Danny Cahill's "Best Recruiters" Comment (From JD's Email Today)

Per JD's email to the network today (2/3/09), noting Danny Cahill:

I'm a huge Danny Cahill fan - the guy is a mover and shaker and guess what, he just might hurt your feelings. But in the end, we all need a swift kick in the rear sometimes. I have a quick thought to JD's quoting of Danny Cahill below:

"The best recruiters are the ones that you hire at the bottom of a recession and the superstars you hired in good times will have no choice but to leave because they don't make placements happen. They fill positions and that is easy in good times."

Here's my take: Every time I hear another Executive Recruiter say its "too noobie" of a philosophy to focus on tough positions, I think they've resorted to a simple 'filling positions' mentality. It's complacency, as if somehow our tenure as an Exec Recruiter earns us the right to not work the difficult searches anymore. Like athletes, we're only as good as our last search, match, or game.

Yeah, the tougher searches are, well, tougher . . . but the probability of fill is higher if you have developed a niche . . . on top of the fact that your Client will remember you. You'll become a legend instead of the typical vendor-du-jour.

Focusing on 'easy fills' is the work of the publicly traded, big-box agencies that are candidate factories. They work on volume by throwing a bunch of resumes at Clients, which marries well with red tape. Hiring process too long? No big deal because they sub'd that candidate to 10 other companies. Odd Hiring Manager? No big deal because we have 50 other marginal candidates just like the one we sub'd you. Is your Employment Strategy to hire mediocre and then develop the talent? No problem, because you only pay 20% anyway . . . and our clients who pay 22% get first right of refusal on ALL candidates in the first place.

See, we can't have it both ways. A 'relationship' doesn't mean the Exec Recruiter gets cake searches to fill. I've learned this the hard way by investing heavily in dinners, entertainment, etc. upon which the Hiring Manager still hires the BEST candidate for the job. Sure, maybe they lean your way if you're working on a cake job in which all sub'd candidates look the same . . . but such is a losing philosophy. Trust is earned by providing super candidates on the toughest-to-fill jobs . . . oh, and not to mention, your higher fee is justified as well.

Want to justify your value? Then work the tough jobs and build trust/loyalty by coming through where Clients need you most. Leave the mediocre 'cake hunting' mentality to everyone else who claims it's "too noobie", while the real issue is that they gotten complacent and don't want to work as hard anymore.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Recruiting Animal on February 3, 2009 at 1:37pm

I'll mention it on the show tomorrow. You should have called in last a couple of weeks ago when that was being discussed.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on February 3, 2009 at 1:54pm

Dear Joshua - bless your heart - I just love the spunk you bring to our big table! Thank you.

But let's get real here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the so-called "filling positions" type of recruiter. In fact - it is the real goal out here, isn't it? Unless we are more caught up with Personal Branding, Talent Pipelining, Tweeting about our toughest searches and the mile-high pile of EVERY OTHER distraction out here.

I have spent my entire career building my talent pool. So when a client needs someone - I already know several likely candidates to get started with. I'm not out here grasping at the "toughest" positions. Those positions for whatever reason have a problem - which I am most likely not going to have enough input to solve.

Bottom line - I am not here to PROVE anything. I am here to excel for my customers. Just like going to a fine restaurant. Do you expect the chef to whip up the very hardest dish known to man each time? I certainly don't. Good restaurants are always busy - regardless of how difficult the menu us.

Please get real with yourself.

Signed,
Resorted to Simply "Filling Positions".........(as often as I can!)

P.S. Hopefully you will see my spirit of fun debate here. I enjoy your posts. Keep them coming!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on February 3, 2009 at 2:20pm

Jerry, sounds like I've hit a interesting point with you. Let me ask you something. When you say, "Please get real with yourself", what are you inferring? Is it unreal to focus on the tough positions? Enlighten me.

In my honest opinion, working the tough positions and enjoying the hunt associated is not about PROVING (using all caps as you drew attention to this in your comment) anything. I can tell you that of all high performers I've ever been around (whether it be sports, business, etc.), there is a desire to more prove something to yourself as opposed to proving something to someone else. Many athletes that go to the Hall of Fame were never out to prove anything to the fans - it's their inner desire to compete at a high level and win. It's why Michael Jordan was up at 5am shooting jump shots while the competition laid in bed, getting a 'good night's rest'.

In the end, Jerry, perhaps we disagree on this. But I can tell you that if you look at someone who wants to be the best (and holds themselves to a high standard), and tell them to "get real" with themselves, you're not going to get a "Yeah, you're right . . . I guess I'll give up" response. At least not from me . . . and if the shoe doesn't fit in terms of becoming complacent while 'cake hunting', then don't wear it.

