The Sex Test for Recruiters

I had two guests today. First, a short visit by Charles Krugel, the employment lawyer from Chicago.

My contention is that hiring for culture and hiring for diversity are diametrically opposed. It seems to me that HR people think that race and ethnicity determine your culture. They also think that hiring people from different cultures enhances a business.

When people hire for cultural fit, however, they want to hire people who share their culture.

So I asked Charles to come on and tell me if I am right and if people who hire for culture are going to end up breaking diversity laws. He said I was wrong because race and ethnicity don't determine culture. You can have a different skin colour or ethnic background from the majority and still share the same values.

My other guest, Marty Snyder, agreed. He said that class is the key factor. He said people feel more comfortable with other people from their own background but that middle class people will relate to eachother as members of the same group no matter what their race or ethnic background.

Marty Snyder is the CEO of PCRecruiter. Marty is a frustrated academic but I forced him to tone down the professorial routine and we had a good conversation.

I thought that his most interesting ideas were about sales. He claims that recruiting is sales and that a good sales person does not merely pass on information.

She creates a feeling of certainty in the candidate that this move this is a good thing. And this is a feeling that is not based solely on rational calculation. It's intuitive.

How does the sales person do it? Courage to make the approach seemed to be one factor. Another key element was empathy. But here's the interesting thing. Empathy is understanding the candidate's situation and a sales person can demonstrate empathy to some extent simply by appearing to be an authority in her field because this tells the candidate that she understands her situation.

Marty even offered to tell us how we can identify a good recruiter. It's the person who got laid a lot in college (LISTEN TO THE CLIPS HERE).

Mike Astringer agreed. He said that someone who isn't especially good looking can have much better luck with girls than other guys if he has the guts to make the approach.

Amy Ala objected to Marty's vulgarity so he said, okay, if you are hiring a sales rep in a group of Jehovah's Witnesses, you're going to go after the one who brings the most people to a meeting. Same thing.

It would have been nice to drill down a bit more and see what exactly gives the buyer the feeling of certainty but the general ideas of empathy and assertiveness were as far as we went.

Marty also had some other ideas that I dispute. He said that recruiters create jobs by marketing candidates. I don't think so. Not really. Amy said she had created a job that way but only because she knew the company was going to need someone like her candidate fairly soon.

Marty also says that recruiters know how to downplay or dismiss the stigma of unemployment better than other people. Again, not really; in fact, they have the same prejudices as everyone else.

One more: Marty says that recruiters have a greater ability to see potential in people. I guess he only knows recruiters I haven't run into. We didn't get to discuss all of the claims of this recruiter-booster so maybe I'll have him on again soon to blow them up.

LISTEN ONLINE

DOWNLOAD MP3

5 MINUTE CLIP - SEX TEST FOR RECRUITERS

@darrylrmsg @animal Only a complete idiot would associate the discipline of recruiting w/"getting laid" as a qualifier of a good recruiter.
— Valentino Martinez (@valentinoBenito) April 10, 2013

Do I make placements? Yes. Did I have fun in university? Yes again. Do I think one was a predictor of the other? Hell no. @animal
— Darryl Dioso (@DarrylRMSG) April 10, 2013

Listen to internet radio with Recruiting Animal on Blog Talk Radio

5 MINUTE CLIP - SEX TEST FOR RECRUITERS - LISTEN HERE

Comment by Recruiting Animal on April 12, 2013 at 10:24am: AUDIO CLIP - The Sex Test 4 Recruiters

Comment by Jerry Albright on April 12, 2013 at 10:25am: To take this a bit further (sorry I missed the show) - let's dissect the typical frat boy hoping to score. There he is - handing out drinks to any chick within reach - hoping one, at some point, will be "unguarded" enough to, well, you know.....uh.....

This is about as far from what works in recruiting as an example can get. My candidates need to be sharp, have their wits about them and know (fully, clearly) what is going on. My clients need the very same level of awareness - who I am, what we're going to do - and how much it will cost them.

Scoring chicks in college is really only an indicator of how one views women, and scoring, and throw away relationships (if any relationship is there at all) and everything else that goes with being more/less a sexual prowler.

