Comments on: The Recruiter Who Cried Wolf

By: Brad Stewart

Brad Stewart — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:42:00 +0000

Well put Jim – excellent response. This is something that goes two ways indeed and I believe will be an on going struggle between in house and agency recruiters for all times!

By: Allison Boyce

Allison Boyce — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:42:00 +0000

Just a quick comment re: Jim Cargill’s comment – That is EXACTLY right. If you have a Contained or a Retained search you HAVE TO execute on both sides of the agreement. That is the best way to keep everyone sharing responsibility for execution.

The ONLY time I took contingency on an exclusive was if I was genuinely concerned that I could not fill the position which is sometimes the case in Pharma search. There just aren’t enough people to actually hire. And I loathe giving retainers back.

As far as the tone and implication about HR people – they are the Client. Period. They pay your rent. You should have the huevos to ask for a retainer or not stab them in the back. It takes two to enable behavior. I bet the Rookie who took the position and got stiffed after he didn’t get a placement probably served up the same people everyone else did and was treated accordingly.

By: Emilee Bowersox

Emilee Bowersox — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:30:00 +0000

Allison,

I thought you put the seesaw off kilter. Let’s make ‘em shake in their shoes until the hats fall off.

By: Amybeth Hale

Amybeth Hale — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 03:17:00 +0000

I think the way you wrote this Allison made it more interesting to read. Occasionally it’s good to loosen the tie, unbutton your shirt collar, relax and not be so uptight that you can’t enjoy a nice little story. Being sophisticated doesn’t mean being boring all the time. There were actually several good things to learn from this article, in my humble opinion:

- surfing the job/resume boards is easy, but it won’t necessarily get you the best potential candidates
- a little hard work is usually necessary to do your job right
- due diligence is a good practice before you present a candidate; respect other people’s time and resources! (And agreeing with Jim Cargill, that’s on both sides of the table!)
- transactional recruiting may produce instant gratification, but it’s not the way to build relationships and develop key accounts

…and for those of you may be saying ‘What does she know?? She’s ONLY a researcher’….these lessons apply with everything I do on a daily basis as well. If you’re curious how, just ask me.

Thanks for the lesson, AND the entertaining tale, Allison!

By: Darren Smith

Darren Smith — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:44:00 +0000

Allison,

What an excellent article. One of the best I’ve read here in a while, for sure. Until the twist in the end, I was starting to say, ‘Hey, I don’t intentionally lie about how good a candidate is. . . who does she think she’s writing about?’ Then I saw the point – well-rounded, professional detachment. The Hiring Managers’ reactions to a candidate will be influenced by the recruiter who presents them, so we had better be sure that the candidate does not fall short of our talking them up. Credibility is on the line. Excellent article. Ignore the detractors who simply didn’t like the ‘fairy tale’ format – it made the point that much stronger. Bravo!

By: David Cone-Gorham

David Cone-Gorham — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:37:00 +0000

Allison does all of us some good in warning of the elusive and yet somehow prevalent sub par recruiters in our midst, whose triumphant excitement conveyed in each and every candidate presentation always turns numbingly redundant.
As an agency recruiter in construction management for the last decade, this is not the first time I have heard such a complaint, though I?m certain I?ve never heard this point put forth in such a wonderfully creative (possibly cynical?) way. The fairy tale (once upon a time) angle is engaging, though I can?t help but wonder if Allison may have witnessed such frustrating circumstances first hand.
The question for corporate, in-house recruiters is simple, though, isn?t it? How will they guard themselves against these hacks?these greedy headhunters who emulate the personality of a used car salesmen more so than a strategic partner, or staffing consultant, executive recruiter, etc???
Perhaps the answer is in finding a better method of screening your agency recruiters based on a simple yet practical set of standards? My understanding is that most industries are flooded with staffing agencies, and that the level of competition is, at least, ?good?. I am in a relatively niche market ? construction management in New York City, and I know for a fact that I have at least 20 suitable competitors. Allison works for a brand name company, so my guess is that her office has recruiters of all sorts calling in, soliciting every day. When it comes to which recruiters Allison?s company will use, the choice is likely Their Own!
The word ?Screening? sounds good, but what does it mean under these circumstances?
For starters, are you screening your recruiters based on their fee? I.e. do you work with recruiters over 20%? Perhaps that?s problem at it?s very root? If you are working with recruiters (in this market) who are willing to discount their services, doesn?t that speak volumes already?
Second, have you met the recruiter? You can tell a whole lot from meeting someone face to face? I?ve worked the NYC market from Boston for almost 10 years, yet I still find a way to meet most of my clients.
Has your recruiter spelled out a process for you in which they describe how they screen their candidates? Or did they just say something warm and fuzzy like ?Yeah?I know what you need?no worries!?
Have you ever checked references on your recruiters? Have you possibly set standards that allow these recruiters to think that all you are looking for is a ?paper pusher?? Have your implicit expectations been overlooked because you didn?t speak up?
A final word of advice from outside ?corporate?: The more you involve an agency recruiter in your hiring process, the more you make them feel accountable for the hire. The more stock you put into their opinion, their assessment of not only your position, but perhaps even your company structure, the more likely you are to have developed a relationship with a career consultant, executive recruiter, personnel advisor, strategic partner, etc… The more you set these kinds of standards for your recruiter relationships, the more likely it is that the hacks, the mechanically greedy, the manipulative bullies, the liars?etc? will dissipate into the background.

By: Jim Cargill

Jim Cargill — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:58:00 +0000

Once upon a time…

There was an HR person who cried ‘Wolf, wolf, we need a wolf’, and all the recruiters she had promised meaningful work to went scurrying to source the best wolf they could find. After days and days spent emailing, voicemailing, and even overnight express mailing the HR person, the recruiters received a mass email. It stated, ‘Thank you for your recent response to our request for a candidate for XYZ. We have decided to promote one of our employees into the position, so no longer have a need for your candidate. I hope to work with you successfully in the future’.

The next time the HR person cried, ‘Wolf, wolf, we need a wolf’, all the smart recruiters responded with, ‘We’ll be glad to find you a wolf. We will need 30-day exclusivity, a 30% fee, and a $5000 non-refundable engagement fee paid before we start.’

The HR person thought to herself, ‘These recruiters have certainly gotten difficult to work with…they are so demanding!’

The moral is that there are more than two sides to any story. There will continue to be a disconnect between HR and agency recruiters as long as both are routinely dishonest about the strength of their respective job orders and candidates. Recruiters should focus on the long term by presenting the most competent candidate they can find, and truly trying to impress the client. Shame on the recruiter who routinely presents file candidates, or people from job boards. HR people should focus on the long term by learning that, just because a recruiter blows in your ear, it does not mean they will be able to perform for you. Shame on the HR person who thinks they have won because they have found an agency recruiter who will give in to their every demand.

By: Dr. Tom Janz

Dr. Tom Janz — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:09:00 +0000

Can we add just a smidge of sophistication to these columns and deal with real issues as opposed to lessons from the employers’ Grimm. And PUUULEEEASE– let’s not follow this with what our kids teach us about great recruiting!