Let me throw out the PC and ask your opinion on her career status. We’re looking for someone that is growing their career not trying to find a horse to ride off into the sunset.
Jeez. Seriously?
Again I want to spank someone (don't worry Valentino, I will refrain)
I am often guilty, as a recruiter, of recommending candidates for employment consideration that don’t exactly fit the specifications an employer (hiring manager/HR rep) provides for my recruiting support effort. Why is this? Well, it’s not because I’m a contrarian or misinterpret the requirements. It’s simply because I look for people who have the capability to do the front job, but more importantly, have the potential to do the next-up job(s). This to me is the critical aspect of placing a viable job candidate in the first place. And, not surprisingly, this often flies in the face of what an employer prefers in a candidate for employment consideration—as you allude to in this blog post.
As recruiters I feel we have an obligation to help our clients see the bigger picture—even it may mean to read them the riot act. I get a lot of “yes” decisions, but the “no” decisions dominate.
Yes, we're in the business of finding and placing the best talent available. But I think we're obligated to also make a difference--like suggesting that quality can also mean diversity...and make that happen.
How extreme have some of my finds and recommendations been? Imagine recommending candidates who have spent the last 24-36 months in State prison. Candidates with “priors, tats and attitude” to HP, Xerox and IBM to name a few. I was part of an effort that did just that—and we placed many. Am I crazy? A little. Does my phone ring off the hook? I wish it did. My point—I tend to follow the simple logic that there is talent and there is rare talent. I don’t place everyone, but I have made a living helping both sides of the equation—for candidates and employers.
I don't have a problem with this one Tim because of the sector it is in. Many women will only go to a female OB/gyn so if the practice has several male OB's they may need females to serve their patients. As to the American trained, many of my doc hiring clients want to be sure that the docs they hire have top quality educational background and can be licensed. Many will take a foreign doc if they did their residency or fellowship in the U.S. but they do have to speak English well or will have a problem communicating with patients. If a practice is patient facing, as opposed to pathology or radiology, the communication skills are vital or patients will not be comfortable with the doc.
In rural areas and with practices that have an older patient base American trained and good english is absolutely a requirement or the doc will be playing on social media all day with no patients except emergencies. A lot of the foreign docs will go to remote areas at first but they don't much like it there either and are more than ready to get back to a metro area where they are a better fit. The recently out of residency is normally due to being afordable or having a number of older docs who want to retire so they want to bring in some younger docs to help fund their retirement.
If there is a valid reason for their candidate profile i would try for the ideal candidate knowing those reasons and understanding them is the key. I would also send other candidates who may not fit the ideal but if we know they will not hire, why put everybody through that drill?
I perfer male doctors - and younger ones. they are more up on the new technology, the older ones may not have learn anything new in the past 30 years! - not that this makes any difference to the article... I have come across this a lot in the auto industry "we want a minority woman who can speak excellent english, top of her class that comes from an upper middle class family, blah, blah blah." I tell my clients and have since 1990 that I seach for the best candidate and if that best candidate for them is a white male then that is what I will present to them. If they insist on only their own biased option I tell them to find a recruiter with no ethics - there are a ton of them out there. I go by the law and do not search by biase descriptions. Few companies walk away, in fact I think they're embarassed that I spoke out loud what they ndidn't want to hear. I also understand the need for diversity compliance and will see how that can fit in the search process but bottom line the best person for the position and company is who I present.
Comment
All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.
Just enter your e-mail address below
1801 members
316 members
180 members
190 members
222 members
34 members
62 members
194 members
619 members
530 members
© 2024 All Rights Reserved Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
With over 100K strong in our network, RecruitingBlogs.com is part of the RecruitingDaily.com, LLC family of Recruiting and HR communities.
Our goal is to provide information that is meaningful. Without compromise, our community comes first.
One Reservoir Corporate Drive
4 Research Drive – Suite 402
Shelton, CT 06484
Email us: info@recruitingdaily.com
All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.
Just enter your e-mail address below
You need to be a member of RecruitingBlogs to add comments!
Join RecruitingBlogs