Comment by Recruiting Animal on April 12, 2013 at 10:28am: Jerry is a big darn phony. He used 2B the singer in a rock band and he knows that if you have the guts to put yourself centre stage in front of the girls they will prefer you over other guys.

Likewise, if you have the guts to call up people you don't know and ask them a lot of personal questions - which Jerry has told us many times is his speciality - you are going to make money as a recruiter.

Those who don't have the courage to engage in conversation won't have a chance to match you.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on April 12, 2013 at 10:33am: @animal re, your analysis, it all depends on what time it is and how long it is till the bar closes. Much like a recruiter who hasn't made a placement in a month. The dance becomes more desperate and less selective the later it gets.

@Marty it could be a genetic marker depending on the hypothesis and whether the test is based on DNA or rNA or just a subjective analysis based on the cultural background of the observer. The last time most of the population saw anything related to a litmus test had to do with a pregnancy test unless one happens to be a specialized hydro-engineer. AKA a sewer tester for the city.

@valentino Marty would call a turd or it's predecessor a "scented deposit". I prefer to be a graciously aged antique who yawns at the thought that sex sells. :)

Comment by Will Thomson on April 12, 2013 at 11:30am: I saw this when I was getting my dog some food Animal. Reminded me of you.

Comment by Valentino Martinez on April 12, 2013 at 12:39pm: First -- It’s funny to know that Animal is offended by the term “fart”. As if the hot air that comes out of his orifices (burps, farts and some Animal logic) are ever lacking.

@Will—don’t be shy. You say you “Liked” the discussion here. What aspect exactly? What Marty is selling or Animal or Amy’s take? Your opinion counts you know.

I also think the core issue here is not about what goes on in bar between consenting or inebriated adults. What is at issue is a recruiter’s professional demeanor in relationship to job candidates and employer/clients for that matter. How getting laid has anything to do, or is in any way relevant, to a recruiter's professional demeanor is lost on me and a few other people so far. I'm surprised many of the active members on recruitingblogs are suddenly silent now.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on April 12, 2013 at 12:47pm: It's truly fashionable to be offended. I'm just trying to remember the last time I was really offended as opposed to thinking, "you're an idiot". Next.

Comment by Amy Ala Miller on April 12, 2013 at 1:00pm: Agree with both Tino and Sandra - this conversation is not about me being personally offended - because really life's too short to get all twisted up over something so silly. The larger point is that this sort of behavior is a big reason that candidates / clients think all recruiters are a bunch of slimy wretches. After listening to the show again I picked up something I must have missed before - Marty isn't necessarily making an analogy - he's saying that all the "GOOD RECRUITERS" he know have this trait in common. They "got laid a lot in college". So again, not an analogy, but a statement of fact in regards to a common trait amongst what Marty says are good recruiters.

Somebody ask Savage or Bill Radin if the big billers they know have this same trait please?

Comment by Martin H.Snyder on April 12, 2013 at 4:15pm: People confuse causation and correlation all the time.  It's absurdly imperfect to say that anyone who scores a lot would be a good recruiter, or that all recruiters can score.   It's not an observation about recruiters and their ethics or a mediation on gender roles.

Animal gets it; the trait of scoring well often but not always shows a lot a lack of fear, the ability to assess a situation, to communicate, and the ability to progress a human relationship toward a desired conclusion.   Now when I mentally review the best recruiters that I *personally* know (and have known for a long time), all of them have huge charisma and all of them could score at will.    That's a mighty small sample, but stereotypes can be useful; that's why they get used.

Amy I'm not doubling down on anything; I don't regret the statement and I stand by it. I regret ideological baggage that people bring in interpreting it, so I am trying to clarify the uses and meaning of the statement. It's an amusing little observation that says a little something about recruiters.   It's not some deep social commentary about the use and misuse of sex and job placements.....

Comment by Martin H.Snyder on April 12, 2013 at 4:16pm: PS I would like to hear from the Radins et al. if they think there is a bit of truth to the observation....

Comment