Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

In a Banner Year of Recruiting Innovation, 1 Stubborn Throwback

by Aug 27, 2013, 5:03 am ET

2012 was one of the biggest M&A years for recruiting technology: Kenexa bought by IBM, Taleo by Oracle, SuccessFactors by SAP, etc. With all the consolidation and innovation, however, it’s ironic that one major source of talent acquisition remains stubbornly resistant to change: the way companies find, communicate and work with search firms.

The oversight certainly isn’t due to a decline in the relevance of third party recruiters. Despite the emergence of LinkedIn, recruiting agency usage is exploding. Staffing Industry Analysts’ most recent report predicts that agency spend will hit $8 billion in 2014 (not including retained search), more than double what was spent as recently as five years ago. CareerXroads, in its 2013 “Sources of Hire” report, estimated that agencies were responsible for 3.1 percent of all hires in 2012. Since agencies account for some of the most critical hires any recruiting team will make, one would think of this as an area corporations have locked up and tightly managed.

But the management of third party recruiting agencies (“headhunters”) is anachronistic. Most companies have no way to manage compliance across the organization, no visibility into agency performance, and no workflow around communicating with agencies. In fact, many companies would be challenged to even tell you how much money they spent on agency fees last year, though this figure can reach millions of dollars.

Why are companies so resistant to change in this area? Part of the reason is simple economics: $8 billion is a big number, but it dwarfs in comparison to the $111 billion that SIA estimates U.S. companies will spend through temporary staffing vendors in 2014. It’s more than math, however. An employer’s decision to use a recruiting agency is often made department by department and without transparency. No single decision-maker has responsibility (or visibility) over the budget, allowing the magnitude of spending to get lost. Ironically, the department most knowledgeable about the pervasive use of agencies (the recruiting department) might be reluctant to call attention to them for fear (misplaced) that it will reflect poorly on its own ability to source candidates.

In reality, search firms have long proven to be one of the most effective sources for key candidates, and a great agency strategy augments a great recruiting team. The most forward-thinking companies have partnered with business units to create a shared vision of when search firms are to be used, a mutually agreed-upon process for ensuring accountability, and a common set of metrics to track performance.

Agencies are a smart part of any recruiting strategy when planned strategically on the front end rather than executed haphazardly (and expensively) on the back end. The nature of the strategy can vary. One company may use agencies only for rarely recruited roles, while another may choose to independently recruit for all roles, but agree with business units to turn to agencies when critical roles have been open for a set period of time.

While an upfront agreement on agency usage is powerful, that clarity is wasted without an agreement about the process. Recruiting teams have much better use for their time than playing “headhunter police” to enforce the proper usage of search firms. They agree in advance on critical items such as the make-up of the preferred vendor list, who makes the call on which agencies are used (and under what criteria), or the point in which new agencies should be added to a critical (but long unfilled) job opening. They then create metrics to keep those processes on track, and regularly report progress and improvement.

Like any part of recruiting, there is no magic bullet, no one technology vendor and no set of agencies that is going to be the answer. Forward-thinking recruiting departments recognize the role agencies play in their process, and proactively create strategy, process, and measurement to ensure success.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  • Martin Snyder

    I’m a believer that recruiting is a basic economic function, like accounting or manufacturing, and as such, it’s bound to be done in a fragmented way. Can you imagine one law firm serving the whole market?

    Another factor is that a certain amount of sub-rosa activity it implicated in higher-level searches. Those habits of mind and organizational life create private relationships among organizational VIP types and outside firms that are difficult to standardize or maintain a handle on, and that’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

    The important thing to understand is that recruitment is an elite sales performance, and as always, the players still have to play the game, regardless of all the paraphernalia that surrounds the game.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Mike. As a contract recruiter- I have great respect for the 3PR recruiters who are able to deliver high-quality services that my colleagues and I aren’t able to do as well or at all, and they should receive 30% fees for these services, which are well-earned and well-spent. At the same time, like a fine wine enjoyed on special occasions, they should be used rarely. You’ve indicate through the Career X-Roads survey that the responders to the survey use 3PRs for only 1/32 of their hires, and while these may include some very key hires, it still is a very insignificant fraction. Furthermore, you discuss “a great agency strategy”- it’s my strongest opinion that the vast majority of 3PR hiring (the part not like I mentioned above) is done because of the LACK of strategy. Why else would there be such a huge number of successful agencies who’s basic model is not to provide the very highest and specialized level of recruiting services performed by professionals with unmatched
    skills, contacts, and professionalism who are paid 30% fees, but by firms who hire large numbers of low-paid newbies who dial for dollars for job orders they can fill off the boards for 15-20% to clients who are too desperate or ignorant to know that they can get access to the very same candidates for a couple of hundred dollars worth of sourcing (often the very same resources the agencies use) even if they don’t have board access…. The nasty unspoken truth about recruiting is it takes a lot fewer recruiters (especially 3PRs) to do the work when the clients aren’t greedy, arrogant, fearful, or ignorant/incompetent than when they are.

