One thing [Overloaded] Corporate Recruiters value in Recruitment Agencies...

I was a "Head-hunter" (on contingency basis) for over 11yrs and have been on the "other side of the desk" for over 5yrs. Having worked on both sides, I can understand the frustrations both agency recruiters and corporate recruiters feel when dealing with each other.

Ironically, some of the frustrations are similiar such as response time, communication, content of requested information, etc. We both have the same complaints in many cases, the difference is from which side it comes and who has it first. Either way, it can develop into a real quagmire of frustrating issues that eventually get resolved either by Agency pouching from their client (because they decided that it was more valuable taking out of them than working with them), or Corporate Recruiters black-listing the agency (usually done discretely by consistantly telling them that they don't have any job orders to give them until they fade away...and probably end up pouching from them anyway).

Just as a gentle reminder, Corporate Recruiters have more than just sourcing, qualifying and placing the candidate. We also have to deal with Compliance issues (internal/external), Corporate Initiatives (e.g. Diversity), Constant Meetings with Stakeholders, Training, Posting jobs and documentation on ATS', "special projects"--lovely term for "more work, more hours, zero reward", etc. , etc, ETC!

Because we (Corporate Recruiters) are over-worked beyond belief (especially with downsizing recruitment depts to bare bone), this creates a need for what I call, "Recruitment PARTNERS", not "Vendors".

So as my Post Title suggestions, I'd like to let all the Agency Recruiters know a particular area that can "set-you-apart" from "Head-hunters".

The primary value is information. Since our days are spent (including but not limited to) handling 100+emails, managing the recruitment process, creating and explaining endless spreadsheets for each of our 40+Hiring Managers, the last thing we want to have to do is spend hours qualifying ONE candidate for ONE position (of +40 positions we have to fill YESTERDAY)...especially when the candidate comes from an Agency!

"Head-hunters" to me is defined as a recruiter that sends a SANITIZED CV with little to no extra information other than the typical 4-5 bullets such as availability to interview, salary expectations, etc. and doesn’t do any more work except when requested (piece-mealed!).

What a “Recruitment Partner” will do is send their INTERVIEW NOTES TO THE CORPORATE RECRUITER! When you’ve invested the time to FULLY INTERVIEW YOUR (I REPEAT, YOUR) candidate, AND SENDS THOSE INTERVIEW NOTES to the Corporate Recruiter, it saves us:

1) Time
2) Gives us a wealth of information to process in little to no time, and
3) We can then make an informed decision (collectively with the Hiring Manager or with the Recruitment Partner themselves) as to which direction we want to go in with THEIR candidate.

Notice I mention that the candidate is the Recruitment Partner’s candidate? Because the Candidate is YOUR ASSET, not the Corporate Recruiters. And some of you have experienced “Credit-Junkie” Corporate Recruiters but regardless if they want to take an ego trip and claim the candidate as their own, at the end of the day, it shouldn’t matter to you because it all comes out in the open. Did you forget that the candidate knows who placed them?? So don’t get caught-up in that mess. It’s a waste of time. Your stock will go up in the eyes of the Hiring Manager/Stakeholders no matter how political the Corporate Recruiter gets.

You see, the value of information is priceless to a Corporate Recruiter. The more you can do for us, the less we have to do, and the less we have to do, the more valuable you become, and the more valuable you become, the more we want to use you. So just because you work on a contingency basis, or you fear loss, the worst you can do is give limited information. You limit your ability to make a placement and build your relationship when you work with limitations. Don't worry about the limitations the Corporate Recruiter places on you (e.g. gate-keeper to Hiring Manager), go with blind faith and SET EXPECTATIONS UP FRONT with them! AND REMIND THEM WHEN THEY DON'T MEET YOUR EXPECATION...gently (as you are probably aware that Corporate Recruiters can sometimes have "attitudes" with "HEAD-HUNTERS"). Its up to your savy ways to find a way to connect with your client.

