I'm looking for examples of how people handle candidate ownership in an agency/firm.
In our case, the firm has grown - but at the start the recruiters barely used the database to note anything AND they honored ownership "forever". It worked because it was so small and they communicated and "knew" who was whose candidate, etc.
As we have added people - new recruiters will contact a candidate who has no notes/updates in the system for 2+ years and the person who put them in the db will want credit - or for the new person to ask before calling them. I'm more from the "but for" school and that we all put people in the database so that we can connect them for jobs later. If we don't connect them for jobs and someone else does - then too bad for you. Move on and call your other candidates.
It seems reasonable to have a "time frame" from last touch. We are a niche perm shop - so relationships can last years before a placement is made.
I'm curious what others do in a perm shop for candidate ownership rules. Thanks!
This is a really interesting topic Sarah and look forward to what other RBC members think. I'm also a 'but for' person and always ran my desk and those on my team in such a fashion. That being said it is still at times a case by case thing. We did achieve a consensus of a '60 day' rule. If the individual had 0 contact and/or 0 documentation to support there being any sort of contact- open game.
Thankfully it did not come up as an issue to often, but is a part of a firm's growing pains. Good luck.
Thank you both for the replys. Sandra - I don't post oftern, but I do read and I was hoping that you would reply. I like your approach as it gives ownership to the person who recruited the candidate - but only if they make the effort to make the connection. We don't get paid for lists.
Tim - I'm hoping to hear from more members as well.
We are a small business at the moment so have no issues with candidate ownership, however you have raised a question I have often thought of in terms of our own future growth. I have worked in companies that have done it all sorts of ways. Honestly the best way I've ever heard is Sandra's above, this is a very clever idea and a great way to keep your consultants checking, checking and checking again.
Sandra McCartt said:
I have always done candidate ownership by the recruiter who initiated contact, interviewed and entered them. Everybody works all jobs. They review their candidates first. if a recruiter has a candidate as their entry that they have not referred for the job within two working days of the listing any other recruiter who refers them gets credit for the referral.
I tried several different ways and found that doing it this way ensures that recruiters quickly review their candidates for a listing and note the candidate has been reviewed, contacted or referred to me for presentation to the client. They will almost always double check the database to be sure somebody didn't miss a good fit.
I have always gone with "Do you have them on a sendout?" If no - are they currently introduced to a client?
I have never supported the idea of "ownership" per se. "Ownership" leads to reasons "not" to call someone. Reasons "they wouldn't want to hear about that because...." and so on.
Though I would have to agree that the recruiter bringing them into the system should have a few days to see what they can do. My suggestion is only for the period after they've been put into the ATS then forgotten. (Which happens pretty quickly.)
Well we did it ALMOST Sandra's way. Make sure you're seated. We set candidate ownership for life, but you have two weeks from the job order date to contact "your candidates" and submit them. After that they are free game to anyone. I'll let you all know how it works out. I would have liked a one week window, but this is a step in the right direction and after polling many people in many places, Sandra's idea was by far the best. Clean and simple.
I'm now wondering - why 2 weeks? While it may seem like a good idea for the recruiter who added the candidate - don't you think 2 weeks is a bit much? Your competitors don't have a 2-week hands-off policy.....so while you're giving "Recruiter A" a few weeks to finally get around to all their candidates that may be a fit for each job, the marketplace at large is climbing all over them.
So as I'm now thinking further - and typing as I go - what about the candidate put in by Recruiter A 4 years ago....hasn't heard from him/her since.....who was contacted by Recruiter B (in your office) about another job? So the current relationship is with B. Another similar job comes open while B has the candidate on a sendout - or better yet, just did the sendout but was not hired (let's say the client LOVED this candidate but the drive was just too far.)
So now we have Recruiter B, fully and currently vested with candidate. Job #2 comes along the day after the first sendout.
What are you going to do now? Recruiter A, recently reminded of how absolutely fantastic this candidate is because of B's work - and having "ownership for life" of this candidate - wants to now jump back in the driver's seat and make a placement with a hot candidate.
I'm going to disagree with this policy. (Respectfully, of course.)
That sounds a bit better than lifetime ownership with a 2 week window.
It is something we wrestle with constantly. Our policy is that it is theirs for life. If you live by the "but for" rule, if it wasn't for the original recruiter bringing them in and getting them in the database NO ONE would even be talking to them. Our philosophy is that it gives senior recruiters a extra chance to make some $$. It is kind of like a residual. So make it a good deal for the recruiter that stays and produces. It could cut down on turnover instead of them being pissed that someone "stole" their candidate. If after 3 weeks if recruiter A didn't present their candidate and recruiter B sees it in the database, they give A a courtesy "heads up" that they have a candidate that may fit. Recruiter A has to reach out to speak to thier's about the job. Since we do a lot of internal splits (9 recruiters)Recruiter B gets a $250 bonus that comes off the top before Candidate A's commission is figured. B made $250 for just saying check it out and A didn't feel slighted as much.
1 year from last info post is what we use, but we are all a team - so if someone's on the database, we ask the candidate a/e of record to update if we think the candidate makes sense and was found via external search. Oftentimes one of us will plainly state we are out of touch with the candidate and the update can go to the recruiter who's inquiring, though many times not.
Of course, if the candidate was found via ATS search, there is certainly less of a question - their existence on the database points squarely at the candidate a/e of record in the "but for" test.
Ultimately in our business it's sometimes a little difficult to remind our co-workers (and ourselves) that we'll get more done working together than trying to be sneaky or territorial. The axiom about 50% of a fee or 100% of nothing comes to mind...
So for the lifetime ownership crowd - what do you do when Recruiter B finds Recruiter A's candidate somewhere new? Outside of your ATS? Say they dig up a great candidate through a referral or job posting?
Do they have to check with the internal database before each recruit call? If yes - why?
Thanks for the discussion. :)