, HR had about 2 years of HR experience and zero technical knowledge and later (after I emailed the manager) made it clear that it was her way or no way. After she was unavailable for two days I called the hiring manager that gave me his cell number and subsequently asked that I email a resume to him. I even copied her on the email to avoid the look of circumventing the process.

The bottom line for me I guess is if I've made my expectations clear and you agree, then lets keep it that way and create a win, win, win for everybody. (and yes, I put an HR "win" in there too)

Comment by Randy Alexander on March 14, 2011 at 2:10pm: Thanks for the HR "Win" Travis! Greatly appreciated. :) I agree with you that its the same frustrations. There have been many times that I have been frustrated with an agency recruiter too, but I don't paint a wide stroke about agency recruiters. I had a post last week on a thread called "the case about working directly with hiring managers". That thread didn't get a lot of traction, but frankly, spoke to the same issues that this thread does (albeit, minus the BJ connection).

HR has to understand agencies are not just a necessary evil, but a strategic partner. Agency recruiters have to understand that HR isn't just there to slow down the process, or make your life hell. Until this happens (and I am not sure if it ever will), we will continue to have the same frustrations...

Comment