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 Sandra McCartt on March 9, 2011 at 12:30pm: I have at times been able to get a hiring manager to pull the trigger by sending them 10 or 15 resumes in one email with a note that says, "These are the candidates that i have eliminated, if i have missed one that you feel is of interest please let me know." When the HM really sees that we have identified the best and also sees what else is out there it sometimes gives them a comfort zone. And they can go to their boss with the best and show them the rest.

Comment by Alpha Mugudubi on March 11, 2011 at 9:14am: Hiring star candidates isnt always the best strategy. The stars should be reserved for the role that is strategically important for the business (and this will be different for every company). I think when hiring managers ask to see more candidates they are not always asking to see better candidates. Sometimes an avarage candidate will actually the best fit for the business. To build a great team you need to have both star and average players.

Comment by Ken Forrester on March 11, 2011 at 10:59am: I agree with Sandra. When you can demonstrate that you have evaluated a large talent pool and introduce only the best to the interview process, then your value will increase form just another recruiter to a trusted advisor and a true partner. The opinion of a trusted advisor is viewed differently than someone who is only interested in making a quick placement.

Comment by Christopher Poreda on March 12, 2011 at 7:27pm: @Sandra...interesting tactic. I'm guessing you really need to know your client 'cause I could see it easily backfiring if not executed properly. But your reputation precedes you so I know it's worked.

@Ken...I'm sorry, perhaps I'm missing something but I still can't understand the correlation between proving you've evaluated a large pool of candidates against the number of candidates submitted as a value proposition. If I submit three of my best, and the client is satisfied with my submissions, it shouldn't matter if I evaluated three or two hundred and thirty three...no? I would argue that I don't need to evaluate two hundred and thirty three if I know my client...and in that case I'm more a trusted adviser.

@ Alpha...to your last sentence...like the Yankees? Sorry, as a Yankee fan I couldn't resist...it's baseball season! No harm meant.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on March 13, 2011 at 1:31am: Not something I do often but when a client keeps wanting to see more candidates without negating any of the top three that I have sent. It tells me that they want to know who else is out there or that they need some comparison to justify to their boss that they have looked at the market availability of candidates.

Sometimes, because we do the screening and only move the best forward I think clients get the idea that if there are three this good available there must be more good ones so they want to see more. When they actually see 10 or 15 less qualified the top three look better.

Some clients don't give a rip if we evaluate 1or 100. They just want one that fits and they run with them. Others who are going to pay a 30 or 40k fee want to make sure they have hard shopped the market so to them sharing the talent pool let's them know we have done that for them. That is the value. Actually has worked better for me with a new client than one I work with a lot. I include my notes indicating why they have been eliminated. Sometimes let's a client follow my thought process.

Funny thing is I have made several placements from the eliminated group when a client has said, "you are right about this candidate not being a fit for this spot but we have another position we have not listed that they may fit, so send them in tomorrow."

Comment by Christopher Poreda on March 13, 2011 at 8:18am: I like it Sandra!

Comment by Alpha Mugudubi on March 13, 2011 at 2:24pm: @christopher - none taken. We dont get any baseball out here in London. But saw that galacticos at Real Madrid havent worked out either.

Comment