Two key areas for HR:
1. Employee Acquisition: best talent, greatest productivity, acquired least cost
2. Employee Retention: retain employees, increase productivity, keep overall asset cost down

Lets focus on Acquistion. Goal acquire the best talent for each position available. Talent Acquisition’s focus is to strategically map markets, identify candidates, use available channels – least cost.

Training focused on tactics (ie LinkedIN) is merely an avenue to create sourcing and recruiting productivity. Tactical training that Shally (et.al) provides is merely one part of contribution to recruiting “candidate targeting” and recruiting efficiency. How the department is managed from a PROCESS perspective is the next level up, and my opinion is that is consulting, not training. Training is more about increasing productivity on an individual level, consulting is about process mapping and organizational upleveling – many more moving parts involved. I really don’t think you can teach stuff like that. Strategy formulation is highly dependent on multifactors, big picture analysis, and is very individualized to the company based on ITS positioning to the market, competition, and economic factors.

To your point, YES, Strategy leads to tactics, but it is a multilevel issue. Business Strategy to HR, HR to Acquisition, HR to Retention, Acquisition to Candidates – tactics effect execution. Recruiters/sourcers are executing a candidate acquisition strategy.

To Keith: Even outsourced recruiters or sourcers need training. In fact, its precisely those who need it most because they are not up to speed on social networking and passive candidate search techniques. Even RPO’s bring in experts and have internal trainers. Whether outsourced or not, the resources must be in alignment with the organizational needs and perform equally in using the maximum channels to find the best fit candidate. The process is slightly different, the strategy is the same for the organization.

IMHO, what training should concentrate on would be high value-add skills not susceptible to the “E, A, or O Triple Play” described, such as learning how to be:
1) an effective Executive- or Niche Recruiter,
2) a world-class closer, and
3) an effective and strategic-oriented project manager between the client and the outsourced sourcers/recruiters.

These are the skills we need to thrive under the “New Recruiting Paradigm”.

Cheers,

Keith “Can Use Fancy Words, Too” Halperin
keithsrj@sbcglobal.net

Overall, We agree on quite a bit here. For example, I am in 110% concurrence with the following statement of yours: “Finding the right kinds of people is just a portion of the process, and with the new tools available, that portion can be more effective, giving recruiters the time and the knowledge to focus more on the personal relationships.” I also agree with you that a large majority of our market has become “social media consultants” – 9 times out of 10, if the Recruiter or TA Professional is on Twitter, they likely claim to consult on Social Media . . . and here is my hypothesis on why:

1. Because the tenure of the typical Recruiter or Recruiting Manager is normally less than 36 months (short-term), most on the “line” do not embrace long-term measures of performance.

2. Because those same Recruiters and Recruiting Managers are wow’d and wooed during business development meetings by pointing to social media. If those Managers have little to no concern about the firm’s long-term performance, and their focus is short-term metrics, we’re simply feeding them the dog food that they want (Sales 101) versus the dog food that will truly move our profession forward.

3. Because Recruiting Mgrs (on the “Line”) are not having the same types of discussions that Sr Execs are. There is a disconnect between hiring today (short-term metrics) and those metrics that point to long-term performance of the firm. This perpetuates the issue of HR not being respected – sure, maybe HR has a “seat at the table”, but it matters little if nobody cares to hear what that seat has to say.

Let me also suggest that I disagree with the following: “What you’re missing is that the value in social media is the connections made by the individuals inside companies.” I get that, and as I’ve said before, I respect that. “What you’re missing” has a somewhat negative connotation, which is not my intent . . . so I’ll simply state that the questions Top Execs are asking do not involve why TA isn’t using Twitter to recruit. Top Execs don’t want to talk about tools, technologies, and channels – they want to talk about performance and how TA is creating value for the organization long-term.

Ultimately, it takes all of our perspectives to progress, and luckily, we all have a voice. I believe we should put our minds together, not our bludgeoning clubs as a result of competing for the same staffing spend. The only thing I’ll ask you to keep in mind is that I am not a trainer or ’social media consultant’ . . . so my agenda is not to improve my position as a provider of those services. I’m outside the bubble of these offerings and am simply communicating in an objective manner that it appears as if top brass is having and demanding different discussions of us than we’re currently having. As you well know, this is a very unpopular stance – markets resist change and will fight vehemently to maintain status quo.

