Just in Time: “’An inventory strategy companies employ to increase efficiency and decrease waste by receiving goods only as they are needed…’ –Investopedia

As a recruiter, I tend to be pulled into various recruiting projects based upon client needs. This is fine. What is not fine is when I am called in at the last minute. When I am called in because they need to hire a host of hard-to-find people fast. When their uninspired and clueless leaders failed to start recruiting before it becomes an emergency. This really bothers me and it bothers me even more when I am told to do it fast, because good work is seldom done fast. I am a recruiter, not a magician.

See the quote above? Just In Time deals with the procurement of parts, not people. It deals with inanimate objects that come to the company in boxes, not with employees who come to the company in cars. Waiting to the last minute to hire is a bad idea.

Seeing as we are talking here, do you ever wonder why companies wait too long to begin recruiting? Tough question to answer but I believe it is often out of a sense of entitlement — a type of arrogance among the uninitiated and the slow learners who honestly think that when they need Java developers, they will just interview a bunch and pick the winners. Honestly, this thinking is pitiful and it exists because leadership seldom knows how hard it is to make good hires.

Even worse, if you dig a bit deeper they usually want employees that meet three search criteria:

1. Hard to find
2. Need them fast
3. Not too expensive

Translation: fast, good, and cheap. (In reality, you can usually have two, but you can seldom have all three.) Is there anything that demonstrates failed leadership, anything that screams “I know nothing of hiring” more than this type of thinking?

New employees are your raw material and if you are smart, and your future too. You get great talent by earning great talent — by thinking ahead for a future that is coming at you hard and fast. Why so many leaders believe they are somehow entitled to have great talent simply because they need it escapes me.

Perhaps my patience runs thin but I have lost most of my faith in the belief that I will see intelligent leadership as it relates to talent acquisition. As such, I have three suggestions for recruiters to consider so they can lead the charge as opposed to waiting for direction from the slow and inept:

• Build candidate pools/communities: Take this point with a grain of salt as the concept of candidate pools/communities are still evolving. On the other hand I urge you to take a stab and at least begin to create movement here. How you do it will probably often be trial and error as your methods evolve but at least you will have begun. My good friend KC Donovan of Upwardly Me says, “The significance of emerging community-based recruiting is breathtaking, and once we figure out how to integrate them into current hiring practices, everyone will be using them to manage talent needs.”
• Speak with hiring managers ahead of time: Talk with your hiring managers informally at least once a month to determine what is coming down the pike. Even without a clearly approved requisition, this conversation will allow you to begin to engage your community and begin forward movement. Donovan told me “that the best way to break out of tactical ‘just-in-time’ recruiting is to get a jump-start on cultivating future talent projections in a way that allows you to anticipate requirements.” (Special Hint: if you get a key resignation, seek out that person’s hiring manager to initiate conversations about determining what is to be done to fill their shoes. Do this and you will learn a bit about succession planning and OD all at the same time. Fun, huh?)
• Have a quarterly CIO meeting. Few recruiters ever meet with their companies’ CIO. This is a mistake. This conversation will allow you to get a heads up on the types of technology you will be searching for 12 to 18 months out. It will also increase your value because you will be providing essential information to your CIO on who is out there, and the associated cost of acquisition, because knowing the employment characteristics of employees who will need to be hired is part of an awareness that every good CIO must possess.

I urge you to consider the above-mentioned ideas. This thinking will allow you to demonstrate leadership as opposed to the quiet misery of sitting around and waiting for it from others. Seem reasonable?

This article is for my good friend Samir Amirov

sixth studio album by Elton John

I really should go to bed because I have to get up very early tomorrow (by 10:00 a.m.) but my head is still spinning from my day-long attendance at the AOEP 2011 Recruiters Best Practices Summit. My thanks to Lou Gaglini and Dan Kilgore for putting up with me.

First things first: all sessions were great, but Jeremy Eskenazi’s presentation entitled “Navigating Corporate Politics” was funny and brilliant and in a sense, heartwarming — simply the best session I have ever attended.

The things I learned at the conference are endless. A quick example is Lou Gaglini’s brilliant question from his session entitled “Anatomy of an Effective Interview:”

Question: “What is an interview?” (Not really such an easy question, is it?)

Answer: “It is a very important business meeting.” (A simply inspired answer as I see it.)

I can go on endlessly about the conference, but one concept must be spoken of here and now. And that concept is “Recruiters as facilitators” — pointed out by Jeremy.

I have been in this business for a long time. I grew up in the agency biz and later moved into consulting and project work. Endless clients later I have never quite thought of it in that light. Silly me. Recruiters as facilitators is an eye-opening concept — a realistic model of the life we as recruiters must live.

Recruiters as facilitators holds sway big time because it inserts a sense of reality and clear thinking into the hiring process by pointing out what should be obvious but often times is not — that we as recruiters are only facilitators in the hiring process and nothing more. In what can often times be a long and convoluted process (should this even be a long and convoluted process in the first place? Most often no, but that is fodder for another article) that goes from the development of a position profile all the way to a candidate’s acceptance of an offer, we can only do three things:

1. We can drive the process by always moving things to the next level through a sense of urgency and effective communication.
2. We can act as a consultant to the hiring manager as well as anyone else involved in the process to ensure quality and professionalism at each step.
3. We can do whatever is possible to close the deal when an offer is made and be sure that the candidate is prepped to start.

