Comments on: Great Recruiters Correctly Classify Their Prospects

By: Mark Berger

Mark Berger — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:29:00 +0000

When I started in recruting many years ago there was no such thing as active or passive candidates. We just looked on everybody as candidates…period. Everybody was active. It all depended on your approach and sales skills. This still hold true today I imagine.

By: Richard Detoy

Richard Detoy — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:48:00 +0000

This article is on the money–so much so, in fact, that when I read the various categories it actually reminded me of episodes in my career. For example, I started in this industry when there were no PCs (shocking, I know) and at the international retained firm where I worked our clients counted on us to identify and recruit stars, and we had to be disciplined in our search efforts as well as both analytical and detailed in our assessments. In contrast, I also had a corporate executive staffing role where senior line management was a group of great but rather regular folks who would have frustrated stars, so my charter there was to identify solid performers but make them feel better than B+ about the opportunity. This evaluating, sorting and filtering process is part of what is missing from the de-evolution of recruiting as represented by peeling backgrounds off job boards and firing them around digitally with no value-added when they match job specs. Thank you, John, for the reminder!

By: Michelle Howat

Michelle Howat — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:44:00 +0000

I’m interested for any ideas on how to deal with prospects who may fall into the squeamish category. Are they worth pursuing to work out what the barriers may be and if they can be overcome or do you just put in the ‘time waster’s category and avoid them in future.

By: Krista Bradford

Krista Bradford — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:02:00 +0000

Nicely put. Recruiters actually have to learn to draw people out, listen to what they have to say, figure out where that candidate belongs on a timeline (when they might want to make a move)and whether they’re viable. That where research starts morphing into more valuable intelligence . . . the use of which is long overdue in recruiting. It’s the stop, look, and listen approach to recruiting . . .far better than the hair-on-fire approach, which necessitates stop, drop, and roll. Always enjoy your contributions.

By: Robert Yang

Robert Yang — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 07:30:00 +0000

I just can’t agree that ‘Those who classify prospects into the two over-simplified categories of ‘active and passive’ are just silly’ any more! Although I’ve been silly for such a long time. It’s neber been too late:-)

By: Rachel Schneider

Rachel Schneider — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 05:15:00 +0000

I digress here: One thing I admire tremendously about the Recruiting Profession is the integration and thought-leadership that emerges on a daily basis. I asked myself the other day, after hearing from a ‘leading marketing consultant’ that (and I quote) ‘salespeople are the walking-dead’ – why sales and marketing cannot work in the harmonious and integrated way the Recruiters do with Sourcers and Operations people (who do job fairs, advertising, etc). I have never heard a Recruiter say sourcers are the walking dead or marketing people say recruiters are the walking dead. I think we ‘revenue generators’ can learn a great deal from Recruiting.

This article illustrates nicely how to segment a market and professionally ‘go after it’. If you follow patterns or understand your prospects motivations, you will get higher quality business. So true.

I only wish it were so well and clearly defined in the sales/marketing profession!