Fortunately, I’m not in the minority on this – I’ll be attending Aberdeen’s Human Capital Summit next week in Atlanta and the impetus there seems to be much different than the buzz I see floating around in our space on a day-to-day basis in early 2009. Let’s have a more active conversation – give me a ring.

I didn’t take Shally’s column as a cheap shot, and he easily could have been talking about me, as I am a recruiter who has added training to my work, and I’m a social media marketer to boot!

But Shally wasn’t talking about me – he was talking about people who think training is something you can just wing. And like social media “consultants” with no experience backing up their claims, they muddy the water with low cost and low value solutions. The industry does fine in creating new voices – but those new voices have to prove themselves over time, and they have to offer something tied back to hiring as a metric. Many don’t.

I see where you’re going about competitiveness, but talent acquisition isn’t training and management. Finding the right kinds of people is just a portion of the process, and with the new tools available, that portion can be more effective, giving recruiters the time and the knowledge to focus more on the personal relationships. Shally and other trainers make recruiters better at their jobs. It’s not possible for us to make other people better at theirs as well.

Learning to source early adopters and top executives with strong networks quickly is a competitive advantage, and can be used in tandem with phone sourcing, assessments, and any other number of tools to find the right talent quickly.

As for Twitter and Ning – I’d disagree strongly with your suggestion not to bring them up to executives. In fact, I’d make sure they executives knew the value of the sites before they go off to a marketing conference and come back asking why their company isn’t using Twitter for recruiting. What you’re missing is that the value in social media is the connections made by the individuals inside companies. The research into how we communicate is pretty darn valuable too, and that research is concluding that social networking is improving the value of the best companies and the best employees.

Yes, there is a lot of dead weight, but that’s a feature, not a bug. Dead weight is quickly bypassed in company networks where social media use is widespread. It would seem that a company that uses social media to recruit, or who sources from social media, is hiring people who are proving to be the best employees.

That’s research recruiters don’t get to access, but I’d say the evidence is pretty strong and growing. I’d be happy to showcase some of this with you on another forum.

I believe we could have an outstanding, at-length discussion as we are in both agreement and disagreement the more granular we get on this issue.

For example, I hesitate to use the term “snake oil” – however, what I will say is that the true deception lies in the growing disconnect between the thought innovation being spurred on by the academic world in our space . . . and the constant broadcasting of social media as being the ultimate recruiting solution. It’s as if our space is becoming a muscle magazine with tons of colorful ads and marketing hype about the next great vitamin or bodybuilding supplement . . . as people continue to lose focus on the core fundamentals of proper diet and exercise.

Due to the ephemeral tenure of the average recruiter, too much focus lies on tactics and (short-term) reactive metrics, as opposed to creating true organizational and shareholder value through strategic architecture and decision science (largely being spearheaded by John Boudreau of the Marshall School of Business, Richard Beatty of your alma mater, and ERE’s own John Sullivan).

This is my true passion and above all things, linking organizational performance to Talent Acquisition (and O/D) is the long overdue focus at the C-level. What pains me is the continued conversations on tactics coupled with a reactionary recruiting mindset . . . while the Exec Roundtable is having a completely different discussions about what really matters.

So while I do understand your concern about the “fly by night” trainer, the bigger issue is that our conversations are missing the boat because they’re too tactical to be of any significant value at the Exec level. As each day goes by, I scratch my head as to why we’re talking about the same things we’ve been talking about for years while the Exec Roundtable is demanding much more. The jig is up, and in my humble (yet serious) opinion, the future of our country’s competitiveness in the Global Economy is at stake.

P.S. And for a comical touch, I’d recommend that next time a Talent Acquisition Director (or Recruiter) is asked to attend a high-level meeting on enhancing organizational value through mobilizing talent, don’t mention Ning or Twitter. Trust me on this one. :)

P.S.S. If I could have one wish granted regarding the improvement of our space, it would be that Recruiting and Talent Acquisition starts having more intelligent discussions about the things that really matter.