I suggest that the main reason why Recruiters don’t divulge Candidates' contact information up front, and hold information back is due to trust. My suggestion to you is:

IF YOU DON’T TRUST YOUR CLIENT ENOUGH TO DIVULGE ALL THE INFORMATION UP FRONT, THEN YOU HAVE A TRUST ISSUE. AND IF YOU HAVE A TRUST ISSUE, WHY DO YOU EVEN WANT TO ENGAGE IN A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM? THE SAME PHILOSOPHY APPLIES IN PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS APPLIES IN BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS. ESTABLISH TRUST FIRST, BUILD ON IT WITH SOME AMOUNT OF BLIND FAITH, AND GO FROM THERE. I can certainly assure you that if a Corporate Recruiter doesn’t trust an Agency Recruiter, believe me, you are of no value to them nor yourself. And at the cost of contingency, what dice do you want to roll?

Comment by Slouch on March 9, 2011 at 4:41pm: Thanks for Joining the network and this is a good 1st post that I hope gets a lot of comments. I think when you talk about recruiters leaving candidate info off of the resumes it's not only because of a fear of getting scooped on it somehow but it's more so if the client wants to talk with them, they don't just pick up the phone and call. I think it's important for the recruiter to let the candidate know a call is coming and for the recruiter to prep the candidate. Not sure if it's just a trust issue. Other than that I hope you keep writing and share more of your views. This is a good blog post.

Comment by Recruiting Animal on March 9, 2011 at 5:03pm: Mo, someone who liked this blog posting suggested that I ask you to be a guest on The Recruiting Animal Show. I have a spot open next Wed. RU interested?

Please note:

This is a show for people who are well-adjusted.

If you can't take shouting and criticism it's not the place for you.

The show is very blunt and straightforward. It can be ruff.

So you have to listen b4U agree to appear in the hotseat.

You can find the archive here: http://bit.ly/O7EER

I dont want anyone going away surprised and mad.

I want happy customers.

Does this sound like a party you want to attend?

Just let me know.

The show is always Wed at Noon Eastern Time.

It lasts an hour.

If you have a boss YOU MUST GET APPROVAL FROM HER.

Regards from me

Comment by Sandra McCartt on March 9, 2011 at 6:11pm: YES, YES, Yes, and Yes. Be part of the solution instead of part of or all of the problem.

I have apologized to clients for more recruiters than i have placed people..and i have placed a lot of people. I kick back resumes to other recruiters myself because i get resumes with no contact and three bullet points on them instead of a candidate write up.

Honest to God you don't have to have your company name stamped all over a resume. If we trust our clients and we play by the rules we will get credit for our referrals. So what if a company picks up the phone and calls your candidate direct. Stay in touch with the candidate, they will call you immediately if they get a call. The objective is to get people interviewed and hired not be in control of everything and everybody. Trust me, it's not you rapping your shit that gets people hired. It's the quality of the candidate and the information we can provide that makes it happen not our silly BS.

There are more recruiters acting like paranoid little snakes right now than i have ever seen in decades. If you are that worried about somebody taking the meat off your sandwich, go sell ginzu knives .

Comment by Bill Ward on March 9, 2011 at 7:31pm: The reason there's so much BS going on is because the process is flawed. Candidate ownership in many cases comes down to he said she said. Clearly define the ground rules on both sides, pick a select few to represent you as your third party recruiter and treat them like insiders. Not many companies do a good job of dealing recruiters in. They simply want CV's and lots of them...which is a huge waste of time for a great recruiter. The result is the recruiter sourcing marketable candidates that could get offers at multiple clients. If you're going the contingency route, there is absolutely no candidate exclusivity. You're allowing the recruiter to put your firm in competition with every other firm that also has a contingency arrangement with that recruiter. They key for this type of recruiter to earn the highest possible fee is to play both sides of the fence, control the information flow. I personally find this type of recruiting of low value and extremely frustrating which is why I don't play that game.

