Recruiting is a game of failure.

Ike Davis, 1^st baseman for the NY Mets hit his 2nd home run this year, a 3 run homer against the Atlanta Braves last night, possibly reversing a “slow start” to his season in grand fashion. To wit, Gary Cohen, one of my favorite sports announcers of all time commented (paraphrase here) “Ike handles both his successes and failures the same way, his demeanor does not change, he’s got the perfect personality for Major League Baseball”.

He went on to say “After all, baseball is a game of failure!”

Shocked at the statement at first, I quickly recognized how true it is. Get up to bat 3 – 4 times a game, swing the bat a minimum 12 but more often over 20 times a game, get 1 hit per game, and you are on a hitting streak to the joy of your team and fans alike. 1 Hit in 20+, IF you’re doing well!

That’s a “hit” mind you, not a home run.

The parallels’ to recruiting are obvious. Barbara Bruno (renowned recruiting trainer) uses a ratio of 20 conversations per day equals a productive day when starting out in recruiting. That’s “conversations” not calls. For 20 conversations, one could make 100+ dials in a day.

That’s “every day”.

Those outside recruiting, if they knew the “ratios” we live by would call us “crazy”, asking why would you do that… why (or how) could you stick with it, with a “failure” ratio like that?

At 4:30 AM this morning, while laying in bed awake pondering my children’s future, the bills I had to pay, the candidate I was interviewing at 8, the client meeting at 12, and whether I’d ever have enough money to retire some day, (I’m guessing I’m not alone in this ritual these days) that little voice in the back of my head reminded me, …with 1 swing of the bat today, you could change… “Everything!”

One good swing today could be the difference between a banner month, or a flop. One good swing today, could be the difference between another Disney Vacation, or a weekend at the in-laws (how’s that for incentive).

One good swing today…

Of course, we take steps to mitigate the peaks and valleys, and it’ll take more than “1 good swing total”, to close a deal, but truth is, few jobs I’ve had in my career (and I’ve had more than a few), offer the “subtle rush” locking in a solid appointment, or “adrenaline rush” closing a big deal brings.

Few jobs anywhere, offer the employee the opportunity to change “everything”, on any given day.

All you have to do, is bring with you the demeanor of a Major League Ball Player, recognizing, you’ll need to “swing, swing, swing” each and every day, knowing you will not get a hit with each up at bat, and knowing (viscerally) that that’s OK!

If you ask me, Recruiting is a game of failure, same as Major League Baseball. Like Major League Baseball, not many have the skill to survive the cut, with fewer the skills to play with the All Stars. Nor do most have the demeanor to “turn” a slow start to a season (or quarter) knowing, success can only be achieved, if you are willing and able to keep getting up to bat each and every day accepting the seemingly daunting ratio’s, and “swinging” through the blisters, and the years, till you get to the point where you really “know your pitch”.

For then and only then, will you be able to consistently “hit them out of the park”.

Next Post >

Comment by Nick Lagos on April 20, 2012 at 6:05pm: Read it again... or let me simplify.

Yes... several quality recruiters providing choice to a client that is engaged in the process, has at least an equal if not a better chance for delivering high quality then one single recruiter of similar recruiting skill.

The flaw as I see it in your logic is the perception of "shoe-horning" unqualified candidates into a company (something a “hack” might do) as common practice in contingency, while ignoring the fact that competition brings with it checks and balances which ensures a high degree of quality. Engaged companies weed out low performers (hacks) so their submissions do not get passed 1^st base.

How does a company who is contractually bound to accept candidates from only one source (retained firm) benefit and where are the checks and balances associated with a fee market system, compared to that of a monopoly?

Let me say again, it not the business model, it’s the skill of the recruiters that delivers quality, and “three” quality recruiters competing with “one” recruiter of equal skill set will win based solely on economies of scale, regardless the business model.

What’s missing from this discussion are your “facts” for why you believe retained firms deliver higher quality so let’s have it!

No inferences, just the facts.

Comment by Amy Ala Miller on April 20, 2012 at 7:29pm: I think retained is great if you can get it (and desire it). Bill Josephson makes excellent points about weeding out tire kickers. I totally get it and agree with that. HOWEVER - since I did actually place someone in a req that my brand new client had already put down a partial retainer for w/ another firm... yeah it can happen.

