Great article. You have definitely found the loophole. I would like to comment on the scope of your awareness. I think you have identified a, if not, the factor of talent. I know for most seekers of employment they assume set attributes, morals and character. The key to talent is having a wide set of attributes, morals, and characteristics. So based on evidence in your article the employer should be diversifying the positions and talking about company policy. This way we do not hire positions, we hire structural calamity.

For more information, Florida companies can visit http://www.predictiveresults.com. Others can visit http://www.piworldwide.com.

Steve Waterhouse

The quote, ‘ ‘I look at the list of requirements in the posting and if I don’t have 100% of the background, I don’t submit my resume,’ said a sales person actively looking for a new role’….I guess I would have to ask if that person has ever successfully sold anything??? If a salesperson only calls on clients meeting his/her ‘100%’ qualifications, he/she will be eating beans for a long time!

Secondly, someone has replied that the best question to ask these folks is, ‘Why?’ That is what we all must do, everyday, to get at the real qualifications for any position we are going to work on. Ron Johnson, who mentored me when I first got into the business, gave me a question to ask that I have never failed to get a great response to. The question is, ‘So, Hiring Authority, if I found a person who met every qualification you list, had realistic salary expectations, and performs above their peers, you would not want to see them if they had a 6-week gap between two jobs, instead of 4 weeks??? Only a fool would not agree to see that person.

That question can be fashioned to meet any qualification condition, on either the client or candidate side. If a recruiter is going to be successful, whether TPR or corporate, they better know how to meet objections.

‘Can not have been unemployed for more than the past 30 days;’

I’d have to say these are the most common types of objections we have seen lately and generally they are NOT negotiable under any circumstances.

Clients are increasingly asking for 1-month resolution in resumes. They say ‘2006 to 2007′ can mean ‘1-2006 to 12-2007′ or it can also mean ‘12-2006 to 1-2007′, and presumably someone who ever worked a two-month contract will have NOTHING to contribute to certain clients EVER.

On that note we also get objections about applicants who ‘bounced around too much’ - and often this objection comes on on CONTRACT positions as well as direct.

Summing it all up, it seems like the only thing many clients are willing to pay for these days is the service of target war-dialing into direct competitors, locating ‘deliriously happy’, ‘passive’ candidates who haven’t even THOUGHT about writing a resume in at least three years and convincing those candidates through sheer charm that they absolutely MUST take the client’s position.

Unfortunately, the fact remains that some employers continue to demand unrealistic, strict criteria which can cause the proverbial ‘right’ candidates to ’slip through our fingers/fall through the cracks…’

Case in point: Another recruiter is having an extremely difficult time finding candidates for his client’s opportunity, due to this very close-minded way of thinking, I presume. His client will absolutely not consider any candidates who ‘have had more than 3 employers in the last 10 years for any reason.’ The list goes on!

If it were my client (and I’m glad it’s not!), I would never agree to find candidates who meet all of his client’s wacky ‘must haves.’ What about other recruiters? Do you have words ready to persuade your clients back to reality? I’ve heard: ‘Can not have been unemployed for more than the past 30 days;’ ‘Must currently hold the exact title of (whatever);’ & ETC…

Near the end of your article, you note the relationship with Executive Recruiters. The only comment I would make about non-match candidates is that we’re paid a fee to find the needle in the haystack, or better stated, the candidate with a verifiable and repeatable track record. That’s what 30% on the first year’s total compensation is for. If they wanted a ‘maybe’ with a high probability of success, I’d recommend they engage their own Internal Recruitment. We’re not paid for ‘maybes” if you know what I mean.

Great article and keep up the good work :)