Read the above stated three bullets again and remember them, because this is all we can possibly do in our roles as recruiters. Often times, we can cajole, push, pull, and politic in a heartfelt struggle to do what we see as right — to hire a great candidate who can do the job we seek to fill, and create a successful employment scenario. This is easier said than done.

Sadly, corporate sensibilities or lack thereof, internal wrangling, and endless other circumstances can stand in our way. When push comes to shove, the hire we seek will at times not happen. Notice my use of words. I did not say that we failed. I said that the hire did not happen, and I hope that the subtly of my message is not lost on the reader. We can only do so much, and beyond that, we are at the fate of winds and forces far beyond our control.

Is there comfort to be taken from the realization that our good work can lead to naught? That we can go home on a Friday knowing full well a hire that should have happened did not and now we must stare at beginning anew on a cold and cloudy Monday? I think so and I urge you to consider the following thought for your comfort.

Hiring by its nature is a difficult and messy business. I have seen this to be the case with every client I have ever known. I have seen it when it is fun and I have seen it when it was heartbreaking. As recruiters, all we can do is continue to grow and to exercise our best judgment. All we can do is hold true to the standard of care and consideration we know to be the best work we can impart. Simply stated, all we can really do is to try — and amidst our best labors, flights of fancy, and visions of success, know that at times, it simply will not happen. I do not see that as my problem. I see it as an organizational problem and I simply move on. That is our reality as facilitators.

As for me, please don’t shoot me — I am just the clarinet player.

The Dark Side of the Moon’s themes include conflict, greed, the passage of time … –Wikipedia

To be critical of social media, in any and all formats, sentences the writer to one of three modalities:

1. You are a geezer
2. You do not get it
3. You are in the way of progress

Wrong on all counts. We are thinkers and evaluators first — recruiters or whatever a distant second. Armed with only our experience and limited time to get things done, we must question how we spend that time every single day. Time wasted equals fewer hires — and fewer hires devalues our existence.

Let me jump in hard and fast. Social media is big, firestorm big, and it seems to be everyone’s favorite child. As such, it has rapidly permeated almost everything we see and do on a daily basis. I am not opposed to this. One can’t be “opposed” to social media but I will tell you to what it is I am opposed.

• I am opposed to the lack of critical discourse — the lack of careful analysis and review that surrounds social media as a tool for effective recruiting. I see fun and excitement and new and cool. I need a more balanced perspective for evaluation.
• I am opposed to universal acceptance of a format that has not yet developed its chops — demonstrated a significant track record of accomplishment as it relates to ROI with investment being our time.
• I am opposed to those who accept it more as a religion than a methodology to achieve results. Personally, I see it as a business tool, nothing more. Furthermore, I have concerns that the mixture of recruiting and social media — neither of which has a bar to entry — might often have more sizzle than steak.

As I write this, Google is rolling out a new social media platform, Facebook is under fire as many users eviscerate it for recent changes, LinkedIn requests are endless, and Twitter is has morphed into a circus.

Chris Brogan, founder of Human Business Works, writes that if you have to ask what the ROI on social media is, you just don’t get it. In this brave new world of overnight gurus, on fire social networking divas, and badass hipsters who intend to change the world, I still look for ROI because I am a capitalist. I need to see the money. Even in a world gone mad with celebrity rage and unacceptable behavior as the norm, one thing remains constant: people will spend money in exchange for value … less so if they do not see the value. It is critical for us as recruiters to remember that the value we bring are hires, not connections. How we spend our time is critical because time is money.

We must understand that social media is in its infancy. The next five years will generate explosive growth that will require critical judgment and consideration to ascertain real world value. Each of us needs to determine what works for us and what is just cute. Allow me three points of reference:

1. Measurable value. Where, exactly and specifically, is the concrete value that supports our organizational objectives? (Tweeted that HR job 16 times over the last 13 days with no takers. When do you stop? Why do you stop?)
2. Our bandwidth is limited. Bob Seger said it best. “Deadlines and commitments; what to leave in and what to leave out.” We only need the tools that result in real-world deliverables that justify our existence. Connecting is easy. Delivering is not that easy.
3. Beware the experts. Beware the seductive promise of the tool and the technique that will “revolutionize” the recruiting/HR community often promulgated by those who are self proclaimed and often know little of our business and its unique problems. (See “What’s Up With The CelebutaHRd” for brilliant perspective.)

To me, social media is a grand adventure but it can be a time sink. I have no problem with this but to even the most untutored of us must see that if we try to keep up with endless conversations and threads and tweets on endless groups we will soon have to make a choice. To build our careers or to build our networks. Can do both? Maybe. I am simply not sure.

We face dangerous times ahead and navigating our destiny will not be easy. We must now deal with a world economy that is fragile, a government that is gridlocked, and poverty returning to the United States in frightening numbers. Divided, we will not stand. Unproductive, we will not stand. Ineffective, we will not stand. How we spend our time is the last best way to control our success and ultimately our destiny.

I don’t want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their jobs. –Samuel Goldwynn

I just finished looking at a position profile for a job with a pharmaceutical company. The laundry list of bulleted requirements for this position is 22 — and I can assure you that these are not easy-to-find requirements. They’re all action words and full of responsibility for everything under the sun. (Yes, advanced degree required.) Perhaps God can do this job but in terms of mere human beings, I do not see it happening. I picked up the phone and had a conversation with a trusted associate who tells me the position has been open for a long time and has now been classified as “hard to fill.”