Comment by Bill Schultz on April 21, 2012 at 1:49am: I do both with the same vim and vigor. It's what works best for the client.

I think your due diligence is higher on a retained search, because the client feels thy are paying for it.

It's pretty much the same. What cracks me up is the large retained firms. They cut the deals at the country club

with the partners then they farm out the sourcing and recruiting to people working in their own basement.

Comment by Mitch Sullivan on April 21, 2012 at 1:58am: Nick, I have already mentioned a few factors that a sole agency delivers over and above the multiple agency approach, but just for you I'll reiterate them and add a few more.

Assuming that the sole/retained recruiter is good at what they do, they will outperform the multi-agency contingency option by:

1. Delivering a single consistent attraction strategy across all potential candidates which eliminates any potential ambiguity in how the job is perceived by those candidates. Removing that ambiguity at the outset has a positive impact on how long candidates stay in a job.

2. Benchmarking all candidates through a consistent assessment and interviewing methodology. Clients like it when candidates have been interviewed and undergone some kind of meaningful assessment before they meet them. The retained recruiter doesn't need to sell candidates because he/she owns the process.

3. Not wasting any of the client's time client through them not having to weed-out any ineffectual recruiters. Companies generally much prefer only having to deal with one supplier, for obvious reasons.

4. Owning the job means the retained recruiter is far less likely to cut any corners in a race to get candidates in front of the client ahead of other recruiters doing the same thing.

5. Like others on this thread have mentioned, the client is perceived as taking recruitment more seriously by taking a more focused approach rather than the rather ad-hoc nature of giving the job to several recruiters in the hope that they might come-up with suitable candidates. Candidates prefer this.

6. The client pays roughly the same fee as they would have paid to the contingency recruiter that happened to come-up with the successful candidate. Only difference is they pay a third upfront and the balance on completion. In some cases, having that exclusivity can enable the retained recruiter to actually undercut the contingency recruiter, again, for obvious reasons.

Overall, because the retained recruiter has eliminated the competition, that frees him/her to invest a lot more time and money in getting the attraction pieces right, developing greater intimacy of the client's business and ensuring that a large enough cross-section of the target candidates are sourced, assessed and presented to that client.

In the retained approach, what the client is ultimately buying is not a single candidate. They are buying a process that gives them greater confidence that they have hired one of the best people currently available because that retained recruiter has worked that particular candidate niche well and as a minimum has replicated the amount and quality of candidates that the multiple contingency recruiters might have produced.

These are all facts.

One last thing, Nick. I'd like to raise your point about free market ideology and how you see the retained approach as somehow being contrary to that.

One of the popular aims of businesses operating in a free market is to win as much market share as possible. Agree with this, Nick? OK, good.

So, if lets say that I, along with 4 other recruiters, have the opportunity to pitch for a piece of recruitment work and that I am able to convince that company that it's in their best interests to only use me to perform the work and to formalise that arrangement through the provision of a retained fee (part of which will be used to spend on identification and attraction tools). Then what I am doing here is winning market share.

Eliminating the competition is what all companies want and on a micro level, this is what I am doing by selling the retained option.

When you have competition, you also have winners.

So Nick, your argument really carries no weight, either in the wider context of the free market system or on the micro level of the multiple contingency approach producing better quality results. More often that not, it won't.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on April 22, 2012 at 12:55am: No high blown rhetoric just a fun little way to mess with the "retained".

Hi Cynthia, i was talking with Dr. Smith earlier he mentioned that you are having hell finding a PHD Molecular Lab Director, what's the problem.

Sandra we retained a search firm on that one they have sent about four candidates that are ok but not a click, now they want to come in a meet with everybody and redefine the job listing because we haven't liked the candidates they have presented.

Really, paid them a 10K retainer did you up front and it's been six weeks and nada and now they are fussing at you cause they think they have covered the entire vertical and you won't hire.

You got it. Our docs are mad, the CEO is pushing and we can't seem to get the right candidate.

I have a deal for you. You have already sunk 10K into this search, how about i take a shot at it and i'll take your retainer off my 30% fee so it''s not down the rathole and you aren't trapped with the butter and egg pros from Dover.