An analogy as to restaurants making crappy food is weak, at best. Here's why: You get what you order at the restaurant, and you pay accordingly. If you want to speak to probability of fill being lower because you're working jobs that HR can't fill on their own, I can respect that . . . but I'm not buying your chef argument. Great restaurants are great because the chefs consistently make great food. Sure, over time, many become more lax . . . and guess what happens? The hungrier wolf comes along and takes their supper.

Bless your heart, too :) I'm working on getting real by focusing on the tough-to-fill searches, so maybe I'm on the wrong track :)

Jerry Albright said:

Dear Joshua - bless your heart - I just love the spunk you bring to our big table! Thank you.
But let's get real here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the so-called "filling positions" type of recruiter. In fact - it is the real goal out here, isn't it? Unless we are more caught up with Personal Branding, Talent Pipelining, Tweeting about our toughest searches and the mile-high pile of EVERY OTHER distraction out here. ....... Please get real with yourself. Signed,
Resorted to Simply "Filling Positions".........(as often as I can!)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on February 3, 2009 at 2:28pm

Josh - no sore spot here. As I said - I do enjoy your posts. There's plenty of room out here for all of us. That's what makes these social sites fun. To gain other perspectives.

The "get real" part could certainly use some more info from me though. What I mean is - wanting to take on the hardest/toughests/rarest/etc. jobs is certainly noble. I'll give that. But from a business perspective it would not always be the "wisest" choice for a host of reasons. So what I mean is - hey - take a deeper look at that position? What is the problem with it? Can you fix it? Is it within your scope to do anything about it? That is the reality we all need to find. On every job we take on.

So you absolutely can be the recruiter who seeks out the toughest to fill jobs. It's certainly cool with me. I'm just putting my 2 cents in.

Oh - and I'm sticking with the restaurant analogy......

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on February 3, 2009 at 2:44pm

Jerry, I feel you and I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. Honestly, I understand where you're coming from and I agree that most of us probably don't spend enough time qualifying searches. At least I know it's an area I need to improve.

Too often, it's easy to think someone is ordering a hamburger and you learn it's an exotic salad with ingredients that don't exist within modern civilization.

I don't know if you would agree with this, but I also learned the following from Danny Cahill (not to say it's the right approach, but just one of a few): As far as the Client is concerned, every search is tough. That's ultimately how we justify fee, right? I remember reading a book on negotiating years ago, and there were sections ranging from hostage negotiations to car buying. One of the biggest take-aways was that we should typically play the role of the reluctant buyer, even if we're doing a cartwheel inside. Because if we don't, the seller will realize they have emotional leverage.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Nuroo on February 3, 2009 at 6:54pm

Define a tough search? Our value add is to either be able to find a particular skillset (let that be different to person for the time being), or know of it, or know someone who will know where to find it. What may be tough for a client may be a walk in the park for you, as your network or Talent pool may be able to identify this skillset easier than say an internal recruitment function or that hiring managers network. Thus why TPRs exist right?

The other value add is as Jerry mentions, knowing that someone with that exact skillset may not exist, or there are only 3 in the world and this is where they are etc... and being able to educate the hiring manager so. (thus the term Consultant a lot of people put in their titles in this game) If this is the case, you need to get to the business pain, the reason for the need for this skillset, and see if a person, with the right attributes and say 80% of the core functions would suffice.

Joshua Letourneau said:

Jerry, I feel you and I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. Honestly, I understand where you're coming from and I agree that most of us probably don't spend enough time qualifying searches. At least I know it's an area I need to improve.

Too often, it's easy to think someone is ordering a hamburger and you learn it's an exotic salad with ingredients that don't exist within modern civilization.

I don't know if you would agree with this, but I also learned the following from Danny Cahill (not to say it's the right approach, but just one of a few): As far as the Client is concerned, every search is tough. That's ultimately how we justify fee, right? I remember reading a book on negotiating years ago, and there were sections ranging from hostage negotiations to car buying. One of the biggest take-aways was that we should typically play the role of the reluctant buyer, even if we're doing a cartwheel inside. Because if we don't, the seller will realize they have emotional leverage.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin H.Snyder on February 3, 2009 at 9:51pm

One of our partners saw Cahill in action last week, said he does a great job as an entertainer-but he was in no position to judge the quality of his advice since he (partner) is not a working recruiter.......being a bit of the provocateur is part of Cahill's job; thru that lens, his statement may have a germ of truth, but can obviously be excepted by any number of personal experiences.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on February 4, 2009 at 10:38am

Dan, agreed - when I say a "tough search", I'm referring to a search that the Client can't fill on their own . . . thereby the very reason we exist. "Tough" is a relative term - if you've developed a candidate pool within a very tight niche, then what is tough for the Client may not be tough for you. Such is part of the justification of spending the time and effort necessary to establish and niche. Let me be overt: When I say "tough", I mean doing what the Client can't do on their own; I mean doing the work that earns us 30% a clip. That's big money.

