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 26, 2012 at 12:21am: Don’t believe I could make my case any clearer Mich. Never said anything about retained-fee transactions outnumbering contingency and not sure you understand the difference between gaining (or losing) market share Vs. transaction peg-counts based on your distortion.

I’ll not waist anyone’s time reiterating the same points, other than to highlight you’ve yet to identify substantive factors in support of your conjecture retained-fee results in higher quality outcome when compared to contingency, unless you honestly believe spouting “…it's based on real life experience - mine and several other recruiters I know” qualifies as substantive.

I’m also waiting for you to produce the unbiased statistics showing retained search has not been losing ground that I requested earlier. Again, I’m requesting industry trend info, not isolated incidents conjured just to win a bet.

If nothing else Mitch, demonstrate your conviction by at least addressing my assertion that retained recruiting is based on an old paradigm, outstripped by cultural changes brought about by ready information access social media platforms afford and Internet ubiquity.

Please tell me I’ve not wasted my time formulating an argument you instigated, for you to run and hide behind a knit-wit defense like “I know what I’m saying to be true … because I just know it! And I’ll insult anyone who dares challenge me!”

Frankly Mitch, I’m tired of hearing blow-hards spewing nonsense about needing to be a “better” salesperson to sell retained agreements. Selling a buggy-whip to customers post Henry Ford does not a better salesperson make.

Lastly, your literal interpretation for my blog’s reference to failure indicates my premise was a bit over your head (or you were once again just distorting the discussion for effect). Either way, let me simplify.

Unless every call made results in a sale (1 – 1 = placement), your ratio’s (in all sales BTW) are on the side of “failure”. My blog simply illustrated that even with the ratios against you (not “getting a hit with each swing (call)) like in the Major League, the juxtaposition of closing a big deal with virtually every call (as long as you’re making the calls consistently) is worth all the effort. It’s not about “ones work being about failure and choosing success” (can’t believe you said that, you are a character), it’s simple arithmetic.

My blog’s message was positive, not negative and all but you (judging by other responses) understood that clearly.

I trust you’ll wiggle and wrangle and mischaracterize your next response and provided you spew the final insult in this volley, you’ll feel you can go home a winner and Mitch, that’s Okay. Unfortunately, we’ll be no closer to understanding true trends in our industry (retained vs. contingency and where it is all going) because this discussion has sunk to the level of ad hominem mischaracterizations which really should have no place in venues like this

Comment by Mitch Sullivan on April 26, 2012 at 1:50am: Hi Nick

Two trends that demonstrate the markets growing intolerance with the contingency recruitment sector (for contingency is by far the most common agency model and has been for ever) are the growing number of fixed-fee recruitment businesses and the huge trend for companies to bring their recruitment inhouse.

When a company hires an internal recruiter, they are paying someone to own their vacancies and pay them part of their money upfront. That's excluding their investment in support/marketing tools.

So Nick, the next time you speak to a company that has their own internal recruiter and/or has previously used a fixed-fee recruitment service, they are demonstrating their openness to paying part of their costs upfront. We as the external recruiters just have to be a little innovative in what elements of the wide range of recruitment services we sell and at what price.

Now, none of this makes anyone any better than anyone else - that was your inference, not mine. All I'm doing here is suggesting there is an alternative to filling the 1 in 6 jobs that is the recruitment agency average. When your client retains you or gives exclusivity, your hit rate gets pretty close to 1 in 1.

That's what I meant in my distinction between failure and success.

As to your final point, there have been no ad hominems from me. I think you'll find that most of them have come from Sandra.

Nick, I've enjoyed this exchange and you've made one or two good points. And thanks for sticking with the debate and mostly sticking to the issues.

Comment by Vaughn Welches on April 27, 2012 at 3:27pm: Hey, Nick . . . How about another baseball analogy??? If I am a good fastball hitter, and the only pitches I ever get from the pitcher are fastballs, I could probably hit for a much higher (successful) average! And, if I am a good retainer recruiter and only work on retained searches, then I could have a much higher rate of success. And, I absolutely love to hear about success stories, whether from retained or contingency searches. Because I know, and so do all of us, that either way you go with this you have to make a huge investment of yourself to make it happen. And it is really great to see it pay off for everyone!