Would you do that?

Sure, I'll have you a candidate by the end of the week.

Sandra, this guy looks great, when can we get him in.

I thought you might like him, he has checked the flight schedules he can be there tomorrow at noon if you can get your people lined up. If you are backed up with travel arrangements i will do his plane ticket so all you have to do is get an interview schedule set up. i'll bill you for it if you don't offer him , if you do offer and he accepts i'll take care of the plane ticket. Can you make him a reservation at the hotel across from the hospital and have them send confirmation directly to his email? Let's make this painless for everybody.

Sandra, Dr. x just left the hospital, they love him, we want to make an offer will he take 185K plus a bonus?

In a heart beat i discussed it with him you are about 5K over his asking so he will be pleased. I will give him a heads up that the offer is on the way. Can you email it to him this evening. He is on go. I talked to him as he was getting on the plane. He will sign and return as fast as he gets it and goes over it. He assures me that he can give notice as soon as background check is clear and drug test. Can you get those set for tomorrow afternoon? Dandy. Let's roll this thing.

Sandra, it's a done deal he starts in two weeks. I love this. It has taken three weeks from listing this spot till he actually starts. Why do contingency recruiters have so much more sense of urgency than the "retained".

We don't sit around scratching our nether regions so we can convince clients that it's so difficult it takes all this time and to lock you in so some high energy contingent recruiter won't come in and fill it before they justify being paid before they do the work. But this worked out pretty well. You have the guy that rang your chimes, You didn't loose money. I paid your retained fee so the retained don't have to spend another month redifining and fussing. I made money so everybody is happy.

You know your right, by the way we need a VP product manager of surgical services. We were going to put it with a retained firm but if you think you would like to work on it would an exclusive for a month work for you? My boss would be impressed if we could fill this without having to fork over another retained fee. He asked why we didn't call you first anyway after you filled the lab director so quickly. Would you do it for a 30% fee?

Nope, but i will do it for 20%. That's my normal fee plus any major out of pocket expenses.

Oh i thought you said you would take the 10K retainer off your 30% fee.

I did. They were charging you 30% so we had to figure out how to pay that retainer so you didn't get double dipped didn't we?

Sandra you are a hoot.

I know, you would really get a kick out of listening to these retained guys talk about the quality of the retained recruitment, micro economics, market share in the free market system ideology, eliminating the competition and having their patty paws on every swinging hoo ha in the cross section of the candidate niche. While they are rattling on about niches and formalising and verbing all kinds of biz speak some high energy contingency recruiter is going to come along find you what you want, figure out a way to keep you from having to pay anymore fees than you would have if the retained had ever delivered. See i figured out about 25 years ago that any company who needs to fill a position yesterday needs it done pretty fast but they also need the person they want. So it doesn't matter what they have paid or not paid up front. If they see what they want they will hire and if i can make it work so they don't pay double everybody is happy. Just do me one favor. Call the retained group and tell them that they don't need to bring three people in to talk about the job for two hours and redifine. You hired the candidate you wanted from a contingency recruiter who covered their retainer and filled it from cradle to grave in three weeks. Competition is always in the best interest of the client.

Trust me i will enjoy making that call, let's go to lunch.

Alpha - Omega

Comment by Mitch Sullivan on April 23, 2012 at 4:56am: Well done Sandra, nice work.

Your story really proves that all recruiters that take a retainer are rubbish.

Do you think that all Muslims are terrorists too?

Comment by Vaughn Welches on April 23, 2012 at 8:38am: Sandra! Love your story! And congratulations on that successful search. BTW, how are you doing on that VP position? Hope that works out for you.

Comment by Elise Reynolds on April 23, 2012 at 10:41am: I would love to do more retained searches. I understand that retained has pros and cons as compared to contingency. But I would not mind a bit more retained. I have just never been able to make it happen.

Comment by Nick Lagos on April 23, 2012 at 4:01pm: Mitch, Thank you for reiterating the factors associated with your belief that retained searchers provide a higher quality outcome on several levels, than that of a contingency search. I’ve evaluated each and offer my counter-point below:

1. Delivering a single consistent attraction strategy across all potential candidates which eliminates any potential ambiguity in how the job is perceived by those candidates. Removing that ambiguity at the outset has a positive impact on how long candidates stay in a job.

