The best you'll ever get is 8 out of 10

Nothing drives a recruiter crazier than having a client say, "I love your candidate and there is no compelling reason not to hire them. We'd just like to see one or two more candidates". Makes my pulse race just writing the words.

What I'm finding, particularly in this market is clients want 12 out of 10; the "perfect candidate". They have the belief that because of the poor labor market "perfect candidates" are simply lying under trees waiting to be tripped over. This couldn't be further from the truth.

In any market, especially a down market, more often than not the most qualified candidates are gainfully employed. Before you light the torches and march on my office I realize there are a lot of great people out there out of work by no fault of their own. I'm simply referring to the vast majority of the time. What many clients don't realize is a downturn in the employment market means these candidates are more reluctant to make a move. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't...so to speak. So coming in with offers below what they're currently making or having the belief that they should be thankful that you're simply delivering an offer most often will fall on deaf ears. In a downturn, the best of the best are harder to recruit and even harder to convince to make a move.

Finally, there is no "perfect candidate". The best you'll ever get is 8 out of 10, on a good day. A downturn in the employment market doesn't mean there are more qualified candidates on the market, it means simply that there are more candidates on the market. If the two qualities the candidate lacks are inconsequential, make the hire.

Comment by Amber on March 8, 2011 at 11:12am: This is so true! And frustrating...

Especially when the first person you sent, they interviewed, both parties seemed happy with the meeting and potential fit - but client says "we'd like to see more candidates". At the end of this now drawn out process, client says " we do like that first person best". Oh, remember we told you that person was offered another position 2 weeks ago? It was accepted, they start at that other company tomorrow.

Then if you add in the fact that the job is not the "perfect" candidates "perfect" job, where does that leave things?

Comment by Thomas on March 8, 2011 at 1:33pm: Absolutely, how many times do you have a client want to come back to what you believe was the best candidate only to have to tell them you placed that person at another job. This is usually after the client goes dark, you cannot get feedback and then they re-surface a few weeks later.

Comment by Mat von Kroeker on March 8, 2011 at 1:49pm: Chris--- you speak the gospel--!! Amber--- Just reading your words makes me cringe, it's so true, TIME after TIME--!! Why is it that most hiring managers seem to be on some kind of "power trip" as if they're lording over a person's life--- weilding the decision(s) over life and death--- with some picture in their mind the candidate will wait however long it takes before they finally deem them worthy of a position at our prestigeous institution--?? as if this is the only job they're interviewing for?? Regardless of whether the candidate is a 12 out of 10, or 8 out of 10, more times than I care to remember, the candidate will always take the first position offered. 1 in the hand is worth 1,000 interviews--- especially in this very competitive economy.

Comment by George Albert on March 8, 2011 at 2:05pm: I agree with Amber. Low ball offers only make candidates cringe and how many deals have we lost because the clients are waiting for the perfect candidate. I've seen 10 of 10 candidates get put on hold just to see what else is out there. If there are so many talented people available out there then why are job boards not as successful. BINGO!...Talent is not always easy to find.

Comment by Leah Davis on March 8, 2011 at 3:50pm: Yep, reflected in our sourcing business too! We typically deal with up to 5000 high end candidates each year. Over the past 2yrs they have been few and far between because everyone preferred the security of the "devil they know". So true!

Comment by Ken Forrester on March 8, 2011 at 9:31pm: I wouldn't blame the hiring manager for not being able to pull the trigger on making an offer to a star candidate. The two parties that should be blamed are the recruiter and the candidate. No one buys the first house they see. They always look at multiple houses to compare. The recruiter should always present an average and a higher level candidate along with the star candidate to give the hiring manager something to compare.

Some star candidates are over confident and walk their way through the interview. Letting the hiring manager know that they are interested in the job is not enough to get the offer; they must convince the hiring manager that they are THE ONE.

When the manager is convinced that he has found THE ONE, he will jump through hoops to close the candidate.

Comment by Christopher Poreda on March 9, 2011 at 7:21am: Ken, interesting perspective. Question: do you clients appreciate the 3 candidate submission approach and have they ever pursued someone the average candidate over the star?

Comment by Ken Forrester on March 9, 2011 at 7:48am: Christopher, at the end of the day all the client is interested in is a solution to his problem and value. The solution is filling his open job. And value is hiring someone that he perceives can do more work for him than what he is paying that individual. He doesn't care how many candidates he has to look at; as long as he can find the one that delivers value. It is the recruiters job to make the decision easy & efficient for the hiring manager, by giving him choices and preparing the candidates to get the offer.

Comment by Christopher Poreda on March 9, 2011 at 7:59am: Ken, I get it...just wondering if your clients ever pursued anyone other than the star? And if not, can the other candidates really be considered viable choices?

Additionally, your perspectives seem one sided, in favor of the employer. I don't know your business but my experience has been it's a two way street, as with any negotiation. Both have to perceive value, both have to feel appreciated, both like to feel pursued and it needs to be a good fit for both. Any employer having an attitude of, "i pay you therefore you should be appreciative" will not get the stars. Those employers who attract the stars are the ones who appreciate their skills and value and let them run.

Comment by Mat von Kroeker on March 9, 2011 at 12:04pm: @Ken --- you're point IS the industry standard--- multiple (3+) submittals for each position. Otherwise, a recruiter isn't doing due diligence for the client. My point is that time and time again, I've seen star candidates--- whom the client has raved about (talent & chemistry wise), get snapped up almost immediately, because the client feels they need to see more resumes.

My job is to know an industry and it's personnel, read a job description (...and read between the lines if need be), pinpoint and qualify candidates, pre-sceen them for technical and functional skills necessary for maximum execution of the position, and submit the best qualified candidate(s) for the position. That's what my client pays me for. Hiring managers, across the board, seem to forget that a good recruiter is interviewing and qualifying multiple candidates for each submittal--- and any submittal is, if I'm doing my job right, supposedly, a great one. And the best candidates are being pursued by other firms, period. To use your words--- go with your gut feeling and "pull the trigger", or you miss out on some of the best available talent out there.

Comment