    Cheers,

    Keith

  • http://www.bountyjobs.com Mike Hard

    Martin: great point on agency recruiting being such a fragmented market. Just to support it: according to latest data from SIA (best source of data I can find on agencies), the top 7 agencies account for less than 10% of the market. That’s a huge amount of boutique, specialized firms driving enormous value for employers.

  • http://www.originate.com Rob Mallery

    Agree with Keith. It’s not surprising at all that there isn’t huge innovation in the “Outside Agency Vender Management Software” market.

    Companies don’t want to spend money on a software solution to manage a “process” that they generally don’t have in place.

    Speaking with a tremendous amount of experience having built and run a very successful 3rd party agency, putting too much process around using an agency actually cripples the effectiveness of the agency. Much of the reason that recruiting fails at a company is because there is too much involved in the hiring process and it is difficult for a company to be dynamic and fast moving.

    An outside agency often allows for this hard-hitting, fast-paced shot in the arm.

    If you try to slow that down, or make them jump through the same hoops that the internal recruiters/HR and hiring mgr’s have put in place for the 97% of hiring, then you would severely limit an agency’s ability to help hire the remaining 3%.

    To summarize… Agencies fill the 3% of positions when process breaks down and throws up it’s hands. If you add additional process, that would be like strapping handcuffs on your highly paid, special delivery service and saying, “There, now deal with what we have to deal with!”

  • http://www.bountyjobs.com Mike Hard

    Hey Rob – great point but let me push you a bit (and I welcome the same).

    It’s hard to argue with your point that too much process cripples the effectiveness of an agency. I think both internal and external (3rd party) recruiters would easily agree on a short list of crippling processes (ie overly long procurement approval).

    But why throw everything out? Do you see ANY metrics, measurements or compliance that companies put in place that are understandable – even helpful – to agencies? It would be an interesting debate: what an agency sees as red tape when working on a job might be seen very differently by an employer that has dozens of jobs out to search.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Rob. Very true. As mentioned, we need agencies to do the things that internal/contract recruiters can’t do as well or at all…

    @ Mike: Over the past few months, I’ve been informally advising a rapidly-growing recruiting services startup here in SF. One of things it’s introducing is a service to help companies locate and manage 3PRs. I’ve told the person I’ve been consulting with that from the perspective of an internal/contract recruiter:
    “We don’t want a tool to better find and manage 3PRs- we want a toll that will have us use 3PRs LESS.”

    You also mention an employer that has dozens of positions out to search. Let’s say that out of every two positions that a large firm sends out to 3PRs, one of them could be better handled by an alternative method. (I’m being generous here- personally, I think a much higher percentage could be efficiently handled through less-expensive with careful planning, but then, I’m biased…) That means that about 1/65 positions should be sent out to 3PRs, and if a company has DOZENS, then it should have well over a thousand openings, and there aren’t a huge number of firms in that category. On the other hand, IMHO a company that DOESN’T have thousands of total openings and still has the funding to have dozens of positions going out to 3PRS is “*really messed up”, aka, “a client where there’s lots of money to be made in a variety of ways”.

    Cheers,

    Keith “The Happy Plunderer” Halperin

    *There could be exceptions to this- a rare situation where there’s an anticipated need for a large number of very difficult-to-get people in a short period of time. That’s where the 30% fee folks really earn their fees.

  • http://www.originate.com Rob Mallery

    Totally agree with Keith in his assessment that any company that has a strong reliance on 3rd party recruiters is simply a company that could do things less expensively if they focused on it. Perhaps they have put too many handcuffs on their own recruiting efforts, or they simply don’t have adequate recruiting efforts of their own (fast paced startups would be a good example).

