Comments on: In Search of the Perfect Candidate

By: Bob Gately

Bob Gately — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:06:00 +0000

Another excellent article by Lou. Our clients tell us that before they hired for talent they would rank their top five job finalist from #1 to #5. The first job offer would go to #1 but after hiring for talent they realize that they were making the best hiring decision about 20% of the time. Yes, they hired competent people, in fact the most competent, but not the best employees.

If we search for and hire the best candidates, we make the best hiring decision about 20% of the time. We need to hire competent people who have a talent for the job. The hard part is getting hiring managers to measure talent. If we can’t measure talent, we can’t hire for talent. Talent must be hired since talent cannot be acquired or imparted after the hire. This explains why so many new hires fail to become successful employees after they are hired and trained, they lack the talent.

The book ‘First, Break All the Rules, what the world’s greatest managers do differently’, by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman of the Gallup Organization, does an excellent job of explaining why hiring for talent is so necessary. The authors’ recommendations are based on Gallup’s interviews of over 80,000 managers in over 400 companies across numerous industries. The authors’ definition of ‘a talent’, see page 71, is ‘… a recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied … The emphasis here is on the word ‘recurring.’ Great managers say ‘Your talents are the behaviors you find yourself doing often.” This is why hiring for talent is so effective at selecting good employees.

By: Deborah Jones

Deborah Jones — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:23:00 +0000

And while we are getting an idea from the client as to what they want accomplished from the person who hopefully will fill the open position, we should also be asking the client ‘just exactly what do you want me, as an outside recruiter looking in, to accomplish?’

Because it isn’t always what it seems. A recent project comes to mind. A Director of Nursing need in a specialized facility. Naturally I source 2 candidates with 20 plus years experience in the same type facility, Master’s level degree, etc. etc. And also we provided another candidate with similar credentials and great leadership abilities, but without the niche background. And what happens? The person with the leadership skills won out over the niche experience.

We got the hire, but I was dissappointed because I thought I had provided two other ‘better’ candidates. But in the end, it was the leadership skills that out-weighted the niche experience. If I had asked all the right questions, I might not have had to work quite so hard to target the niche! But I do have a happy client.

By: Steve Pruner

Steve Pruner — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:40:00 +0000

Lou once again puts his finger on a tremendous problem in our industry. How many times has your client not even wanted to phone screen your ‘perfect candidate’? A Clinical Services E-learning company wants a VP for clinical operations and you find one, and he has a Ph.D in computer science from John Hopkins and not even a phone screen?

Obviously it is either you or the client that is practically brain dead here. (I always assume it is the client in these situations.) You are thinking, ‘WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO HERE?’

We’ll here’s the answer. YOU need to get a better definition of the perfect candidate up front. (I still think my client is brain dead, but I think I’ll try this next time.)

Thanks Lou!