Multiple “attractions strategies” delivered by multiple quality recruiters (in conjunction with clear client guidance, market research and the tenets of honesty) allow candidates multiple perspectives which is a positive not a negative. It’s the reason we ask for multiple “opinions” whenever making important decisions.

Candidate retention has far deeper qualifiers than that of “ambiguity” during initial presentation, and done properly (with the guidance of a good recruiter) gets flushed out during the candidates due diligence, business model aside.

2. Benchmarking all candidates through a consistent assessment and interviewing methodology. Clients like it when candidates have been interviewed and undergone some kind of meaningful assessment before they meet them. The retained recruiter doesn't need to sell candidates because he/she owns the process.

Consistent assessment is by no means exclusive retained firms. Your implication that it is, is just silly.

I’m lost regarding how “owning the process” equates to not “selling the job”. Quality passive candidates (the only candidates I work with) always need to be sold on procession each step of the way, until comparative analysis (due diligence) reveals the deal the recruiter is presenting to be “better “than the prospects current / future condition.

High integrity recruiters counsel prospects honestly refusing to engage if the candidate’s condition will not be significantly improved, while also ensuring the best possible fit for their clients. This is not a retained vs. contingency model issue, it’s about the recruiters integrity and skill-set.

3. Not wasting any of the client's time client through them not having to weed-out any ineffectual recruiters. Companies generally much prefer only having to deal with one supplier, for obvious reasons.

Infers ALL retained firms bring high quality, implying clients don’t have any “weeding” to do. Of course they do under both models and when they find quality in suppliers, they prefer doing business with them. Under contingency however, they get to move on a dime if they feel the need.

4. Owning the job means the retained recruiter is far less likely to cut any corners in a race to get candidates in front of the client ahead of other recruiters doing the same thing.

Again, implies contingency recruiters somehow “get a pass” and can send garbage to their clients. Cutting corners under either model ensures loosing clients (and candidates) and a client’s ability to switch suppliers to improve quality exists under contingency offering a built in incentive for contingency firms to perform, not so easily stated under retained firms with “money in the hand”.

5. Like others on this thread have mentioned, the client is perceived as taking recruitment more seriously by taking a more focused approach rather than the rather ad-hoc nature of giving the job to several recruiters in the hope that they might come-up with suitable candidates. Candidates prefer this.

I agree clients may take the process more seriously when they have skin in the game and certainly its preferred by all recruiters regardless the business model, that clients are engaged. But you are veering off the point. This does not support your premise of higher quality production through retained agreements and which model ensures it.

Quality recruiters know their space, and judging quality is not exclusive the subjective measure of any “single” employer, engaged or not. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) is not exclusive retained or contingency engagements, and quality recruiters of either stripe know the difference, and do not (should not) work with a client who’s not fully engaged regardless the business model. Respect for ones TIME spent working a project and Candidate opinion (how candidates are treated by uninterested clients) should be as important to a recruiter as is the client relationship, or cashing their "up-front" check.

6. The client pays roughly the same fee as they would have paid to the contingency recruiter that happened to come-up with the successful candidate. Only difference is they pay a third upfront and the balance on completion. In some cases, having that exclusivity can enable the retained recruiter to actually undercut the contingency recruiter, again, for obvious reasons.

Again, you’re veering off the point regarding quality. Not sure how potentially “cutting fees” improves quality but contingency recruiters have options for cutting fees also, but should be the fodder for another discussion.

Overall, because the retained recruiter has eliminated the competition, that frees him/her to invest a lot more time and money in getting the attraction pieces right, developing greater intimacy of the client's business and ensuring that a large enough cross-section of the target candidates are sourced, assessed and presented to that client.

Quality contingency recruiters enjoy similar exclusivity due to client’s preference to deal with one provider; however, the decision is made not through contractual agreement, but through free will. Mastering the attraction piece, intimacy and search diligence MUST occur, or under both models the recruiter goes out of business. These qualities are not exclusive retained firms (your inference).