Ultimately, this is what I'm getting at -- In a recessionary economy, one in which unemployment levels are as high as they've been in nearly 30 years . . . it is not the time to hunt for cake assignments. Frankly, there are many, many, many less jobs to even work on - in the last 12 months, our economy has lost well in excess of a million jobs . . . so there is less cake to go around. In an up economy (which is how I view Jerry's notion of a full restaurant), then we have the luxury of turning down the tougher assignments. The restaurant is full, right? So we can take the tougher entrees off the menu and just make hamburgers. But in a down economy in which less people are coming into the restaurant, you better find a way to differentiate yourself from McDonald's.

P.S. I fully concur that part of our value is explaining to a Client why they are highly unlikely to fill a given position. I also agree that our job, as TPRs (and moreso as Internal Recruiters) is to ensure Hiring Managers assume the responsibility of leading and developing talent. If a Candidate has 9 of your 10 'Nice-to-have' competencies, the Hiring Manager should assume his leadership duty of developing his/her staff. If there is one thing I am not a fan of, it's the Recruiter that is too weak to have this discussion. It's also one of the differences between being 'Good' or 'Great'. The best of the best make deals happen - as Jack Nicklaus says, "I don't miss 5-foot puts." That's the psychology of a Winner.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on February 4, 2009 at 10:44am

Martin, I agree that Danny Cahill is extremely charismatic . . . and he tells it like it is. I've been to his training and seen him hurt some feelings . . . but I've also seen the same people grow as a result.

Many take away different things from different trainers (i.e. I've seen the bulk of them), and I honestly will say this: Danny Cahill has made me more money than I can shake a stick at. While I live in GA and can't say the things he can say in NY/NJ/CT (as this is the bible belt down here), I can tell you that his principles are sound. All I know is that he meshes well with my personality, so I take a great deal away. His "End Game" series is an absolute monster in terms of learning how to counter any potential obstacle.

Martin H.Snyder said:

One of our partners saw Cahill in action last week, said he does a great job as an entertainer-but he was in no position to judge the quality of his advice since he (partner) is not a working recruiter.......being a bit of the provocateur is part of Cahill's job; thru that lens, his statement may have a germ of truth, but can obviously be excepted by any number of personal experiences.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Durbin on February 4, 2009 at 11:26am

"Focusing on 'easy fills' is the work of the publicly traded, big-box agencies that are candidate factories. They work on volume by throwing a bunch of resumes at Clients, which marries well with red tape. Hiring process too long? No big deal because they sub'd that candidate to 10 other companies. Odd Hiring Manager? No big deal because we have 50 other marginal candidates just like the one we sub'd you."

I'm laughing and crying at the same time. In defense of the big box firms - they work this way because there is a lot of money in it, and they're simply adapting to the changes clients demand. While exec recruiters like yourself would go nuts in that environment, there are highly talented individuals who work this system and generate a lot of hires and money.

You only need to be marginally better than your competition to succeed, which is why these are billion dollar firms.

If you truly want to work with the elite, then you follow advice like yours. But how many are there that do that? It's like employment books that give strategies on getting top jobs. They're written for top people, and by definition, the middle range and the poorly qualified can't use those skills to get hired.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on February 4, 2009 at 11:52am

I'm starting to wonder what the point is here? Is the point being made supposed to be that boutique firms do not bill millions? Or that larger firms only work on cookie-cutter openings? Whatever the point - it's starting to fade here I think.
The original thought was that the tougher to fill openings are the ones where good recruiters allegedly prove their value - or something to that effect. It may be "one" way to show value - but not the only.

There is value - HUGE value to big companies wherein volume MUST be managed and process has to be followed. The ability to work within that framework is not easy to come by. It's not for me - so I can't/won't/don't participate. I do however recognize the value those agencies are giving their clients.

Last point - you most certainly can bill "millions" in revenue by working a boutique philosophy. It's happening all around you - just most of them are not out tooting their own horns about it.

Now let's GET ON THE PHONE!!!!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on February 4, 2009 at 12:06pm

Jerry, LOL - good point. You're right that we need to get on the phone :)

Sigmund Freud would love your statements above. Classic projection meets marketing positioning. But to answer your questioning of my point, the answers are both "No". Let me offer it one more time, just to be clear: Recessionary times are not the time to be hunting for cake assignments. If I'm wrong, then I'll go down in flames :)

Jerry Albright said:

The original thought was that the tougher to fill openings are the ones where good recruiters allegedly prove their value - or something to that effect. It may be"">