Recruiter 1: "I cant present this - this resume is garbage. This is a very good client of mine and I cant afford to screw up!".
Recruiter 2: "Even though his resume is garbage, he does know your competitors and he does belong to xyz association and he does deal directly with your client's competitors and he is eager to talk to your client. What more do you want?"
You don't know how many times I ran into this situation when trying to perform recruiter splits. Why do recruiters / HR professionals think that a resume is the end result to any successful search. I was once told that a paper resume only counts to approximately 10% - 15% of the entire recruiting process. The rest (75% - 80%) is based upon the interview, body language, personality and enthusiasm of the candidate. His direct knowledge of the industry is also what is important in order to be successful at the job. Especially for sales candidates, shouldn't recruiters and HR professionals examine and assess the 'book of business' a candidate can bring to an existing client? A candidate that has 20 years of sales experience working for a competitor firm that wants to leave can be a critical find for the recruiter. The wealth of knowledge, contacts, relationships that he can bring to the competitor is almost priceless in a situation like this. Hopefully, when a recruiter makes this find (maybe through direct headhunting/sourcing), the experienced recruiter is not going to ask the candidate for a polished,up to date resume. (Im assuming the candidate would not have one).
The fact that we live in an age where non-compete do not hold up in a court of law makes this a position in favor for the candidate, not the existing company. Most candidates that recruiters find through direct sourcing do not have polished resumes. In fact, if the candidate has any kind of experience and has built his career based upon one company, he might not have a resume at all. Should we then throw out all of these candidates and look for candidates with 'polished' resumes? I think not!