Comment by bill josephson on September 26, 2012 at 1:30pm

Sheila, what I'm looking for isn't involved.

The advantage third parties typically had was cold calling directly into a client's competitors or where qualified candidates would be employed since the client companies were reluctant doing so out of concern of bad publicity, harassment or piracy legal charges, and/or reprisal poaching.

When the Internet and social media took off more passive/invisible candidates were accessible requiring less need for third party recruiters. 

 

Now it seems, could be wrong, that internal corporate recruiters are phone contact recruiting directly into competitors with social media found names.

 

Seems the only role left that third parties did internal corporate recruiters didn't was direct cold calling around departments looking for candidates.  Are corporate recruiters now engaged in that as well?

If so, then is it fair to say there's nothing 3rd parties are doing that internal corporate recruiters aren't also doing themselves?

Comment by bill josephson on September 26, 2012 at 1:51pm

Sheila I understand corporate internal recruiters are doing well.

If they're performing every task an external third party recruiter is including cold call recruiting directly into competitors aren't they then doing everything third party recruiters are doing rendering them obsolete, except releasing jobs to them they've failed on?

And if so, why wouldn't all third party external recruiters try to go to work for corporate?

Comment by Rob on September 26, 2012 at 2:29pm

Bill, I think to your question about what value a third party recruiter has when competing with internals, for me there are two things: One you very rarely see internal recruiters at events, conferences, industry get togethers and the like. I have never met one at one of these events in my industry in four years. This means that they are mostly online, building transactional relationships by phone. We've got a phrase in our business. It's not who you know, but how well you know them. Pressing the flesh is such an important thing to do not just for meeting passive candidates but also for weak links and referrals they can give you but only once you've developed a relationship with them. 

The second aspect we can do better is focus. They usually have loads of vacancies. Maybe we just take one or two a month. Therefore we can take their 'trash' vacancies that they are putting at the bottom of their to do list day after day because they are so hard. With focus and persistence we can fill those vacancies and add value. 

Comment by sheila Greco on September 26, 2012 at 2:33pm

Nicely put Rob.

Comment by bill josephson on September 26, 2012 at 2:51pm

@Rob, so what you're in essence saying is a nationally focused third party recruiter's present role, who doesn't meet people at gatherings due to geographical constraints, is primarily picking up 1-2 "trash" assignments a month that corporate internal recruiters either can't or don't have the time to fill.

 

So it sounds like internal recruiters, having been 3rd party search/contingency recruiters, are successful at recruiting and direcly cold calling into competitors looking for the same passive/invisible candidates third party recruiters are, is that correct?

And if so, doesn't it mostly render third party recruiters as obsolete since internals can and are performing the exact same role?

Where I'm going with this is if third party recruiters are given low success assignments how do they earn as good money as internal corporate recruiters?  And why would they remain third party recruiters not trying to all go inside corporate?

Comment by Rob on September 26, 2012 at 3:35pm

Hi Bill, I think it really depends on how lucrative those 1-2 assignments a month can be. I know I can earn a lot more money working externally than being a salaried employee in house mainly because there is the premium that we charge and how valuable it is to our clients.

Of course internal recruiters can cold call the way we do. I don't think that's hugely valuable though. I think the biggest value is knowing your candidate network before you need them, building a relationship and persuading them over time to work for your clients. Then it becomes less reactive and possibly more valuable. internal recruiters don't have time for this because they'll in full time reactive mode with 30 vacancies on the desk. 

Comment by bill josephson on September 27, 2012 at 7:28am

@Rob, thanks for your response.
Seems then the external third party role presently seems to be to have a stable of candidates 'just in case' they're needed in a market niche and be ready to take on low success probability assignments that corporate couldn't fill.

 

They're able to do everything we do, access passive/invisible candidates through technology, and currently cold call into companies networking/recruiting as we do mining for people not concerned about consequences for directly going into competitors.  Our advantage was supplying them people they couldn't access, now they're able to access them as well.