I dislike this “hard-to-fill” mindset. I know that some jobs, by their nature, are going to be a challenge, but the impossible ones just irritate me for a host of reasons. Let me enumerate just three of them below and we can then move on to solution-oriented thinking.

1. It is Alive. After a while, hard-to-fill jobs take on a life of their own. Corporate recruiting quickly sees that the requirements are bizarre, and as such, a self-fulfilling prophecy begins to take hold. Very soon, no one is good enough for the job as the hiring manager breezes through resumes rejecting all. The corporate recruiters fail at every turn to impress the hiring manager, who actually thinks that this is a reasonable search. Sadly, it’s often a needle in the haystack dilemma that will come to no good for anyone involved.
2. Hard to Please Hiring Manager. Hard-to-fill jobs, by their nature, often come from the most unreasonable of hiring managers. These are the managers who “know what they want and want what they want” with little regard to the available population. From those individuals, who are seldom pleased with recruiting in the first place, there seems to develop an almost perverse pleasure in finding reasons for not interviewing candidates. Often, they will have a cursory conversation with a candidate by phone if you pressure them, not get back to you, and when you track them down, tell you they did not like the candidate. Reasons why? It is in some notes they have and will get back to you. They seldom do.
3. Circus Time. They seek out agencies. The hiring managers now turn on internal recruiting with a fury, saying that they just do not like any of the people you are showing them. Now that recruiting is demoralized, the fun and games really begins as the agencies embark on pumping in resumes. Naturally, because this is a hard-to-fill job, reaction time is often slow because the expectations to fill the job are not very high in the first place. Endless time is taken as the “critical job” sits empty. Honestly, how critical can it be if no one is doing it for six or eight months? The illusionary fee hanging over the head of the agency hire amps up the manager’s expectations to even greater levels because if they are going to pay a fee, the person better be a water-walker. Honestly, this is dismal for all concerned.

Hard-to-fill jobs? Almost never.

Hard-to-please hiring managers and/or corporate cultures of dysfunctionality: often times, yes. Illusionary thinking in terms of expectations and misguided hiring philosophy? Once again, often times yes. There are, in almost all cases, no hard-to-fill positions. Most positions that are open for endless time are that way for a reason. Let’s look at just a few of the many possibilities.

• Perhaps it is not one job but actually two. Does OD/HR need to be called in to assess requirements and realign thinking and/or structure to make it work?
• There is only budget for one job? Nonsense. A budget is artificial and nothing more then a spreadsheet, often put there by individuals who are, in reality, clueless. Change the budget and split the job or cut the requirements and hire two of them at slightly different levels.
• Cost is too high? Why are you looking at cost when you should be looking at value and ROI? What if excellence cost a bit more then the bean counters had hoped for? Going one step further, what is the “cost” of not filling this position? Where are the pain points, and who feels them?

Lastly, organizational influences and political muscle should gravitate toward a discovery initiative as it relates to the real and meaningful problems associated with hard-to-fill jobs. These jobs should not sit and languish for endless time. The longer a job is open, the more scrutiny it should be under. Hard-to-fill jobs are a problem begging for a solution. Once unearthed, the associated difficulties should be vigorously addressed and corrected.

Do this and we empower recruiters to hire great employees. Fail to do this and they chase after illusions and sad possibilities.

The primary factor in a successful attack is speed. –Lord Mountbattan

Jason Warner has been thinking a lot about speed lately. Since reading his terrific article, so have I. If we indeed might be at the beginning stages of a frenzy that relates to hiring, then speed will quickly go from a luxury to a biological imperative — an urgent component to success that has to be encoded into the DNA of every recruiter who needs to get the job done. As such we will have to look at speed in a whole different light: not as a means to cut corners but as a tool and a mindset recruiters must adopt if we are to be successful in generating the hires necessary to support organizational objectives. Bottom line? Run faster.

First things first. No conversation about speed can exist without a preemptive strike at the forces of darkness … a stake into the very heart of those individuals who will counter this argument with supercilious and sanctimonious dialogue, reminding us of our fiduciary responsibility not to sacrifice quality for speed — as though both of these essential elements are somehow mutually exclusive. This is of course correct. We must never sacrifice quality for speed. However, to these individuals who preach endlessly about quality, I must ask a few simple questions.

What is quality? Who determines it? How is quality measured? (Quality to me? Employee gets the job done — end of story.)

Now we can move on. I was born and raised in the agency business. First thing I learned? Move fast. In an article written for The Fordyce Letter entitled “’I’m Sorry I Didn’t Call’ and Seven Other Reasons to Fire a Client…NOW,” I give eight reasons to fire a client. Such favorites include:

Clients who do not return phone calls.

Clients who do not respond to submitted candidates.

Clients who change the requirements every 20 minutes.

Clients who “have no time.” (This one is my favorite…)

Clients who do not get back to you after a candidate interview, and a few more you can find in the original article.

