Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rayanne on August 26, 2008 at 1:44pm

I agree with you too, Jason, These thoughts seem to be a given. I think there is a significant difference between controlling & cajoling and sourcing & educating.

Arm twisting, cloak & dagger, and smoke & mirrors are not part of my personal repertoire. I don't think educating and convincing a candidate to take a look are the same thing.

Thought #5, particularly, is insightful. The candidate does have to prove himself to you, as the recruiter, first and foremost..., before he/she ever get invited to the show. That doesn't mean candidates have to jump through hoops or you need to squeeze a square peg into a round hole -> the ultimate set up for "getting" to re-do a search in two months.

Successful recruiting is about making the right connections - this can be done without coercion. In the long run, I want that client or HM to call me again and it would sure be nice if that candidate took my call.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on August 26, 2008 at 4:55pm

Jason, well stated and I agree with 95%. Here are some thoughts:

a. Thought #3
"I am not convinced that attempting to show the candidate they are wrong in their belief that the position you are working is not right for them is arm twisiting. If their skill set is what your client desires, they are right for the job."

Reply: We walk a fine line between influencing and selling - personally, I influence . . . which some may say is selling, but there is a different feel to influencing than there is selling. Candidates are often open to being influenced, and depend on us for such . . . considering our integrity does not come in question.
[Note: I would say someone is "right" for the job considering they are a good fit (which goes beyond purely skill-sets unless we're talking contractors) . . . however, I'm in 100% agreement that many recruiters focus more on disqualifiers than the latter (moreso true of Internal Recruitment). I challenge hiring managers daily to accept their leadership responsibility to develop the 1 skill a candidate doesn't have to go along with their 99 other skills. WE HAVE TO STOP LETTING HIRING MANAGERS TURN DOWN CANDIDATES DUE TO THEIR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THEIR LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES.

Thought#5
" They are the one being tested, not you. You already have a job and they are the ones who need to prove themselves to you." - I agree with this completely.

Reply: Our goal is to separate the wheat from the chaffe . . . however, I would recommend not walking in with the premise that a candidate needs to "prove themselves" to you. We're not cops - we're recruiters. Show me a recruiter that walks around with a badge + gun, 'holier than thou' mentality (i.e. "Sit there and prove yourself, Buddy"), and I'll show you someone who loses more often than they win. Some candidates are super performers that handle this pressure tactic well, while other are super performers that don't. Let's not judge talent based on someone's ability to make it through a pressure cooker.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Sumser on August 26, 2008 at 5:00pm

Generalizing like this is pretty tough. While it's certainly true that you have to have the respect of the candidate, some of these ideas are not true in anything like all cases.

If you're recruiting people who don't have jobs, you're working a very low end of the business. Things might be different when recruiting means screening through a series of unemployed candidates. I'm sure that managing a temp firm or a contract agency desk has some aspects of dealing from a position of superiority based on who is already employed.

And, I suppose that it's true that you have the golden apple and I don't if I really want the job you're recruiting for. But, that's not really recruiting, is it? That's screening.

But, to suggest that the way to treat candidates is as if they were unemployed and that you are their own personal saviour is silly.

It's possible to get away with this sort of arrogance in markets where there is a labor surplus. It's extremely counter-productive if you are trying to woo major strategic talent (or people who are in real demand) from one company to another.

There are a number of really discrete niches in our profession. Part of the communications problem is that we call them all the same thing. A street level temp office in a day-laborer quadrant of the poor side of town is not very much like the Korn-Ferry office in Orange County.

You can bully the unfortunate. It's a mistake to do so as you move further up the food chain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on August 26, 2008 at 5:07pm

John, I can imagine sitting down for a coffee with a VP of Marketing and saying:

"Ya know, I have a job . . . . so tell me: What's so great about you?"

P.S. There is an awesome way to achieve the same end, and it works really well, "Mr. VP of Marketing, I like to start off these little meetings with a toast to new beginnings and then give you a well-deserved chance to brag on yourself - I'm really interested in knowing how you've come so far in your career :) " . . .
Well, maybe we leave out the toast part :P

John Sumser said:

Generalizing like this is pretty tough. While it's certainly true that you have to have the respect of the candidate, some of these ideas are not true in anything like all cases.

If you're recruiting people who don't have jobs, you're working a very low end of the business. Things might be different when recruiting means screening through a series of unemployed candidates. I'm sure that managing a temp firm or a contract agency desk has some aspects of dealing from a position of superiority based on who is already employed.

And, I suppose that it's true that you have the golden apple and I don't if I really want the job you're recruiting for.

But, to suggest that the way to treat candidates is as if they were unemployed and that you are there own personal saviour is silly.

It's possible to get away with this sort of arrogance in markets where there is a labor surplus. It's extremely counter-productive if you are trying to woo major strategic talent (or people who are in real deman) from one company to another.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion