Comments - Redefine Your Recruitment and Social Media Strategies - RecruitingBlogs2024-03-29T08:47:34Zhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=502551%3ABlogPost%3A1768489&xn_auth=noHistorically, candidates woul…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2013-11-12:502551:Comment:17688502013-11-12T01:00:53.835ZRichard Petersonhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/RichardPeterson237
<p>Historically, candidates would say in their interviews, "I Am Here to Make You Look Good."</p>
<p>Those were the ones who got the offers. :-(</p>
<p>Some of my guys succeeded with one of my lines, "What Does it take to Fail Here?"</p>
<p>I do agree about the fear of wrong hiring. The fear is not about bad decisions. It's about fear of litigation. Depending on the size of a company, they can count on several lawsuits per month, hence the "Focus" on ER. (Employee relations.</p>
<p>That unit…</p>
<p>Historically, candidates would say in their interviews, "I Am Here to Make You Look Good."</p>
<p>Those were the ones who got the offers. :-(</p>
<p>Some of my guys succeeded with one of my lines, "What Does it take to Fail Here?"</p>
<p>I do agree about the fear of wrong hiring. The fear is not about bad decisions. It's about fear of litigation. Depending on the size of a company, they can count on several lawsuits per month, hence the "Focus" on ER. (Employee relations.</p>
<p>That unit has nothing to do with ER. It has to do with how to keep the company out of court or from losing large sums in settlements.</p>
<p>IKB (I'll Keep Blogging)</p>
<p>Thank you for explaining the shorthand.</p>
<p>BESTS,</p>
<p>~RICH PETERSON</p> Thanks again, Richard."It's a…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2013-11-11:502551:Comment:17689382013-11-11T22:44:55.765ZKeith D. Halperinhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/KeithDHalperin
<p>Thanks again, Richard."It's all about H-I-R-E-S!" While you, I, and most of our Gentle Readers probably agree, that's how it SHOULD be, that's not the way it often IS.I've frequently worked in large or small "bloatocracies" where process overruled results, and the real goal was to make sure that you looked good in the eyes of your superiors by making your superiors look good. If actual hires didn't screw that up too badly, they might be OK.... In addition, in many companies: the fear of…</p>
<p>Thanks again, Richard."It's all about H-I-R-E-S!" While you, I, and most of our Gentle Readers probably agree, that's how it SHOULD be, that's not the way it often IS.I've frequently worked in large or small "bloatocracies" where process overruled results, and the real goal was to make sure that you looked good in the eyes of your superiors by making your superiors look good. If actual hires didn't screw that up too badly, they might be OK.... In addition, in many companies: the fear of wrong hiring is greater than the fear of NOT hiring, so very few butts get put in seats...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>PKB (Please Keep Blogging),</p>
<p> </p>
<p>KH</p> Keith:
The analysis can come…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2013-11-11:502551:Comment:17690242013-11-11T21:47:31.204ZRichard Petersonhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/RichardPeterson237
<p>Keith:</p>
<p>The analysis can come from any source:</p>
<p>1.) Recruiter</p>
<p>2.) Employment Manager</p>
<p>3.) CFO</p>
<p>4.) Ad Agency</p>
<p>And, anyone else who is concerned about covering all or any of the bases.</p>
<p>As for "Buy-In or Approval" my hunch is probably the same as yours:</p>
<p>It's all about H-I-R-E-S!</p>
<p>If they want them, then they have to pay for them.</p>
<p>Either through an agency and not spend the time evaluating and/or pursuing these avenues or assert…</p>
<p>Keith:</p>
<p>The analysis can come from any source:</p>
<p>1.) Recruiter</p>
<p>2.) Employment Manager</p>
<p>3.) CFO</p>
<p>4.) Ad Agency</p>
<p>And, anyone else who is concerned about covering all or any of the bases.</p>
<p>As for "Buy-In or Approval" my hunch is probably the same as yours:</p>
<p>It's all about H-I-R-E-S!</p>
<p>If they want them, then they have to pay for them.</p>
<p>Either through an agency and not spend the time evaluating and/or pursuing these avenues or assert themselves to find the hire they want.</p>
<p>Hope I answered your questions satisfactorily.</p>
<p>Bests,</p>
<p>Rich Peterson</p> Thanks, Richard. I think ther…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2013-11-11:502551:Comment:17691122013-11-11T20:03:21.897ZKeith D. Halperinhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/KeithDHalperin
<p>Thanks, Richard. I think there are many good and (potentially) practical tips here.</p>
<p>1) Who is going to analyze and prioritize these?</p>
<p>2) How would the Staffing Head get buy-in and budget approval? Remember, the usual unstated position of superiors is: "Unless this works, I'm against it."</p>
<p>3) Since many of us recruiters, sourcers, etc. are already overworked, how would we get the bandwidth to do these new things?</p>
<p>4) If internal/ contract recruiters are assigned these…</p>
<p>Thanks, Richard. I think there are many good and (potentially) practical tips here.</p>
<p>1) Who is going to analyze and prioritize these?</p>
<p>2) How would the Staffing Head get buy-in and budget approval? Remember, the usual unstated position of superiors is: "Unless this works, I'm against it."</p>
<p>3) Since many of us recruiters, sourcers, etc. are already overworked, how would we get the bandwidth to do these new things?</p>
<p>4) If internal/ contract recruiters are assigned these new things, how can we make sure that the hires are considered to be ours? (Often, hires like ER hires aren't considered to be "ours" so consequently, it's not in our interest to pursue them.)</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Keith</p>