So it seems there's very little service we can provide them unless it's a discard job they've quit or too busy to work on.  The only caveat is what happens if the jobs market/economy picks up and internal corporate can't handle the increased load?  I don't know if we're ever getting back to that environment in most disciplines.

If this is true, doesn't it make more sense working as an inhouse recruiter as you're assured of a stream of jobs to work on getting paid for recruiting effort, as compared to not knowing if/when you'll receive a low success probability discard job from corporate to work on and how many months it will take to fill it, if at all?

Again, if corporate recruiters are working as third party recruiters accessing comparable quality people as we are directly calling into companies networking and cold call recruiting as we do, aren't third party recruiters on the verge of becoming obsolete and extinct?

How do we survive if we're indistinguishable from what corporate recuiters are doing?
And why have third party skilled recruiters gone in-house?

Used to be the best recruiters were external as that's where the money was.

Comment by Jerry Albright on September 27, 2012 at 9:46am

I'm sorry Bill - but in reading your comments here I'm really struggling to see where you feel your value is.  I'm a 3rd party guy.  Have been for 25 years.  I can count on one hand the few times where I have felt I did not have a solid position to work on.  There have also been very few times where I did not have at least ONE sendout on the board.

 

I do ALL KINDS OF THINGS that internal recruiters either can't or don't have the time or knowledge to do. 

 

There is not an internal recruiting position in this world that would EVER interest me.  Just because they all have a Twitter account and Linkedin profile doesn't mean they've got us beat.  Not now - not ever.  It's what you do, how you dig and how you feel about what you're doing.

 

Please take this constructively as it is meant only to offer an opinion from another "guy on the outside" - your self talk is defeating you - not the internal recruiters.

One more point - why work with these huge companies that have inhouse recruiting teams?  The world is filled with growing, smaller companies without recruiting strength inside.  Go find a few.

Comment by bill josephson on September 27, 2012 at 5:35pm

Jerry, couple of points.

I'm not getting beat by internal recruiters.  But are the reason I don't receive assignments.  Not the typical in house types, but very sharp ex third party recruiters going inhouse due to economic conditions out house.

I've recently had a couple of corporate Directors after hearing my pitch ask what I'm doing they can't?  They call into companies, cold call into departments, obviously track LinkedIn names......but bottom line being they can perform my function.  So it's more being aware my competition is keener than I thought, from inside.

 

Second, positions received are low success varieties with the common issues....lateral move, relo, 100% perfection, average salary, incongruent skill sets, etc....

 

Third, since I'm on my own and don't get out too much intensively on the phone I like to evoke discussion to get peoples' thoughts on whether they're encountering the same self-sufficient T & A issues and experiences as a reality check as to where the differential edge is for me to justify a fee.

Seems meeting candidates, building a stable of candidates, readiness to work on discarded or low success rate assignments, and working with smaller companies are some suggestions.

 

Maybe my clients tend to be more Fortune 200, hire savvy T & A recruiters, superior technologically, and thus more self-sufficient.  But being aware of what's going on through direct daily experiences and getting input is invaluable from where I sit.

Comment by Brigadier YR MAINDIRATTA on September 28, 2012 at 5:19am

Some trends in recruting that we are noticing in India are:

  - Many of the biggies software names are utilising contingent staffing as a side business and that to good effect. They manitain bench strength to bag projects. To minimise their idle workforce they get into offering technical resources as contractors to other companies. Effect: smaller recruting,staffing/ Staff Augmenation companies are feeling the heat.

 - The costs of doing business are ever on the increase. Big software companies are imposing various compliances and audits thereto. How can the American standards work in country like India! But who is bothered. There is just too much of sham!

-  Application of  supply-chain and inventory management concepts and practices in human talent mangement is taking 'life' out of this business.

  -  Coupled with the above,'Commodotisation' of resources is leading to 'business by any means by anyone'.

The above trends are worrisome for the Stafing Industry.

Would be happy to hear considered opinion of the experts.

Thank you Sheila for creating this forum.

Regards,

 

 

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page