    There is a common misconception that companies are the “client” in the recruiting triangle of “Hiring companyRecruiterCandidate”. In reality, especially in a very tight market such as now, the candidate’s are much more important than the hiring companies. Yes, the hiring company ultimately pays the bill, but a 3rd party recruiter who can’t develop and maintain tight relationships with elite talent will be destined to work with hiring companies that think they are the “client” and can make their outside agencies jump through all manner of hoops and process. Essentially turning them into an extension of there own (oftentimes crippled) hiring practices.

    Getting back to Mike’s question of whether there would be anything that would be helpful to a 3rd party agency that a company could put into place, and the answer is essentially “no”. The company would be essentially creating a process to spend more money than it needed to, and grease the wheels in an area where they essentially want to limit spending.

    The other critical component that is often overlooked when thinking about 3rd party recruiting is that the most successful relationships are invariably based on a relationship between an individual recruiter and an individual hiring authority (VP, CTO, Dir, or Mgr) within the organization. An outside recruiter who strives to have a relationship with the company as a whole, is often less successful with individual hiring authorities than the recruiter who develops and maintains the relationship with the actual decision makers.

    Short answer to Mike’s question is: The only thing I can think of that a company could do that would actually be “helpful” to an outside agent would be to facilitate access to hiring managers and open up more positions with less process friction from HR. And as Keith pointed out… This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the company wants to do. :-)

  • http://www.originate.com Rob Mallery

    PS… I’ve taken the “outside agency” approach to hiring and brought it internally at my software venture firm, Originate. We hire only the best engineers (the Ex-Google, MIT, Stanford grad types) and we have never used an outside recruiter. We operate lean and mean with extremely limited budget and while we have a very thorough and rigorous interview process, we are dynamic and can move as quickly as 2-3 days from initial contact to offer in hand.

    The hiring managers have no resume reviewing function (recruiting has all authority on who we interview and how quickly things happen). Candidates write code in all interviews and they go through a coding challenge to start the process.

    We take recruiting very seriously as an organization and because of this focus and efficient workflow, we essentially have no need for an outside agent, let alone pay for a 3rd party solution to “manage” the outside agents.

    Rob “Bringing the Outside In” Mallery

    Had to throw in my “Keith-ism” for the day :-)

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks again, Rob. As you said: relationships are made with individuals, not with companies (unless it’s a sole-proprietorship, of course).

    Quite frequently, I hear a 3PR (usually an independent, but sometimes head/part of a firm) state how they never use the boards to get people. IMHO, this is how it should be. I’d like to suggest a way of gradually improving the quality of 3PR recruiting: In the contract with any given agency or recruiter, have the agency or recruiter sign a promise not to use any resumes that are directly or indirectly sourced from Monster, CB, DICE (except in the case of contractors), Craig’s List, GitHub or Stack Overflow. Perhaps a loose group of 3PRs could sign a public pledge not to use these for their sources, so potential clients can see. Hey, I think I’ll informally suggest that to my colleague I’m advising- his company could agree to have as their available recruiters 3PRs who agree to that. I wonder if there are any other organizations/firms that deal with 3PRs that might be interested in having their participating 3PRs participate in something like that? Maybe there could be multiple categories for the managing firms- the category of those firms who sign the pledge and those who won’t. Nobody gets excluded that way, and the customer gets to choose who’s best for them. We could call it the “Hard Pledge” after Mike, whose article led me to think of it…

    Cheers,

    Keith “Always a Pain in Someone’s ‘Neck’” Halperin

  • http://www.bountyjobs.com Mike Hard

    Keith: The “Hard Pledge”…I love it! I don’t think that would be the pledge I’d choose, but it’s an honor :)

  • Keith Halperin

    You’re very welcome, Mike. Have a Great Holiday.

    Keith

  • andy nick

    @ Keith – you say “… have the agency or recruiter sign a promise not to use any resumes that are directly or indirectly sourced from Monster, CB, DICE (except in the case of contractors), Craig’s List, GitHub or Stack Overflow.”

    Wouldn’t that mean that each agency/recruiter would need to subscribe to all of those services to know who is on the board and who is not?

  • http://www.originate.com Rob Mallery

    Sorry Keith, the “Hard Pledge” is a complete non-starter for an outside agency. It’s one of those things that sounds good on the surface and sounds reasonable, but in reality it would never functionally work.

    Good agencies are successful not because they have some magical way of pulling candidates out of thin air, but rather because they are excellent matchmakers, relationship builders, and they make connections when others don’t. In these times of 100% access, everyone has access to everyone through some means or another, but successful recruiting is about timing, matchmaking and the relationship behind the scenes.

    Candidates are everywhere and anywhere at anytime…Monster, CB, DICE, Craig’s List, GitHub or Stack Overflow. In the scenario you described, there’s no way to know where an outside agent found or learned about a candidate. They might have known the candidate for several years and placed him/her at their last position, but if that recruiter signs the “Hard Pledge” and that candidate has a GitHub account, then the candidate is immediately off-limits to represent.

    The agent would spend more time trying to figure out what type of footprint their candidates had so that the company they were helping wouldn’t simply get the resume, type the name into Google and say, “Oh sorry, we already have him on Github AND Dice from when he posted it last year”.

    It wouldn’t matter that the agent called the candidate because they knew that the candidate wasn’t happy at the position he took 10 months ago after his job search from 1 year ago.
    It wouldn’t matter that the agent pitched the company’s position in a way that wasn’t captured by any of the job advertisements that the company had been posting over the past 4 months of failed recruiting.
    It wouldn’t matter that neither the candidate nor the company would have been aware that the other existed before the agent made the connection happen.

    The only thing that would matter is that the “Hard Pledge” was signed.

    Again, it bears repeating since this is perhaps the most misunderstood part of recruiting in general and outside recruiting in particular… It’s not about the candidates and how they are found. We ALL have access to ALL the same candidates in some way, shape or form.

    What matters is the timing and the relationship.

    It also deserves to be mentioned that “relationship” doesn’t need to be a 10 year “I’ve known this candidate forever”-type relationship. It could be a two day “This recruiter is the best, most knowledgable, most helpful person I’ve talked to in the past several weeks of my phone ringing off the hook from crappy recruiters who found my resume on Dice” -type of relationship.

    In short… Any recruiter who signs the “Hard Pledge” is a recruiter who is begging for a job order under any and all circumstance. Companies will certainly get recruiters to sign the pledge because of this. However, they will not be the type of hiring partner that you can trust, nor will they be someone you want to work with. They’ll just spend the bulk of their day trying to convince people who responded to an ad on StackOverflow to remove their Dice and StackOverflow profile for a week and temporarily disable their Github account that they’ve maintained for years. If the candidate didn’t agree to it, then the recruiter wouldn’t make the introduction, so most likely, the company just lost out on a possible candidate. It’s a fail for everyone in that scenario, and this scenario would play out almost the same way every time.

    Beyond all that, a top-tier recruiter doesn’t need to beg for job orders, nor be shackled with a referral straight jacket. Any company that followed the advice of the “Hard Pledge” would never get to work with an actual professional who uses any and all methods of recruiting the best person for their positions.

    Rob “Just Say No to the Hard Pledge” Mallery :-)

  • http://www.bountyjobs.com Mike Hard

    Agree w/Rob. Companies we’ve worked with tend to have all sorts of reasons they send a job to search, but the common denominator is some calculation that an agency is going to deliver a better return on investment for that particular role (or set of roles) for that particular time. It’s not a problem with what pools they fish in, it’s how well they catch the fish.

    Mike “Flattered But Would Prefer a Pledge I Agree With” Hard :)

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Rob. I was unclear: I don’t want 3PRs to waste all their time making sure that their candidate isn’t on any board.
    The “Hard Pledge” would be that they won’t use CB, Monster, DCIE, DL, Stack Overflow, or GitHub to FIND any submitted candidate- it’s as simple as letting those paid accounts expire and not renewing, and not looking on Craig’s List.
    Other agencies could continue to use these boards, but the clients would then know this and could decide if it were worth it for them. It’s like having the info on whether or not there are genetically modified ingredients in some food products. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me, but it does matter to some people, and I think it would be good for people to know so they can decide whether or not to buy. I think it’s a reasonable question to ask if agencies use job boards, and to decide whether or not to use them if they do.

    -kh

  • http://www.originate.com Rob Mallery

    @Keith I certainly understand the thinking and the sentiment behind it. It’s the practice of it that is a non-starter. And maybe I’m having a bigger problem with the fact that you include Github and StackOverflow with the Monsters, CB and Dice’s.

    I rarely do outside recruiting anymore, but if a company told me that people with a Github account are off limits because their internal recruiters already have access to them, I would tell the company that I can’t help them and wish them luck. I don’t have time to waste trying to find awesome developers who don’t have a GitHub account.

    I’m not saying all awesome candidates have GitHub accounts, and I’m not saying I am going to find them there. I’m just saying that whether I find them there or meet them at a networking event and then subsequently find out they have a Github account, I still can’t represent them to that company.

    And I totally agree with you that it matters to some people where recruiters are finding their candidates. But that goes back to the misperception that somehow good recruiters magically create candidates from thin air or 100% from “their network”. It’s a fallacy. Great recruiters are simply great at using any and all mediums available to solve a company’s hiring problem.

    Bad recruiters using job boards exclusively and poorly is the fundamental reason for your “Hard Pledge” idea. And that idea is certainly valid. But by telling all recruiters (good and bad) that they can’t represent people who have footprints in various sources (whether the recruiter used those to find the candidate or not) is bad practice.

    A better solution is simply to not work with recruiters that don’t add value/ROI as Mike mentioned.

    Full disclosure…My team doesn’t use Dice, Monster or CB for anything we do since the candidate quality is low compared to the time it takes to mine the nuggets. Therefore, I wouldn’t have to worry about us sourcing anyone from those sites. In other words, I would be in Full Compliance of the “Hard Pledge” (minus the Github part :-)

    However, I would never sign the “Hard Pledge” because I wouldn’t be able to prevent a hiring mgr or internal recruiter from punching in the candidate who I found elsewhere and then telling me “Sorry, s/he’s on Dice, s/he doesn’t count as a referral.”

  • Keith Halperin

    I hear you, Robert. Again, I don’t care if a given candidate is ON those sites, I just want a pledge from the recruiters not to USE those sites for anything they send to me.I don’t think it’s too much to have recruiters be willing to state in writing they get their people from their “network,” the internet, LIR, or various niche boards generally not known. As a client, I can either do the sourcing or get the sourcing done for A LOT LESS than a contingency fee. I’d make an exception (and have) if the problem weren’t the sourcing of the candidates, but the recruiting of them- I say that the chief reasons to use a contingency/retained 3PR (and pay 30%) for them is to get people who’d otherwise not talk to you to talk to you, and to accept offers from you that they otherwise wouldn’t accept.

    Cheers,

    Keith

  • http://www.originate.com Rob Mallery

    I think what it boils down to is that when a company is asking a contract recruiter/s to solve their recruiting/sourcing problems, it stands to reason that a 3rd party recruiter is probably not the best tool to add to an already crowded room (HR, Hiring Mgr, contract recruiter).

    When I ran my agency, it was very rare that we’d work with/through a contract recruiter. Motivations are generally not in the same place. Contract recruiter/s want to fill the positions and anyone else getting in the way of that is a barrier. However, we also had several situations where we worked extremely well with an internal contract recruiter who was helpful and would facilitate things as opposed to the much more common “This is my turf and I’m only talking to you because my VP said I have to” situation.

    I think that’s why the “Hard Pledge” is pretty much a no-go for any respectable outside agency. They are essentially accepting handcuffs and saying, “That sounds awesome, where do I sign!!”

    I can only reiterate that even though I don’t use Dice or Monster to find candidates, I would never put into writing that I don’t use them. It would too easy for a company or contract recruiter to say that I sourced someone from a job board, simply because the candidate I represented had a profile on those platforms.

    Keith, you mentioned…”Again, I don’t care if a given candidate is ON those sites, I just want a pledge from the recruiters not to USE those sites for anything they send to me”… I’m not sure how you would police/verify this. Maybe that’s the area for some new recruiting software innovation. Or just ask the candidate I guess… because candidates never lie if it suits their best interest!! ;-)

    Like I said, it just gets messy and a professional agent is waaaay to busy to worry about who has a Dice profile, who has a Github profile, and what method the client or internal recruiter would use to determine how/when the relationship with a referred candidate was started.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Rob. As an internal Contract recruiter, I’m fine if a company wants to use a 3PR to fill a position if it has the money and I’m not competing against them.
    I think it’s reasonable for “handcuffs” for someone getting a 30% fee, and if they’re not doing 30% fee work (which IMHO does not include using generally available resources to find candidates, unless I give them the go-ahead as I mentioned above) then we shouldn’t be using them at all. I’m paying them:
    1) To source the people who can’t be found by the Irinas and Maureens: “Find the invisible.”
    2) Have them get candidates talk to me when they otherwise wouldn’t- “Speak to the unspeakable”
    3) Get candidates to accept offers that they otherwise
    wouldn’t. “Make the reasonable take the unreasonable.”

