Comment by Valentino Martinez on September 27, 2011 at 1:18pm

Francois,

I like your post because it invites input from both parties on what often amounts to rewarding and/or hostile relationships between HR and External Recruiters.

However, in keeping with your Wild Western theme I see HR as less of a “barkeep” and more of a Sheriff in the relationship because they enforce the rules, sign the contracts and guard the gate to the place where a person can live and work—and do contract work.  The frontline Recruiter amounts to a Deputy Sheriff.  And the External Recruiter is not simply a “Cowboy” but a Bounty Hunter, because they get paid for finding people--but with a positive focus rather than those that typically would be looking for Dead or Alive searches.

As to your reasons:  In #1—external recruiters don’t break the rules if they want to stay in the relationship.  Those that do are cut loose. 

In #3 external recruiters cannot offer more money.  In fact, they cannot offer any money.  They can only recommend what compensation would be required to land a candidate.

In #5 HR controls the final offer...if they're smart.

In #6 HR has it’s own recruitment team and therefore are constantly looking to do their own placements in effort to rely less and less on external recruiters.

In #7 HR hates “paperwork” more than external recruiters do--but must maintain it for legal purposes.

In #9 "No" to HR means "HELL NO!" To the smart external recruiter “No” means No.

And for #10 HR and External Recruiters can decide to work together or not work at all.

And Francois--your photo of "Recruiter Six Shooter" is rather insulting.  Your critter is not even holding guns much less blazing them.  And is that a Pink Cape w/White Gloves?  The hat's tilted the wrong way unless of course it's on a cartoon character.  Here's a closer resemblance of what an OLD WEST BOUNTY HUNTER would look like...a bit more modernized but it works.  Cheers...

Comment by Francois Guay on September 27, 2011 at 1:39pm

Yes a Jonah Hex would have been appropriate..ha ha

 

Comment by Amy Ala Miller on September 27, 2011 at 2:15pm

Thanks Francois - I enjoyed this list.  :)  I only want to add that this applies to internal recruiters too... we are NOT HR.  Especially on 7 and 9.

Comment by Philip Boltt on September 28, 2011 at 9:58am

#9, a good point to ponder

Comment by Brian K. Johnston on September 28, 2011 at 10:05am

Those who "Listen" inherit the earth (2 ears/1mouth is by design)... Good post!

Comment by bill josephson on September 28, 2011 at 10:24am

I believe this is an excellent list Francois put together and agree with Valentino's input. 

 

As an external recruiter in this economy I've found the great unkown going into any assignment, no matter what anyone within the company tells you going in, it really comes down to whether ot not the company actually wants to fill the position with any urgency and/or if they really seriously want to consider the best talent out there--not just the best talent available/identifiable by them.

 

I'm consistently amazed at how poor a job internal recruiters do managing the interview/hiring process.   Long delays at every step of the way despite repeated mention of "critical need."  Promises of feedback within 48 hours of receiving a resume lasting weeks, weeks before scheduling an interview, weeks before receiving interview feedback, weeks between interviews, weeks before an offer, and so forth.  I believe internal recruiters aren't in control yet, if you don't work with them you're often "done" with the company. 

 

Does the company need to fill the position?  Or, is there an open position if GOD happens to show up?  Will they really consider your candidate?  Or, are they simply comparing your candidate to their internals really wanting to promote from within--of course telling you from the outset there are no internal candidates?  Are they serious?  Or, do they just want to see who's out there?  And the worst.......is the company looking to you to supply passive/invisible candidates they can't find only to call them in after you've severed wotking with them out of non activity frustration?

 

What I'm saying is this.  In this challenging economy where recruiters are required to fill the tough Mission Impossible assignments fighting hard to pry a top performer from one's client's competitor where there might be regionally only a small handful of qualified candidates, at the end of the day will your client actually make an offer to one?

Comment by Suzanne Levison on September 28, 2011 at 10:32am

I enjoyed reading this post. Some HR pro's fit your analysis, then there are the handful who are more aligned with recruiting/in house and those of "Cowboy" status

Comment by Barbara Goldman on September 28, 2011 at 11:10am

1. HR follows the rules while recruiters break them.
   1.  Since I am not your employee, I have no rules of yours to break.
2. They both think they add more value to the business than the other.
   1. Not true. I know that the internal pros fill 97% of the openings. I have less value.
3. Recruiters offer more money to close offers while HR is trying to stay within the salary cap.
   1. What recruiter would do that? Everyone knows to close low. What planet are you on?
4. Recruiting  is about doing it (tactical) while all the HR group  seems to want to do is talk about it  (strategic).
   1. Not true. Have you ever heard of 'confidential' assignments?   That's the 3%. Seems like strategic proactive involvement to me.
5. They both think they are in charge of the final offer.
   1. Don't touch my 3% - you give your offers, I'll give mine. Anything else is a road to ruin.
6. To HR workforce planning is their main job, while to recruiters any workforce planning efforts going on within the company mean they will be looking for another job soon.
   1.  
      1. Scratching my head over this one. Recruiters always win. The company lays off, we replace with better hires. Mergers, acquisitions, layoffs, etc are all situations for outside recruiters.
7. HR loves paperwork but  to a recruiter the only paperwork required is a napkin at a bar to jot down candidate essentials.
   1. TRUE TRUE TRUE. I'll chose the napkin any day.
8. HR usually holds the purse strings while recruiting is it’s poor jealous cousin looking for hand me downs or a hand out.
   1. I've never known HR to hold purse strings. There are many budgets available for recruiting fees within the different departments.
9. No to HR means No but to a recruiter No means let the games begin.
   1. No to a recruiter means "NOT TODAY" Everything changes. Change is good. Friday is resignation day. Monday is a whole new world.
10. Finally to the business HR and Recruiters are one and the same (Doh!)
    1. We are totally different. Like Cardiologists and Internists, when everyone gets that we are different, there will be no animosity.

 

Comment by Morgan Stebbins on September 28, 2011 at 11:39am

Awesome Francois!!!  Great laugh and very true!!!

Morgan

Joppa Medical Recruiting

306090medicalsales.com

 

Comment by Valentino Martinez on September 28, 2011 at 11:59am

@Barbara...now we're (you're) talk'n.  Great dissection of Francois's 10 Reasons ... that mostly missed the reasonable mark.  Plus the cartoon was too PG.  Recruiters tend to be hardcore...if we showed up with white gloves the client would assume we're here to check for dust and unruly pillow placements.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page