Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amy Ala on July 18, 2011 at 7:12pm

Hi Jessica, I think the distinction is not whether or not the company will use a recruiter - it's will they use an outside recruiter.  If a recruiter is the person sourcing the candidates, screening for skill/culture fit, coordinating interviews, test close on salary, offer negotiation... then that can be happening with an internal person OR an external person.  Both are valuable and there are reasons companies use either or both.

 

At the end of the day recruiting is an investment.  Companies can invest in internal recruiters, or hire 3rd party on a contingent or retained basis.  I personally don't find one to be "better" than the other, based on the company needs and what makes sense from a ROI standpoint. 

 

The question is not does a company have a list of names and titles, i.e. social networking or Monster resumes.  It's does the company have a recruitment strategy (in house or 3rd party) that can DELIVER.

 

As far as your question on how to convince companies that using a recruiter is the better route, you have to have a really good understanding of what their alternate "route" is.  If the internal system is working just fine thank you very much, probably not much reason to chase that business.  If they're consistently losing top candidates, unable to get people in the door, or there's no urgency, then you speak to how you solve those problems.  Access to candidates doesn't have a damn thing to do with real recruiting as far as I'm concerned.  Sometimes that's the easy part.  :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian on July 19, 2011 at 11:15am

I think there's room for both. If a recruitment agency genuinely adds value, works hard to fill those hard to fill vancancies there is a place. However, for some of the agencies that are more focused on quantity rather than quality I fear the end is coming. Soon it will be easy to view a candidates on-line profile covering CV, video, links to social networks and may be even a brochure on themselves. If this is the case, other than for more senior/more difficult vacancies to fill, why would an employer go to an agency when they can simply go on-line and view candidates?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Alfred on July 19, 2011 at 11:30am

Solve a really tough problem.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Green on July 19, 2011 at 11:34am

For years I have been advising companies to do more recruiting in-house rather than pay fees. Placement firm recruiters have gotten lazy and for a great majority have lost any value add they offered. Most recruiters open their mailboxes in the morning to see who responded to their postings overnight. The hard to find passive candidate almost never was presented simply because they didn't respond to postings. Companies were reluctant to recruit directly because they didn't want to appear to be poaching from a competitor so they paid a middleman a fee. Now that we have social networks there are hundreds of millions of people who post their professional profile to network for their next job and companies can reach out to them without feeling guilty of poaching.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bill josephson on July 19, 2011 at 12:02pm

As long as companies want the best people recruiters are able to access which they can't, then recruiting will be alive and well.   When companies can access and effectively approach everyone, we'll be out of business.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbara Tipton on July 19, 2011 at 12:10pm

It is about building relationships!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbara Tipton on July 19, 2011 at 12:11pm

Is there a group regarding Recruiting Law and Non Compete Clauses?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Spagnola on July 19, 2011 at 12:13pm

no....but there should be one.....any takers?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Darmenio on July 19, 2011 at 12:25pm

Recruiters that do passive recruiting will always have clients.

 

The recruiters that "throw resumes againest the wall to see what sticks" will be long gone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandra McCartt on July 19, 2011 at 12:28pm

the reason there is not a group for Law and related items is that the laws in different states are different so it can be a real goat rodeo to have someone try and start a Law group.  Even an employment attorney can't coment for each of the different states.  We had a self styled non attorney try and do a bunch of that and it was a disaster.  Best shot on that is to go to the employment law website for your individual state or consult an employment attorney in your state.  Or the EEOC etc. sites.  When recruiters start talking about what the law is and isn't folks tend to get themselves in a lot of trouble.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Spagnola on July 19, 2011 at 1:02pm

McCartt -

 

So true and thank you for the insights. I was more or less thinking of a place where RBC folks can post articles and news pertaining to their state recruiting laws and such. So rather then a group perhaps just a forum category dedicated to the topic for sharing of information and opening discussion.

 

When recruiters start talking about what the law is and isn't folks tend to get themselves in a lot of trouble.

 

Your point is extremely valid.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin H.Snyder on July 19, 2011 at 1:33pm

Recruiting is a basic economic process, (like accounting or manufacturing), which is done everywhere and always. Thus recruiters cannot become extinct unless all economic activity stops (e.g. a comet strikes the Earth).

Now who pays who and when and why may wax and wane...business models come and go, but basic processes never do.

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page