Sadly, corporate recruiters can’t fire a hiring manager. (Yes I know, the fantasy is so sweet.) You can, however, increase your speed by helping them to increase their speed if you let them know why it is their best interest to do so. Be advised that you have a better chance of getting them to move if you present the upside for them as opposed to the upside for you because most do not care what’s in it for you. Three reasons to move faster, all wrapped up in a conversation to educate them on the importance of speed.

We look bad if we can’t make a decision. (“Bad” is the polite version of the word I hoped to use.) When you, as the hiring manager, are in a hiring mode, you have many sets of eyes on you and those eyes are making judgments. Taking three years to hire an employee makes you look bad. You are a manager and running a business. Act like the leader we pay you to be. Do your due diligence, make a decision, and fill the position. Bam, done!

“I am not sure — I want to mull it over.” We do not mull here. Mulling is for apple cider or for companies that have hiring managers with too much time on their hands. Mulling is for choosing a wallpaper or for those with zero sense of urgency. Hiring is a dynamic and critical activity that is closely tied to success in business. Have all of the information you need to make the decision? Good, let’s get it done!

Need more info? No problem! It is perfectly OK for a hiring manager not to be able to make a decision because they do not have enough information. I applaud the desire to acquire more information as required. Don’t fully understand the candidate’s comp or responsibilities? Confusion on titles or number of direct reports? No problem hiring manager! Just tell me, what information do you need to make this decision? Let me know and I will get it for you. (Ask the question just like that!)

Can you see how this works?

Can you see that you are clearly pressuring the hiring manager to move more rapidly?

Can you see that someone might even get mildly annoyed with you? I can, but in reality, it does not matter. What are they going to do — fire you because you pressured hiring managers to hire good candidates? Possibly, but the chance they will fire you because you can’t get the hires done is far greater.

Are you ready to run faster?

“We would like to live as we once did but history will not permit it.” –John F Kennedy

I was instantly impressed by the tone. By the anger and edgy urban feel. The tag line gave me shivers as the Super Bowl’s “Imported From Detroit” spot knocked me out — an up front, in your face blast from the Motor City. The message? Absolutely gorgeous and ice cold simple. We Are Back. Yes indeed! I too love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Being a boy who loves cars, I have always been a fan of Detroit and made reference to it very specifically in Employment Rage. Case in point: Quoting from a special report in Time magazine, October 5, 2009: “By any quantifiable standard, the city is on life support. Detroit’s treasury is $300 million short of the funds needed to provide the barest municipal services … The murder rate is soaring, and 7 out of 10 remain unsolved …the unemployment rate is 28.9 percent. That’s worth spelling out: twenty-eight point nine percent.” Clearly, as goes the car industry, so goes Detroit.

We have lived through a grisly two years. The causalities have been monumental and the casualties have been deep. Homes, careers, dreams, and marriages — gone. Enough. Enough of what has been because the past is a bucket of ashes.

The time has come to focus on what will be. To find a new sense of pride and a new sense of purpose and a new sense of hope for all we can do to create a vibrant and durable American economy.

Let me go on record here and state the unpopular. I am an American. I care about this economy because this is where my mortgage is and this is where I have to go to work every day and this is my economic reality. My goal is to make this country great. I wish no country ill but I will not stand for one more scintilla of effort or expense that speaks to apologetic economic policy.

As for recruiting, I can only say that the time for new and fresh thinking in leadership is here and now. The time to step out front to meet, embrace, and support the stunning proclamation and galvanizing message of “Detroit is Back” will not wait. It will not wait for waffling on sourcing vs recruiting conversations. It will not wait for endless arguments on the relative merits of ATS’s. It will not wait for measurements or metrics or Tweetups or quality of hire or blogs that whine and bicker, as this stuff is, to quote Covey, “the thick of thin things.” The window of possibility for creating greatness will not be open forever. We need exemplars who will design and create inspired and effective recruiting models that dovetail with senior management to support organizational objectives and create success. Failure to do this is not an option.

But what of the singular recruiter? Can you tap into your inner leadership ability and affect this change? I believe so. For openers, recruiters need to focus on leadership-oriented activities and think long term as opposed to transactional-oriented activities while thinking short term. Do you understand the business of the people for whom you recruit, or do you just match qualifications with specifications? The first makes you a person who can offer insight and observations. The second makes you an errand boy.

Going further, leadership comes from each of us exercising our ability to do what we know is right as opposed to doing what is expedient. Leadership-oriented thinking come not from titles conferred but from a sense of purpose and mission. Churchill said, “the price of greatness is responsibility.” Does the opportunity for greatness interest you?

Finally, go along to get along no longer works. A cute aphorism of a time gone by, we need to cut it loose. The recruiting leader in you needs to worry less about politics and more about substantive dialogue that touches pain points and fixes what is broken. The politics of friendship and nepotism failed millions in our current recession. The next recession will be worse.

Capitalism, democracy, and Americanism itself are clearly in danger as globalization levels the playing field. The days of doing well simply because we are Americans is over. History tells us that every great society since the days of Mesopotamia has fallen. Is this to be our fate? I do not know but I do know this: Things will not get better until we employ the leadership thinking we possess to rebuild our country. JFK said it best; “I do not shrink from this responsibility, I welcome it.” Do you welcome it?

–Author Unknown

A recent article by John Zappe entitled Should We Be Telling the Unemployed Not to Apply? was excellent. Furthermore, judging by the varied, contentious, and well-thought-out comments, John’s work clearly struck a nerve with a cross section of ERE readership, this writer included.