I will provide a perfect example to support his commentary. A salesguy joined a company where he is leading lead generation efforts. However, this person when employed as a salesguy rarely picked up the phone and was not happy about doing prospecting. Uh, he was let go because he didn’t fill the pipeline. I know of a person who created one of the worst deliverables in the history of the company, caused a major problem. This person is now offering the same deliverable as part of her own company services. They are third class, but people will work with them for whatever reason – cheaper, better sales personality, desperate for help…

A lot of independent “consultants” will emerge and quickly pack up shop the minute the six figure job is available again – leaving a lot of destruction in their wake. What do they care? they needed money…they don’t really have concern for their clients, a mission, or desire to help.

Some, however, true entrepreneurs and opportunity graspers will become the next INC 500. Can’t apply to all across the board.

The point here is that the value of training is diminished for a variety of reasons and talent acquisition executives need to be aware of the “snake oil” that pervades among the real thing.

Consider this: A lot of those “seasoned recruiters” and “experienced, know everythings” are now on the unemployment lines. Best in the world departments, skinned to the bone. Possibly having a competitive edge would have helped?

I understand listing the typical objections here – in every selling arena, there are objections; some real and some perceived. I get that. As salespersons, it’s part of our game.

However, I would be remiss not to mention 2 things:

a. I don’t buy into the argument that one organization’s training is better than another’s in all circumstances. If you’re not performing a gap analysis, then the truth is that you’re simply broadcasting the ‘best practices du jour.’ In some cases, these practices will work; in others, they won’t. It’s all about customization, otherwise that same objection (”We’ve seen that content several times this year”) will continue to resurface. In my humble opinion, audiences and organizations wanted to be talked ‘laterally with’, not ‘down to’.

b. Disparaging competitors with lines like, “self-proclaimed gurus”, “Where did they come out of the wordwork?”, and labeling others as “people who were contract recruiters yesterday and would jump back tomorrow if they could land a steady gig” is extremely unprofessional. Truly, I mean this professionally and not personally, but I don’t understand how bulletpoint 5 made it through multiple authors and was not corrected or removed. I’ve personally attended Shally’s & Glenn’s training – in fact, I’ve presented at some of the same venues . . . and I can tell you it’s amazingly powerful information in the right hands. This is why I’m slightly surprised to see the anti-competitive comments – you’re the best because others say you’re the best, not because you say you’re the best yourself. In fact, this very mode of thinking makes it difficult for new personalities and fresh concepts to hit the airwaves – we should be embracing new voices, not stunting them. What happens? A scenario we all know too well – the same people presenting at the same conferences each year . . . and ultimately, mark my words that this diminishes ticket sales more than any other objection (including lack of budget, etc.)

Ultimately, this article would have been more impactful if the blackballing of competitors was minimized. Yes, I do understand this article is an advertisement, and I respect that . . . however, I humbly and respectfully ask to keep the negativity and unprofessional disparaging from making the final draft next time.

By providing my thoughts here, let me be explicit in the fact that I’m not looking to create any enemies here whatsoever – I’m simply stepping forward to humbly state we need more collaboration and positivity in these times. Recessions are not the time for monopolistic banter. I can see competitors bludgeoning themselves with clubs during up-markets, but not to this same degree in down-markets.

P.S. To reiterate, no I am not a trainer – instead, I do this job and live in the recruiting trenches, all day, every day. And yes, I understand that by calling a spade a spade, some will not like it and I may wind up on private emails and in a Twitter stream. Such is the price of having a voice in our space, so all I ask is to please keep it clean and remember that my goal here is to shift the anti-competitive paradigm at a high level, not move any personal agenda forward (because trust me that I don’t have one – I’m just an Exec Recruiter trying to make things happen for my Clients).

BTW, when will I receive the bill for that training?

Definition = http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Acheap&aq=f&oq=

I suppose the old adage of you get what you pay for comes to mind

Rob

Or maybe it’s like physical therapy. Sometimes it’s about relieving pain, and sometimes it’s about rebuilding to let you function correctly.

Ooh, a blog post idea!