Cheers,

Keith

Not a bad idea overall, so long as management acknowledges the differences. For example we floated this idea a few times here and tried it a couple of times, and it just didn’t work. You get criticized for not ‘developing talent’ but then on the flip side, you had twenty open REQs that required specific talent right then, so your priorities for investing time and effort are very different. An external agency can ‘create’ REQs to fill for talent they develop through sales; the only way we create REQs is via replacement or expansion. As an internal recruiter you may find some great people who will never work at your specific company. The ratio of talent you can place to promising sources of referrals is off and not in your favor. Also, internally you can’t do as much specialization. An agency may do IT only, or Engineers only. As an internal recruiter you have to specialize in the company, not the professions or fields.

Overall treating your internal recruiters like a talent agency is a good idea, so long as you realize that internal and external agencies can be strikingly different. An internal agency is your partner, to an external agency you are a customer. And I don’t and never did buy the ‘internal customer’ argument. You keep customers happy at all costs, you keep partners successful at all costs. A happy customer may have done something not in their short or long term interest, but as long as they’re happy

“The only companies that should use agencies are the ones who are truly transparent and competent in their management. Or, the ones who have money to burn. Everyone else should internalize the process as part of a broader process of getting their crap together so one day they can be good enough to be able to successfully outsource this kind of finicky process.”

Or keep it inside and run recruiting the way it should be – as a talent agency…

I think that’s because people treat it like a sales job, when it’s really not. Getting the REQ might be a sales job. Finding the right candidate to match a company’s needs was an art and is turning more and more into an art heavily informed by at least some science. Which is why I think the profession is so biased against data, much like sales people. The last thing a sales person wants to share with you is their actual numbers. Rather you get endless BS about how what they do is hard to quantify. No, it isn’t. The micro details might be hard to quantify, the macro trends should manifest in steady and/or increasing sales revenue. The ‘art’ of what we do as recruiters may be difficult to quantify, but the end result of top performers with decent tenures isn’t rocket science. It’s easy to measure, and if there’s a glitch in the numbers it may not be your fault, but at least with some data you can spot when something is going wrong.

At my current job we instituted a simple practice; every HM had to give a 90 day sign off on employees, and recruiting’s job wasn’t done until THAT was done. It’s been extended now to six months. I hope to eventually have it at a year or more, because that’s when the real pay off from making a new hire starts to come in. However, as long as recruiters are so dead set on treating their profession as a sales one, acting like sales people, and remaining hostile to the raw data which will show whether or not they are succeeding, then you’re going to get the sleaze and the pitches for snake oil.

That’s specifically why I like the corporate side. You can implement strategy and accountability of some kind without the risk of flushing your whole annual income down the toilet by losing a client. I think more companies need to realize that recruitment should stop being outsourced and internalize the function. I can understand why agencies don’t want that level of accountability; bad clients would keep them refilling the same positions in perpetuity for no fee, and the agencies can’t as easily spot internal issues that affect their performance, like mismanagement. Their costs would skyrocket.

The only companies that should use agencies are the ones who are truly transparent and competent in their management. Or, the ones who have money to burn. Everyone else should internalize the process as part of a broader process of getting their crap together so one day they can be good enough to be able to successfully outsource this kind of finicky process.

I’m in a similar situation, and you just have to be honest with your candidates and your clients, which doesn’t necessarily mean being confrontational with them, though sometimes with some behaviors that seems like the appropriate and proper resonse. Unfortunately many businesses succeed in spite of some of their principals’ more destructive behaviors. But in the end, they will be limited in their growth by their own disfunction. So, they do pay for it in the end. The market is nothing if not karmic.

I read the same article as you and took no issue to the metaphors…because they’re spot on. That’s what candidates say and this I what recruiters discuss at local and national recruiting conferences. The entire “customer experience’ movement was born out of these discussions.

I’ve been involved in pro-candidate efforts for some time and here too discussions about body-shop recruiters is commonplace. The messages coming from candidates is clear: Bad recruiters and bad recruiting processes denude a company’s brand and make them less desirable employers.

Argue with this if you want but with the barrier to entry into recruiting so low it’s easy to see how the profession’s reputation is not very good.

Thank you for weighing in. Here’s what I think- this is a column for opinion, how to, and factual information therefore I have every right to share my story and/or opinion. Novice I am not nor am I the alpha and omega of Recruitment. I have learned lessons over the course of my career that I know could help someone else or can validate that despite our different industries we all face the same struggles and triumphs.

As an engineer, I am sure you pride yourself on empirical data so scroll up and read this entire dialogue and also take a look at the amount of times this article has been shared. When you do that- read your comments and see if you still think you are being fair in what you just said.

Concurrence or the lack thereof is not why I write so I appreciate you reading and your opinion- bu repectfully disagree with your delivery.

Best Regards,

Janine

Nice to see your profiles on linkedin & comments here !

Going thro’ the article, it doesn’t sound like Janine has written an article: “how bad recruiters mess things up !”

It sounds like her own story & the way she has dealt with the situation at her end – again doesn’t mean, that is the only way / ultimate way to execute! – right?

Also, re-read this para below from her article & tell me she’s not on a complaining mode or she isn’t cribbing here !!!

” These bad business decisions makes the recruiter’s job less of an honest, people-friendly job, and more like a dirty salesman job. The dirty salesman knows his product is garbage but will sell it to you with a pretty bow on top as if it is the product you shouldn’t live without. This is a day in the life of a recruiter when bad decisions are a commonplace in an organization”

Also Steve,

let me mention here that, we’re doing recruitment’s only for R&D’s in niche fields, and as you mentioned, assignments that take an year long time and above that the available talent-pool is too bleak !!!