Tell the unemployed not to apply? Why not? Welcome to the ugly underbelly of capitalism, artificially induced fairness, and employment rage of the masses. Welcome to the new world order that simply does not have enough to go around, combined with the enabling technology’s required to outsource as many possible jobs to the most dirt-poor places on this planet. Think of how Ralph Lauren lives and think of how those who make his clothing live. Beyond despicable.

Welcome to the sad realization that capitalism tends to work far better when there is a surplus as opposed to a shortage; when there is an oily excess that tends to hide the evil of discrimination and of inequity and of monstrous corruption. Welcome to the post-surplus economy of underemployment and lost careers, of investments vaporized and the numbing fury that accompanies learned helpless. Welcome the myopic CEO who views employees as an expense to cut as opposed to an investment to nurture. Welcome my fiends, to the new normal.

Not hire the unemployed? Horrifying, of course, but let’s be honest here. Discrimination of the unemployed has been going on for as long as I have been recruiting. (Also among the short, gay, old, obese, and assorted others but later for that.) Unspeakably evil in its intent as well as its outcome, but let’s be realistic: most companies do not want to hire the unemployed. After all, if they were any good, they would have a job right?

If, as a recruiter, if you do not see this as an almost everyday reality, then you fall into one of four categories:

1. You work for one of the small handful of organizations that try to do what is right.
2. You recruit for some type of a job that is so hard to fill that no one really cares about anything if the person is qualified to do the job. Two heads? No problem here.
3. You push like hell to influence decisions that allow you to sleep at night.
4. You are living under a rock.

Not hiring the unemployed used to be a dark little secret, but not anymore. Care to know what gave it a sense of being OK? The passive candidate movement, of course. See The Myth of the Passive Candidate and read the comments; your comments. Passive recruiting, although not necessarily evil in its intent, was the beginning of the legitimization of discrimination against active candidates, as it preached the wonders of going to the “deepest, darkest corners of the web” to identify candidates. Quite frankly, passive recruiting lined the pockets of many, and told us that those looking for a job are losers. Honestly, if this is not a felonious embarrassment to the world of recruiting, what is? Want passive candidates? Go and get them after the active ones have been ruled out because they are unqualified, not before. (I am always on the hunt for work so that makes me an active candidate. Think I‘m an incompetent?)

How to fix it?

• Do we need “smarter, more-business-savvy recruiters with backbones” as per Steve Levy’s suggestion? Of course.
• Do we need more government in our business to help us to go from inefficient to less efficient? God no.
• Do we need self-policing and internal audits to secure the elusive fairness for which we claim to struggle? Nope.

We need what has been lost in our society: a sense of fairness, decency, and community. A belief that we need to do what makes us right as opposed to what makes us rich. Even in this age of bad behavior and gushing oil, trips to rehab and corporate looters, it is important to manage this situation and remember that if we fail in the effort to achieve decency, no small gains form any company profit will help us come to any good. To tell anyone that active candidates are of poor quality solely because they are active in the midst of the worst economic times since the great depression is unconscionable.

By its very nature, recruiting often creates a sense of contrast and contradiction. Hiring managers want the perfect candidate for the lowest price; candidates want the perfect job for the highest price and the government attempts to legislate a fair and level playing filed. Stuck between these conflicting forces, egos, and politics, is the recruiter: a person who is charged with the overwhelming task of identifying, attracting, and hiring the people required to create a great organization. (What is a great organization?)

Here are a few characteristics required to successfully do this job?

• A Strong Desire to Make Things Happen. Recruiting is a push business, and if you wait for things to happen, you will be sorry down the road. Hiring new employees is no easy task but if you press on and do what is required, you will be able to come into work and see the results of your efforts in the form of shinny new employees. If this type of satisfaction, born of seeing tangible results makes you smile, this is a very good sign.
• Strong Nuanced Thinking. Seeing the world in black and white is dangerous. The shades of grey we miss are often where the real hiring decisions are made. Ever wonder why a perfect candidate does not get the job? Ever look at the candidate they finally hire and wonder why they made that choice? If so, I suggest that you step back look more deeply into the organization’s culture: its dynamics, politics, personalities, and long-term survivors. Learn to read between the lines and the smiles and the polite conversation. Hires do not arise from simply matching qualifications with requirements but from complex political, emotional reactions to a given candidate. Recruiting is a place where nuanced thinking can help you to be successful by understanding the real attributes managers want before they pull the trigger.
• A Thick Skin. Recruiting is not for the faint of heart. Recruiting is not for those who wish to be loved. (If you want unconditional love, get a dog.) Recruiting is not for those who can’t manage conflict and/or ambiguity and/or stress. Recruiting is a contact sport whose rough and tumble playing field can leave us all with the occasional battered ego and feelings of self righteous indignation. If we are to be successful recruiters, we must be OK with that day in and day out type of a life while never giving in to cynicism or losing our sense of humor.
• Political Savvy. This characteristic has always been my Achilles heel — my inability to relate to the politics. It is not that I did not understand them. It is simply that I did not care about them as much as I cared about doing my recruiting. I lived under the belief that if I did good work, everything would fall into place. Sadly, that viewpoint is naïve and I suggest that you do not make that same mistake. For us to be successful, we must know where the power lies, what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, and how to get the job done without stepping on the wrong people’s toes. I can tell you from experience those in power do not like being told they are wrong, especially when they are.
• A Sense of Responsibility. Endless things can stand in the way of making a hire. Poor communication, compensation issues, unclear requirements — the list is endless. Successful recruiters will drive the process though any and all obstacles because they feel a sense of responsibility. They feel a sense of ownership for what must be accomplished as well as their specific role in its completion, because bottom line, you either make the hire or you don’t.
• A Sense of Urgency. Always in a rush? So am I, and that characteristic creates results. Most of the great recruiters I know are not exactly patient people. They understand that deals have a shelf life and burning daylight will do nothing for your career, your hires, or your value to the organization. Take the time to know what is required, make your plan, and execute, because there are the quick and there are the dead. Being quick is a prized characteristic and dozing in your chair can get you wheeled out the door.
• A Disdain for Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is means-over-end while great recruiting is end-over-means. Personally, bureaucracy makes me crazy. Forms on desks waiting for a signatures (What do you mean she is traveling? Have someone else sign the damn thing…); compensation people to run numbers again; and diversity people to review who was and was not interviewed. (What do compensation people do all day?)

Other characteristics? I am sure there are, but it is 1:30 a.m. and I need to close a VP of sales for a startup tomorrow!

I don’t need to fight

To prove I’m right

I don’t need to be forgiven.

–Baba O’Riley

“Why is this taking so long” is one of my favorite hiring manager questions. The best answer is to not have it asked in the first place. Sadly, it makes the recruiter have to justify their existence with a flurry of undocumented and ill-prepared remarks on past activity while feeling awkward and flat-footed. All in all, it is not a fun time.

I believe that we can avoid this awkward question in almost all cases, but before we discuss how that is done, let’s look at four sample answers to that question. These answers are not good ones and should be avoided. (The answers below might be accurate, but we need to be sure that candor and objective conversation take a back seat to organizational politics.)

1. It is taking so long because it took you four weeks to finalize the position profile. Not a great answer. Managers like to see themselves as decision-makers (especially those who so clearly are not) as opposed to individuals who need input from 37 team members before they approve a position profile.
2. It is taking so long because you take forever to respond to the candidates I submit. Not so good either. Managers have endless reasons for taking too long in terms of response time, but personally, I do not care what those reasons might be. Twenty four to 48 hours is all it should take. If you need more info on the candidate, I will get it for you. If you do not need more info, make a decision; do you want to see the candidate or don’t you?
3. It is taking so long because you do not get back to me after candidate interviews. Avoid this answer! Having the candidate die of old age waiting for the manager to think, discuss, compare, contrast, evaluate, reflect, confer, plot, map out, or my personal favorite, “sleep on” is pitiful. (DOD, big pharma, and biotech can be glacially slow). Once again, 24 to 48 hours to make a decision. Do you want to move forward or not? (A client once told me he had to “ponder.” I hate ponderers.)
4. It is taking so long because you change the position profile twice a week. Once again, no good! I have far more respect for managers who tell me they are not sure of what they want or they need assistance in defining the position or whatever. Under those circumstances I can help in a host of ways, but don’t keep changing the profile because hitting a moving target makes recruiting all the more difficult. (Beware of the manager who tells you the profile changes endlessly due to the “fluid and changing needs of our organizational objectives.” Those people are clueless.)
5. Bonus Answer! It is taking so long because of all of the above! This is the worst possible answer because it simply points out the horrific shortcomings of many managers that do not seem to go away. Recruiting is a partnership, and partnerships do not work unless both parties pull their own weight and come to an understanding of what must be done, when it must be done, who is going to do it, and a clear sense of urgency.

As you can see, the answers to this question are not pretty. With this in mind, let’s look at some ways to avoid it.

1. Agree to a contracted time to fill. Meet with the manager to discuss the position profile and set an agreed-upon time to fill. Agreed upon means that you and the manager agree to a timetable. For example, if 45 days to fill an engineering position is agreed upon, that’s fine, provided nothing foreseeable will interfere with progress. On the other hand, 45 days is not OK if the manager is taking a thre-week vacation during that agreed upon time-to-fill window and will not be available to interview. Make sense?
2. Start aggressively. If you have a 45-day agreed time to fill, don’t wait 30 days to begin to source candidates. Start fast and start hard. Keep in mind that it is always easier to slow things down than to speed thing up. No one is ever sorry they are ahead of schedule.
3. Keep it moving. In recruiting, the ball is always in someone’s court, so do your best to see that that ball is not in yours. Do whatever you need to do as quickly as possible without compromising quality. Be sure that you are always waiting for the manager as opposed to the manager waiting for you.
4. Document activity. In my career, I have learned that I was never sorry that I documented activity even if I never needed it. In a world where data points can be very helpful, it is a great idea to just keep a simple running log of key activity on candidates, timetables, and anything you deem as important. Not a ton of work; just 4 or 5 minutes a day. You might not need it, but if you do, it will be a great thing to have handy.

Now, why not seek out and ask your most uncooperative hiring manager my favorite question:

Why is this taking so long?

Pretty cool, eh?

If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to. –Parker

The world is so full of a number of things, I am sure we should all be happy as kings; and you know how happy kings are. –Thurber

I am not sure of why, but many recruiters I know are not very good with money, myself included. Perhaps it’s the stress of the business or our belief that we can always make more that allows us to use money as a balm to soothe our aching souls. This is unfortunate because there is nothing less valuable then money you have just spent. (Honestly, which first-year agency person does not have his Porsche picked out?)

The following ideas can preserve precious resources and give you a sense of control and dominion in these difficult times. This list is by no means comprehensive but it is good starting point in terms of employing the belief that a penny saved really is a penny earned. If you try to do this and it is not painful, you are not trying hard enough.

1. Coffee. The days of hanging in expensive coffee houses connected to ear buds looking the part of an out-of-work writer in deep thought is over. Furthermore, the days of bizarre coffee concoctions sold at silly prices are disappearing rapidly as value is the new ideal. Find good coffee at a good price and save hundreds a year in the process. Forget that they claim to support rain forests, wild jackals, and icecap stabilization. If you are that concerned, send them your own money.
2. Buy Nothing. I mean it just as it reads. Absolutely, positively nothing. Do without, make it last, or get it fixed. You have enough clothes, gadgets, and everything else one needs in your overstuffed closets. No one will be impressed with your new watch. You will not look European, cool, or like a connoisseur or all things fine. You will simply look like a person who spent too much on a watch. Want to go one step further? Toss or donate everything you do not need, and get a tax write-off like the big criminals (Sorry; I meant to use the word “company” — honest mistake) and enjoy the Zen of having less junk.
3. Consolidate. Consolidate all your credit cards into one and then look for another card that has a low rate for one-year and transfer the funds over to that card. Many cards will now give you one year at 2.9%. That’s a good deal. (It should be a good deal; it’s your tax money that bailed them out.) This will involve some phone work and the great negotiating skills that recruiters use every day, but it is worth it. Honestly, do you want them to have even one more dime of your money?
4. Cable. Many of us have a threesome of Internet, cable, and phone. Call your cable company and see exactly what you are paying for and determine if you really need it. Make it your goal to get that bill down by a third, and make them your partner in doing so. If you can get a better deal from another vendor, do so, because if they could trade you for a more profitable customer, they would do it in a New York minute.
5. Dine In. I love going out to eat as much as the next person. Corinne once cooked so little that field mice ate the lining of the stove and we had to buy another one. (I kid you not.) If you really want to have great food and cut your bill by 50%, order food to go, pick it up, and just do your drinking at home. Paying $7.50 for each glass of wine and $8.50 for each martini is bizarre, adds up fast, and makes for a dangerous driver.
6. Cook. This is a close relative of number five. Can you even imagine how much you might save if you not only drink at home but also cook your own food? As a society, I wonder why we seem to have lost the ability to cook our own food and seem to be OK with others doing that for us on an almost daily basis. Make something you love and make enough for two days.
7. Insurance. Few things are as boring as meeting by phone with those who broker/sell/manage your insurance. I personally am insured for everything; home, auto, accident, dismemberment, workers’ comp, and Martians abducting my kids. This is crazy. Shop around for competitive rates and see about putting all of your insurance with one agent. Look for wasteful overlap of multiple coverages. Be sure to shop around to get competitive rates in writing. Do not let anyone sell you anything!
8. Maintain and Repair. All of us would love to buy a new car, but that might not be a good idea. Beware of the low interest rates, rebates, and showrooms with big balloons. If your car needs maintenance, bring it in and get the work done as soon a possible. If you do this, you will not have increases in excise tax or insurance, and best of all, you will not be making car payments until you die.
9. Your Car is Dead. Can’t repair? Buy a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry. These cars in the four-cylinder model are a great value, comfortable, fast, and good on gas. Truth be told, I suspect that 80% of the drivers out there would have their needs met with either of these two cars. American cars are getting better, but the shaky financials of the big three frightens me. When GM folds, do you really want to own an Impala?
10. Banker. Do you know your banker? You should be on first-name basis with first-line management at your bank, and should at least know the branch manager. Banks are getting very innovative in terms of new products and services, so I strongly suggest that you get a bit chummy and make the bank your partner in supporting your efforts to survive this economic downturn. If you adopt a “what can we do” as opposed to a “what can I do” approach to finances, you will discover more options.
11. Pay to join. Barnes & Noble has a deal that allows you to get lower prices on purchases by giving it $25 for a membership. Perhaps I do not get it, but paying for the privilege of getting a lower price is insane. (See Retail Anarchy by Sam Pocker.) Like a book at B&N? Get it on the Internet at its lowest price and get it used in its poorest condition. I know it works because I do it every single day. Alibris is wonderful.
12. Look Closely. Examine every charge and every line of each bill for 60 days. Do not pay for anything you do not understand without a clear and definitive phone conversation. Ask how you can reduce the bill by one third. Look for programs, deals, or special incentives. Make the person you are dealing with feel your pain. If you do not get what you want, it is time to crawl up through the organization to higher levels. Be pleasant. Be relentless.

To the untrained eye, this might look like a plan for those in poverty. It is not. From a numbers standpoint, it is a plan for those who appreciate the maxim that it is not how much you earn: it is how much you keep. From a philosophical standpoint, it is a plan for those who need to feel empowered, as there is something noble, something extraordinary, about hanging tough from day to day and refusing to give into fear and frustration.

