However, from time to time, I don’t always agree with everything (probably nothing more than human logic). Let’s be honest: if you recruit for a company that has higher comp plans, you have it easier than someone who recruits for a company that doesn’t – that’s a widely-accepted fact in the recruiting world. Sure, some will come to the table and say that this is not an absolute, which I would agree with – for example, if your company offered a full telecommute package with a traveling masseuse, then of course you could get away with paying less than your competitors! It’s all about trade-offs.

What recruiters need to understand is the very budgeting process itself. Some companies simply do not have the approved budgeting to hire top talent across the entire enterprise. If my current ROS (Return on Sales) is 11% (a crucial bottom-line metric), and I increase salaries to attract stronger talent, does that 11% increase or decrease? We must keep the bottom-line in mind – it’s 90% of the focus of upper management and the Board of Directors. (It may be higher than 90%, but we have a push for more social & environmental responsibility than in previous times).

We’ve all seen organizations that pay their operations employees below market, while perhaps paying their sales & marketing resources above market. It all comes down to finding your sweet spot – that point in which you are creating value for your shareholders (or if you’re privately held, raising the valuation of the organization).

If you want to increase your respectability as a recruiting professional, then increase your respect as a business professional first. Show those around you (particularly the business side) that you understand and embrace the issues that underly all key organizational decisions. There is a cost-benefit relationship that is evaluated in nearly all business decisions – come prepared with that information (not just ‘market rates’).

As recruiting professionals, we must come to the table with a more holistic view of the enterprise or we will continue to be viewed as professionals that only understand what is perceived as our ’silo’ – staffing & recruiting.

The entire focus is on the job boards, not on presenting quality openings to passive candidates.

99% of all of our volume is Word of mouth to candidates that we have in our database.

Then why in the world did you ask me to source out of his particular company? This is like one of the only reasons telephone sourcing fails – when the company trying to garner results out of the sourced names has unrealistic expectations of what the market is demanding. It doesn’t happen a lot to me but it happens enough that I feel warranted in filing the complaint.

Another thing I’d like to say: in my opine, and mind you it is ONLY my opine; the NUMBER ONE reason people sell their businesses is because they cannot stand, for one minute longer, their employees. Uh huh. It’s not because they’re not making money, it’s not any of the reasons the public suspects – it’s usually because they’re filled with resentments toward their workforce.

Surprising? Maybe not when you take into consideration, and let’s say it folks, the niggardliness some companies have towards compensation. The first place many companies look to cut costs is in their workforce when their stock takes a nosedive. It seems to fly in the face of what Mr. Reich says about competitive advantage, doesn?t it? Truth be known, many companies wish, in the secret hearts of the closeted C class, that they could exist WITHOUT a workforce!

I commend companies like Google who have the foresight to put their money where their mouths are regarding compensation. Not many do and those that do will lead in competitive advantage.