Comment by bob on March 10, 2011 at 12:05pm: i am so glad you posted this ..I need to understand your words a little better. are you sayibg that we have to provide you everything about a candidates in HOPES that

you will not just happen find the exact same type of candidate in your database

i wont get a letter saying that 'the candidate' applied for a similar spot some time in the past and i am not entitled to a fee

the candidate will not be sourced and his references wont be called prior to an offer

if you work ethically and honorably like I do i can use a partner on your side. thanks bob mirabile 631 398 4480

Comment by Nick Gray on March 10, 2011 at 12:17pm: I'd argue that version 2.0 of dealing with recruiters could be much simpler.

Corporate recruiters should be able to search details of available applicants from recruiters, rather than subjecting themselves to each recruiter's interpretation of their particular requirements.

This is something we're working on at the moment and is only part of the solution we intend to offer - check www.engineeryourcareer.com

Hopefully we'll be done and launching for our first vertical (engineering) in a few months >

Comment by John Bennewith on March 10, 2011 at 12:30pm: Mr Corporate Recruiter as a job title is as flawed as an agency recruiter. How can you supply names and contact details when there is so much social media out there and that Mr Corporate recruiter is also searching in the same places to build a talent pool and then in 18 months they will try and hire this person and pay no fees.

Comment by Louis Volpe on March 10, 2011 at 12:32pm: In an 'ideal' world corporate recruiters would provide a detailed job requisition with pertinent, not boiler plate information, including realistic salary targets, specific knock-outs or must- haves and then respond in a timely manner when a candidate is submitted. Conversely the agency recruiter would carefully read the job requirements and vet each interested candidate by thoroughly interviewing the candidate, and then only submit the very best of the lot, no more than 2 or 3. Once your candidate is accepted, then determine the time frame from the corporate recruiter as to next steps, keep you candidate in the loop and don't bug the corporate recruiter, until they do not live up to their end of the agreement.

In reality too many corporate recruiters simply abuse the relationship they have with agency recruiters by not reviewing submission quickly or at all. By not providing any feedback or very little and in some cases taking the referral and THEN searching their resume data base to determine if the candidate is in it and then reject the agency referral. Agency recruiters can be just as bad; posting the job requisition verbatim all over the net and then submitting any candidate who looks reasonably qualified to the employer, hoping against hope that one of the submissions may make it through.

The relationship between the corporate recruiter and agency recruiter is complex but should not be viewed as adversarial. Both want the same conclusion, a placement or filled requisition. A wise corporate recruiter knows that a true agency partner will be there, when needed to help fill a critical position; and a smart agency recruiter will understand that corporate recruiters have a lot on their plate besides feeling requisitions. Their job is to shoulder the responsibility of thoroughly qualifying candidates BEFORE they are submitted and then work within the parameters set by the corporate partner.

Comment by Jody Schwartz on March 10, 2011 at 12:32pm: I think this is a great subject and YES I AGREE WITH MAURICIO!!!!!!!!!!!! I am a contingent recruiter and I have a new client who has also taught me the ropes AFTER 18 YEARS OF DOING THIS! I have never been a corporate recruiter only a contingent "headhunter" and I learned after doing a search for my new client how to make "her" life easier and yes she will use me more if I don't make it more complicated for her. I now put together a nice easy to read presentation with all the pertinent information needed so that she can quickly forward it all on to HER boss!!! She asked me to put my presentation together in a different format and it is much more professional and much easier for her to use. I have to admit most of my other clients were fine with my other presentation style but they were from much smaller companies and they were the owners, presidents and office managers. I appreciate what she has done for me and I learned a lot. YES, THEY HAVE A LOT MORE TO DO THAN HIRE OUR CANDIDATES.

Comment by bob on March 10, 2011 at 12:33pm: the system is flawed because people on both side obuscate the truth

solution is simple give me a contract that is worth signing including 'but for ' language to protect both parties... give me a real job order with the contract. i provide as i do with other internal recruiters render full disclosure.. as my favorite president Regan once said ' trust but verify' and i add have a good contract

Comment