Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Katz on September 27, 2008 at 2:06pm

Hi Dan,
I could not agree with you more. I am also on the agency side, and as equally frustrated with HR. We place full-time IT folks mostly in the North East region. Here's a sample of what we go through: Company on Long Island needs a Manager with very specific IT development skill-set. Hiring manager has had this opening for *four months*. Hiring Manager refers us to HR, will not deal with us unless we are on the 'list'. We approach HR, HR LIES to us and says 'we just made someone an offer a week ago', we have no recourse because we are not on the vendor list. This despite the fact that we have candidates for this position.

HR's great vendor list has not been able to produce a candidate for FOUR MONTHS.
But HR is so afraid to relinquish the only power they have, they can not admit that someone outside of the company (ME) can tell them how to do their job. Complaining up the chain doesn't work either, senior management will rarely let a vendor tell them what's wrong with their incompetent HR team.

The bottom line unfortunately, and I will surely get hated-on for this, but people END-UP in HR, very few people choose that as a career, those that do choose HR are not BUSINESS people they are more likely from an IO Psych Program which teaches them how to pretend to be psychologists in the workplace.

For those that simply end-up in HR, regrettably, they have usually been moved from sales/finance/accounting as an under-performer. Hence when something like a vendor list comes along, it represents validation and power to these folks and is clung to in a vice-grip. Alas, choosing agencies does not require an IO Psych degree, we all provide the same service, at the same rates, from the same candidate pools. There is no discernible product difference between Manpower and Mom&Pop Recruiting Inc. Only in delivery. You would think the recruiter with candidates to deliver would prevail, but no.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Fournier on September 29, 2008 at 1:15am

Hi Mike,

Yep, it’s really is the same situation. My company could have a proven producer for their esoteric service, but they haven’t been able to find one with their list of recruiters. I know from experience, a person in this position can add or lose 20-30 million top line dollars in a year. That’s about a 40-60 mil dollar swing. But revenue-producing positions aren’t the only ones that can hurt shareholder value if not in place.

Your frustration is worse. Because it’s not seen as revenue producing, so the absence of this person measured in company dollars lost might not be so easy.

I bring this up because it happened to me when I was on “the other side.” My sales team desperately needed our ASP lab order/result retrieval interfaced with both the Clinical LIS and the Pathology LIS. W/o this, the fully interfaced ASP application, an application we needed to be on level ground w/our competitors, there would be no compelling reason potential clients to contract with us. WE NEEDED A PERSON WHO KNEW HOW TO DO A SCRIPTNG INTERFACE …ER SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

The way for healthcare providers to order tests and obtain results – pretty much most of the data your physician has in his/her EMR – is via these interfaces and connectivity solutions. BUT WE DIDN’T HAV A GUY!! We bought an expensive solution to differentiate ourselves from the competition, but didn’t have that person who loved to read “some assembly required.” Needless to say, that mistake lost us a lot of new and existing clients. So I feel your pain.

Back to the original issue from the agency side. I blame the Officers of the company; the ones who created the policy and culture. I agree, HR becomes very territorial, and once defensive or combative, we’ve lost. I tried to nicely reason away until the light of reason simply burned out.

And when did HR become VR? “I have a human being that will really help your company – you, Ms/Mr. HR will even share the spoils.” I’ve been around the block when it comes to big business so I understand an organization’s fragile construction of policy and procedure … But my GAWD! HR … HUMAN is the first name in their work title. Why then would you see, from the lens of that title, a Vendor … a Vendor without a vital human being needed by your company … a Vendor without any ties to your LIST!
:::Taking a deep breath::: OK, maybe I’m not quite over it. Always tomorrow.

I agree with Mike’s assessment on the HR dynamic. And I do think I have it easier than most folks – that is recruiting for sales. Last week I had presented a top performer to a VP of Sales. Oh yeah, he knew this person well. Called HR, HR called me back in two minutes saying, “Usually we evaluate our vendor list in Jan, but Mr. VP of Sales told me you have a great candidate, so we can push this through quickly.”

I know, I can’t expect all of them to be like that.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion