Reports of Recruiting’s Death Are Greatly Exaggerated

There is so much noise out there regarding the death of recruiting. We’ve got Social Media taking over. Recruitment 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4! LinkedIn will have all our jobs, but only until Facebook becomes the new job board. Thanks to Google +, any hiring manager with a computer can now search for candidates. Not only does this mean the end of recruiting agencies as we know them, but it’s only a matter of time before corporate recruiters start singing Danny Boy.

Give me a break.

People who blast this nonsense all over the internet either A) don’t know what they’re talking about or B) just want to pick a fight. Anyone who takes this stuff seriously has no clue what recruiting actually is. So what is it?

It is both the art and science of bringing people together. Uncovering motives, looking for buying signals, re-directing, influencing, listening to what’s not being said, and doing it again. It is moving people through major change. We are equal parts cheerleader, coach, psychologist, disciplinarian, closer, negotiator, and reality check bringer.

Most of all, recruiting is a full time job. My hiring managers have neither the time nor the inclination to take that on. They are busy doing their jobs – and doing more with less as it is. They barely have time to interview the qualified candidates I find for them – the idea that they really want to take on the full scope of recruiting themselves is downright laughable. Recruiting is so much more than a list of names, or a folder full of resumes. It’s more than thousands of Twitter followers, or who has the biggest database. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn’t doing it right.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on November 1, 2011 at 10:53pm: Yeah! What she said!!!!!

Comment by Luke Collard on November 1, 2011 at 11:31pm: Amen to that ! Nicely put Amy

Comment by Cora Mae Lengeman on November 2, 2011 at 9:13am: Right on point!

Comment by Brian K. Johnston on November 2, 2011 at 10:17am: Super Duper... "Art and Science" (right brain/left brain) I LOVE IT... Great post Amy... Brian-

Comment by bill josephson on November 2, 2011 at 10:28am: Amy is correct. The two biggest problems I encounter in successful recruiting are:

1) Tough to find companies with job openings with an urgency to hire

2) Broken, open ended hiring processes taking anywhere from 3-7 months, whereas it used to take 2-3 weeks.

If the candidate exists, I find them. But once I find them I'm at the client's hiring mercy no matter how much I qualify them up front or they promise to expedite the process. So the days, weeks, and months keep rolling by.

Comment by Darryl Dioso on November 2, 2011 at 10:37am: Must be another social media Guru, Evangelist or Ninja (wth?) who proclaimed our death.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on November 2, 2011 at 11:44am: Just another corporate recruiter who missed 1.0 and 2.0 trying to drum up enough creds to get a seat at the table by deciding over "Beers" that hiring managers should spend their time on Linkedin. Talent communities should be built then turn recruiting into a profit center by selling access to his community to other companies. Sort of sounds like a recruiter who doesn't want to recruit and selling access to his own talent community seems to be a bit like a job board to me. Or pimping the people who join the company community. I guess we could all just sell access to our whole data base of resumes and take retirement then call ourselves innovators so we could hit the lecture circuit.

I prefer good ole honest recruiting myself. I'll just earn my creds by being a real live recruiter.

Comment by Amy Ala Miller on November 2, 2011 at 12:32pm: Thanks everyone, I knew I could count on my RBC friends to understand. :) I normally ignore this kind of stuff but every now and again I see something that is so blatantly ridiculous that I can't help myself.

@Sandra - if we DO decide to sell out we must call ourselves "ninjas". lol Thanks Darryl for that!

Comment by Mitch Sullivan on November 2, 2011 at 4:54pm: I don't think the death of recruitment is being predicted by anyone, is it?

What they might be doing is predicting the demise of generalist recruitment agencies.

Big difference.

Comment by Amy Ala Miller on November 2, 2011 at 6:09pm: @Mitch, really? After all, a strong internal recruiting team is essentially an "in-house" agency. We operate in a very similar fashion, we just happen to work full time for salary/bonus/benefits for the same company as opposed to retained or contigency fee-based model. I work across multiple business groups, so I could be considered a generalist. Am I going away because I'm not laser focused on java developers? Of course not. The bottom line is some companies invest in internal recruiters, others invest in headhunters. We are ALL valuable for different reasons and none of us (if we're effective) have anything to worry about.

I just get annoyed by thought leaders yelling about every shiny new toy that comes along to make us obsolete.

Comment