In the retained approach, what the client is ultimately buying is not a single candidate. They are buying a process that gives them greater confidence that they have hired one of the best people currently available because that retained recruiter has worked that particular candidate niche well and as a minimum has replicated the amount and quality of candidates that the multiple contingency recruiters might have produced.

Doubletalk… and frankly conjecture. Your inference that contingency recruiters are just selling a “single candidate” is misguided. Business’s need “partners” to survive and contingency recruiters are no exception.

Inferring the retained search process offers greater [client] confidence bla bla bla, is all speculative hype. You just saying these things doesn’t make it so.

One last thing, Nick. I'd like to raise your point about free market ideology and how you see the retained approach as somehow being contrary to that.

One of the popular aims of businesses operating in a free market is to win as much market share as possible. Agree with this, Nick? OK, good.

Yes Mitch, I agree that gaining market share is a popular aim in a free market business model!

So, if lets say that I, along with 4 other recruiters, have the opportunity to pitch for a piece of recruitment work and that I am able to convince that company that it's in their best interests to only use me to perform the work and to formalise that arrangement through the provision of a retained fee (part of which will be used to spend on identification and attraction tools). Then what I am doing here is winning market share.

Eliminating the competition is what all companies want and on a micro level, this is what I am doing by selling the retained option.

When you have competition, you also have winners.

Agree here also Mitch!

So Nick, your argument really carries no weight, either in the wider context of the free market system or on the micro level of the multiple contingency approach producing better quality results. More often that not, it won't.

Lol… your final conclusion is as convoluted as I’ve come to expect from this volley.

At the macro-economic level, eliminating competition whether it be in the automobile industry, the food industry, widget sales or recruiting, is about delivering a better product and winning market share through loyal customers, not contracted agreement.

Consumers want the freedom to select product based on merit (to include process where applicable). The telecommunications industry has seen the fall of term agreements that “locked” customers into one provider and out of “free choice”, as has Cable TV and other media outlets, which once their monopolies broken down, had no choice but to COMPETE for the loyalty of their customers.

Pick any industry in any part of the free world that limits its customers to wholly exclusive engagements through contractual agreement (usually after a slick salesmen locks them in), and I’ll show you a business model on its way out!

At the micro-economic level when considering both business models, as painful for many as this is to come to terms with (me too, believe me), the retained model has become obsolete in most corners because the premise I mentioned early in this thread of the mystique a recruiters “guarded, little black book” (metaphorically recruiters monopoly) equaling “superior quality access” has become a “misnomer” with the advent of social media and mass media communication platforms accessible globally, and the perception (if not reality) they perpetrate.

Your attempt to justify the retained search model’s continued importance in spite of this “reality” based on a “quality” delivery or process argument is sheer nonsense. Further arguing its beneficial for your customers (and not espoused to serve your business model) and believing any unbiased observer (much less recruiters “in the biz”) would buy into such subterfuge is pure folly.

Basic fact in a Global Economy: Eliminating choice for customers through contractual agreement by “deluding” them into believing its “better for them” (through a slick sales pitch given before any product (process) delivery)), is the main flaw in your argument, and only works on consumers lacking access to unbiased market / product information, which is a rapidly shrinking pool thankfully due to mass communication platforms like the internet!

Perhaps you can prove me “all wet”, by providing unbiased statistical evidence from a reputable industry source showing the growth of Retained Search Firm Market Share outstripping that of Contingency Search Firms.

I think…not

Comment by Sandra McCartt on April 24, 2012 at 5:20am: How do you spell aspergers

All Muslims are not terrorists. But most terrorists are Muslims.

Most terrorists are Muslims unless Southern baptists have started yelling Allah Akbar before they blow something up. Maybe they are yelling, alla y'all outta that bar so all terrorists might be southern baptists. In almost all cases it is not what one says it's the way they say it and what happens next.

Thanks Vaughn, I filled the VP spot. I prefer to work contingency because if I accept a retainer it is implied that the client owns the candidate pool submitted. If they are slow to hire and do not decline all candidates I cannot submit those candidates to another
client. very restrictive in a niche where the number of qualified candidates is limited but easy for recruiters to identify. On a contingent basis if a client is slow to hire I can move the candidates to other clients rather than being in a potential lose-lose situation.