In terms of credibility and dysfunctional rhetoric, this aspect of recruiting and matching employees to employers makes little sense, and actually undermines incentive.

But I must admit, my experience of your article was somewhat disappointing. being somewhat of a control freak, I love lists of Do-s and Dont-s.

(In one of past work lives, those lists ensured I retired with all of my fingers and toes.)

There was a tone in the opening segments of your article that I recognized.

A friend once described that tone as ‘Talking through one’s teeth.’

It is the sound of frustration. I know it well.

But what I also know well is the responsibility of all professionals to help people who have deficits as they survive their rookie years in chosen professions.

I remember myself as a trained rookie….in several fields of professional endeavor.

I stunk.

But I improved. How? By my own efforts to learn from the Pros. There were two types according to my own limited rookie view in Stinkytown:

1. Winners
2. Their Competitors

The winners were typified by their charismatic style, a force emanating from a place of deep internal security.

They were never outwardly frustrated with me or their own progress in life.

They were free with their advice and counsel without ever reminding me of the price they paid to get it.

They never spoke to me in a way that pointed out my deficits, of which there were legion in bright screaming colors.

They took me right where I was and, before I could go on and remove all doubt as to how bad I stunk, they would tell me something useful, giving me a chance to save face in the conversation, to be able to express my gratitude for having learned something new and valuable.

They always spoke *with me* and *about me* as if they wanted to see me succeed; first as a person seeking to better himself; second as a professional who could one day improve the profession.

This kind of professional growth was possible because the winners didn’t speak through their teeth.

And because I always felt like calling them back.

I hope your message is being better received by others than I for the reason mentioned .

It has value for me. The list is useful.

Thank-you for articulating some time-tested standards for us to remember.

Perhaps we will meet some day.

‘I make 100 calls a day. I normally leave 83 messages and talk to 17 people live. At the end of the day, I’ll have a bite to move forward with 3/17 of my candidates/clients, and I average 5 callbacks for the 83 voicemails I left, etc.’

Who wouldn’t love numbers like these? As a names sourcer, I sure do! Those 83 VoiceMails can give off the most amazing information…

;)

It’s good to see all of your useful guidelines for young recruiting aspirants.

I would strongly suggest these points to all my recruiter friends:

1. As a recruiter you need to have a strong base/reference before you start making scrap calls to anyone.

2. Even if you have a dim base or even if you don’t have the proper information about the recruiter/candidate you are calling, just try to make him/her express firstly if he/she is actually looking for specific/recruiting opportunity.

3. And as per IInd call, if you have called a recruiter to take an interview I think your duty is to speak less and ask candidate to speak more.

If the candidate asks you how much experience do you have in recruitment industry, I think the best way is to give a straight number e.g 5/6/7 accordingly and strictly move to the next question which you are here to ask to the candidate. It will certainly put you in commanding process rather then making your candidate as your interviewer :)

Moral of the story is: Confidence is the key in this business. We all are good recruiters but sometimes even your candidate behaves as if he/she is a better recruiter then you.. so keep your confidence, always check your references before calling and always stick to your point..

All the best !

Sam Chhabra

Sr. Recruiter,
USRecruitments.com
careers@USRecruitments.com

I make 100 calls a day. I normally leave 83 messages and talk to 17 people live. At the end of the day, I’ll have a bite to move forward with 3/17 of my candidates/clients, and I average 5 callbacks for the 83 voicemails I left, etc.

In my estimation, this business is more conducive to the numbers than any other I’ve ever seen . . . however, the focus on volume detracts from the research you speak in reference to, as well as relationship-building. Owners of the larger firms take the stance, ‘Well, you don’t want to work a split with recruiters that will make you jump through hoops – just make 5 more calls.’ In the same respect, you’ll hear the managers state, ‘Do you really want to work with a client that is so ‘demanding’? Make 5 more calls.’

It all points back to more volume, and an obsession with ‘overcoming objections’ – an example is a recruiter this morning posting a question regarding the most effective staffing objections publications on the market. I pointed the recruiter back to their sales process, first and foremost. Focus on caring about your candidates and clients, re-align your sales process to reflect these values, and then spend 1% of the time on tactics aimed at overcoming individual objections. Recruiting is truly a consultative and trust-crucial sale. We aren’t selling cars or aluminum siding, and I wish more owners/managers would train on these techniques.

As someone who has a mathematical mind (which does me more bad than good as I’m prone to over-analyzing the data), I am a believer in metrics and key peformance indicators (balanced scorecard), etc. However, what I would love to see is more owners/managers move away from an obsession with the metrics and call-accounting systems and start diving into the actual trust-based selling skills of the recruiters and account managers. I hear many owners and managers speak about their staff as ‘resources’, that are either ‘overperforming’ or ‘underperforming’. This makes me think that the individual recruiters and account managers are looked at in the sense of the Toyota Production Model. Do the numbers tell a story and are they an easy way to keep a finger on the pulse of performance? Absolutely, but my argument is that an obsession with them as the sole indicator often yields incorrect results and perceptions.

Now, to give credit where it’s due, I understand how hard it is to find great recruiters (for owners and managers). ‘New’ staffing professionals are often left on their own to make the types of calls you reference – many managers I know won’t even start training a new recruiter/acct manager ‘until they’ve made it six months.’ This just lends itself to a perpetual cycle of cut-throat office atmospheres and employees that learn to resent one another instead of team up with one another.

To go back to my roots in the Marines, ‘There is no such thing as a bad Marine; Only a bad Marine leader.’ So many owners/managers are quick to point to ‘underperforming assets’ and waiting to train after the ‘six month probation/mentor period’, while it is they that are the problem. We need more accountability from owners/managers in this industry if we want to improve our ethics, performance, and subsequently our overall perception.