But I don’t think it’s right to use the phrases like “dirty salesmans job’ / selling garbage etc… and if thatz the situation… why be in it at the first place?

Don’t u have a choice like others have highlighted here !?

regards,
PR

Like you, I am an engineer who discovered the topsy-turvy yet fun field of recruiting.

No one who has participated in this discussion is a novice in recruiting – you can check our LinkedIn profiles if you have the time. In fact, with Janine’s employer being one of this country’s top R&D labs, she and her fellow recruiters there are faced with the challenge of recruiting for positions where the candidate pool often is 10 or less people; in cases such as this, the engagement period can often take longer than one year – and the ability of the recruiter to keep someone in play is of paramount importance.

No complaints here about recruiting – only the reality of what the great recruiters have to address on a daily basis to counteract the actions of far too many novice recruiters.

One of the largest problems that the function has struggled to overcome IS the perception of the field by novices and the damaged done by body shops. There’s a reason “customer experience” has finally become the heated topic it is…the inexperienced, poorly trained, poorly managed recruiters who are more like used car salesmen and could care less about the candidate.

Great recruiters have many things in common despite the recruiting environment – and Janine has done a great job of pointing out how bad recruiters mess things up and create a PR nightmare the rest of us struggle to overcome.

From your article, what comes out very clear is that, you’re a novice in recruitment’s.

What you have described in your article is a perception based upon your exp – but instead of the article sounding like an opinion of yours, it’s sounding like a Statement !!!

Any fresh MBA graduate from HR stream, if he / she reads your article, they would end up getting a skewed picture of a recruiter / recruitment field as such !

It’s as simple as this: A recruiter’s idea/ perception about recruitment is quiet different in different sectors:

Like a recruiter’s exp in BPO is different from that of a recruiter working in R&D’s / Manufacturing etc…

Why go so far, exp of a recruiter working on ‘contract-staff’ is diff. from that of a Perm / Exec-search etc…

So your article is specific to your individual exp – pls don’t generalize & make a statement / pass a judgement out-of-it !

Your story looks like a complaint from a person who was a square-peg and tried to fit himslef in a Round-hole !!!

Hope u see & get what I say… ?

The field of recruitment’s / consulting is a vast occean, you learn a lot about usage of words, punctuations, right use of emotions, expressions, even right use of emoticons u see… :-)

Cheers & Good luck

Phaniraj Bhatt

I’m glad this topic resonated with you. I love that you stuck to your values and made it abundantly clear that you could not in good faith do your job with the work conditions as they are. You are to be admired and I wish more of us could or would do the same.

Thank you for sharing your story.

Best Regards,

Janine

You make a good point about how congruent our values need to be to the values of our client for us to our job.

One of my mentors once said that every practitioner has to decide whether their values and its congruence to the organization is a more important factor than doing the task at hand. Her point was we all have a decision to decide whether your values are more important than the job you do. If they are, then it is important that you find a company that shares your values. If not, well then it’s much like what I am speaking about in the article- anything goes.

Thanks for reading and for your insights,

Janine

Cheers,

Keith

I am busy, busy and trying to respond to you all in a timely fashion. I apologize for any grammatical or typographical errors. It is simply not my style.

Thank you all for reading. I appreciate you.

Best Regards,

Janine

Thank you for your comment. I like your resonating theme of job congruence. You do have to hire people that are as adept to dealing with the positive aspects of a company as they are do with the negative aspects.

I still think that there is a fine line between the doing your job as a recruiter and becoming that sleazy salesman; when you work for a company that does not make the connection between their poor business practices/decisions and their ability to attract and retain talent.

For instance, when I worked in staffing, I had a client that used to curse at employees and argue incessantly with his brother in front of customers etc. In addition, he had a habit of throwing things during his temper tantrums. Did I get people to interview there- yes! Could I be totally honest about the work conditions there and/or tell my boss I no longer wanted him as a client- another yes! However, in doing so I risked not making a placement and/or being seen as insubordinate if I made any the moves I described. This makes me seem like a weak character of sorts. I was fresh out of school and didn’t know better. Plus, the word aroung town was I “had to play the game”. You live and learn, but I digress.

In the end I left, because my values and ethics were not in “congruence” to the way this company did business-but make no mistake there is no putting a spin on that kind of mess.

I appreciate you reading and your insights.

Best Regards,

Janine

I applaud you for sticking to your values when choosing the companies you work for. Everyone of us recruiters should be of this mindset, but as Steve stated “it is quite easy to convince oneself that tapioca tastes like caviar when you have to pay your bills.” Few people get the opportunity to make sound career choices. That is to do what they really love whereever and for whomever without considration of their financial circumstances.

Here’s to sticking to your guns!

Best Regards,

Janine

I can’t elaborate on your comment any further because you are spot on. Dishonesty is dishonesty. I believe that an honest recruiter can enjoy the fruits that credibility bears. Conversely, dishonesty does not make for credibility and while you are likely to still make placements; they are far and few in between and not quality.

Thanks for your insightful comment and for reading. If I could tag you for the best comment of the day I certainly would.

P.S. Thanks for the “Great Game of Business” quote. It certainly rolls downhill and you know can smell it a mile away. Honesty is the best policy!

Thanks for reading and for your comment.

You are correct. In the companies where transparency of practice and intent is low on the list of priorities-it is all about keeping up appearances and hiring for the purpose of quantity not quality.

It is a poor business strategy and in my previous experience has caused an inevitable failure of the that company-at least from a recruitment perspective.

I appreciate your insights.

Best Regards,

Janine