    How do you get them (the 3PRs) to hold to their promise? You have them give you their word. If they break their word to you, you let EVERYBODY know these are outright liars…

    Cheers,
    Keith

  • http://www.originate.com Rob Mallery

    :-) Keith, I don’t want to just say, “OK, we agree to disagree”, but your points above reflect the exact reasons that exceptional outside agents often don’t mesh well with internal contract recruiters or heavy HR process. They work best and often exclusively with internal hiring authorities and it’s that relationship and trust that drives successful placements.

    As I mentioned, I rarely do outside recruiting anymore, and when I do, it’s with a portfolio company or good partner company. Any engagement that tries to separate me from the hiring authority is an immediate non-starter. Handcuff’s are completely non-negotiable (no amount of money is worth the headache of participating in a burdensome process when there are cleaner ways to do it). 20-30% fees are not worth my time if the company views me as a neccessary expenditure and someone who should work under their broken system versus an alternate solution to their problem.

    In response to what you are paying an outside agent to do…
    “Finding the Invisible” and “Speaking to the unspeakable” is what a good agent only has to do 5-10% of the time. Yes, it’s part of their repertoire, but the bulk of what they do is simply put standard pieces into the puzzle at the right place, at the right time, and with the proper layup.

    And in regards to “Making the reasonable take the unreasonable”… I don’t even know where to start with that comment! It would appear from those words that you are expecting an outside agent to create matches that shouldn’t be made. Essentially forcing unreasonable decisions. That’s the epitome of the used car syndrome that everyone in the world complains about when it comes to recruiters.

    Perhaps it’s just poor wording, but I think the more accurate description would be to “help everyone see things that aren’t immediately transparent or obvious.” This applies on both the company/client and the candidate side. Great recruiters are masters at helping people see opportunity where they couldn’t see it themselves. This is often life-changing for candidates and for companies, it can produce successful teams and new hires that the company never would have looked at if they had just told “Maureen” to source for X or Y.

    This drives back to my original point… Great recruiters are crippled when they are handcuffed or burdened by a company’s internal process. How can you show someone the invisible or change the unchangeable when “Maureen” or “Irina” says “this person has a GitHub account, therefore he’s off-limits, we have access to him/her and it’s not your referral”.

    That person could have filled a need and solved a problem at the company, but the “Hard Pledge” and the handcuffs eliminated the option.

    I can certainly appreciate the obvious dissatisfaction that you feel with external agents in general, but I hope you can also appreciate my argument that companies and the practices they put into place are often the primary source of those frustrations and poor relationships. Unfortunately, the more burdensome the process, and the more handcuffs you place in order to create better, more structured relationships will only drive the bar lower and lower.

    BTW…I’m also firmly aware that you can’t just open the floodgates and allow 3PR’s to run free and wild since the bad ones are always noisier than the good ones! And there are LOT’S of bad ones.

    My advice is always to find 2-3 great outside recruiters, remove the obstructions, and let them show you things that aren’t immediately transparent. Most people are unaware that they are even doing it and that’s why they are paid 30% :-)

  • Keith Halperin

    @ Rob:
    “My advice is always to find 2-3 great outside recruiters, remove the obstructions, and let them show you things that aren’t immediately transparent. Most people are unaware that they are even doing it and that’s why they are paid 30% :-)”

    “Two outta three ain’t bad”…
    - Meatloaf (M. L. Aday), 1977:

    “For 30%: I want the impossible- the merely ‘very difficult’ I can do myself.”
    - Keith Halperin, 2013:

  • http://www.originate.com Rob Mallery

    “For 30%: I want the impossible- the merely ‘very difficult’ I can do myself.”
    - Keith Halperin, 2013:

    Haha, true that!

    As a company, that’s why I would hire you. As an outside recruiter, that’s why I wouldn’t sign up for the gig.

    “Lost time is never found again.”
    Proverb