“It’s a really unique situation where you have someone who is at a crossroads personally and professionally.” — Elliot Wilson

If living and working in this economy of disappearing jobs, tiny budgets, and little recruiting is getting a bit old, then perhaps you have arrived at your own personal crossroads. This metaphorical location is the intersecting point where what used to work for you in the past ends and what you will need to change in order to be successful in the future begins. As I see it, you have only two options:

1. You can continue to do what you are doing and wait for the economy to “get back to normal.”
2. You can make some fundamental changes to your core assumptions of how businesses that survive will operate so you might survive as well.

Personally, I have grave concerns about Option 1 because no one knows exactly what the new “normal” might be, and for all we know, this aberration might be the new “normal” and will remain such for years to come. If you share my concerns, please consider the following thoughts:

Expect Less. It matters little if you work as a contractor, agency, or corporate person. The face and very composition of work is changing radically. As such, the rewards normally tied to work will probably change as well. Consider the work-a-day existence of your past and acknowledge that it is probably going to remain in your past. Perhaps benefits will disappear. Perhaps the concept of “full time” will be based upon organizational need as opposed to “employee” legal standing. Perhaps you will trade value for money to be paid every Friday with both parties reevaluating the relationship every few months. Either way, expect less and smile.

Expect More. This is an opportunity for the cream of the crop to do great things. (It is also an opportunity for those who are not yet the cream to get there.) Regardless of what our flat, highly politicized world becomes, capitalists and entrepreneurs will always need to build great organizations in order to do great things. Those who effectively traffic in the procurement of human capital will always be paid for the talent they bring to the table because that is real value. Can’t get a job with one company? How about 60 hours a week with three or four companies? The time to get creative is now.

Don’t Freak on the Politics. I read a post on ERE saying that if the site went political, “I am out of here.” This thinking will not help your cause, your career, or your wallet. Show me something that affects your profession/business today and I will show you something that was political yesterday. The time to become aware and involved is now, because you can’t benefit from the political aspects of business with an “I-am-just-a-recruiter” mentality. Don’t get me wrong: I hate long, lunatic pointless ranting posts that blame all of this misery on one party/person/group or the other. The time for blame is over, and the time for awareness and action has arrived. Exactly how you do that is your decision, but pointing out the importance of being politically aware is mine. (In all of my years, I have never seen a recruiter with a copy of the Wall Street Journal. Why is that?)

They Told You They Have No Money? Are you an agency or a sourcer or some other vendor selling peripheral recruiting services? If so, let me tell you a little secret; all organizations have money. When they say that they have no money, they mean they have no money for you. That means, that they do not see real value in what you are selling, because if they did, they would find the money; they would stay up nights looking for it. I strongly suggest that all of us dramatically increase our value proposition. How? For openers, lower your price, because as cost goes down, value goes up. As an example, If I were in the agency business, I would reduce my fees. Most agency people hate this thinking for endless reasons but doing placements at 15% a pop is more sensible then non-stop conversations with clients about why your candidates are worth 30%. Those individuals who allow money to stand in the way of doing business are making a grave mistake.

Paradigm Shifts Are Good. Use Them. Many years ago, the Swiss owned the watch industry. Then the Japanese began to make watches using cheapo quartz innards that were far more accurate as opposed to expensive Swiss movements. That was a paradigm shift and all paradigm shifts bring the marketplace back to zero as the race begins again! The Japanese made bazillions of these watches and decimated Swiss domination. The Japanese found a better way, and the world bought. The lesson here? The future of recruiting is up for grabs. Radical new ideas in conjunction with creative, global, and scalable solutions will change everything! If you have an idea, shoot for the moon now or spend your life wishing that you did.

Leave Recruiting. Shocked? You shouldn’t be. Please remember that recruiting has no bar to entry. If and when recruiting “comes back,” regardless of how good you might be, your competition will be every 24-year-old kid with capped teeth and greased hair looking to make a buck. What’s that you say? They will recognize your years of experience and talent? Hmmm … Some will, but more will not, as their lower pricing will be a strong lure. Tired of being part of an industry that gets squished ever five or so years? Are you an agency person who is beginning to hate the grind and 75 cold calls a day? A corporate person who despises the politics and the games? If so, perhaps now is the time to realize that recruiting does not have to be a life sentence. Good recruiters have terrific skills and they can do so many other things. As an example, about three or four years ago, I was with Dave Lefkow doing a presentation in NYC for a fortune 100 client. Look at Dave now. Who knew? Hopefully, you can see there is more then one way to bring home the bacon.

These ideas are but the tip of the iceberg in looking at new ways to think, act, and do business. I do not see any real option to making these changes, because either business will adjust to you, or you will adjust to business. Which one do you think will happen?

(Hanging around Minnesota this Friday? See Howard Adamsky speak at Best Buy headquarters in Richfield. The presentation is entitled “Brave New World/The Emerging Role of Tomorrow’s Recruiters.” Cost is $12,500 per person but it’s free if you mention Howard’s name. Donuts included of course. Register at http://www.mntrn.org/ )

DETROIT — General Motors Corporation Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner will step down immediately at the request of the White House. –Comcast.net Finance

I always liked Rick Wagoner. He is the quintessential Boy Scout. Probably makes a great neighbor and a wonderful friend, so I take no glee in his departure. On the other hand, he was not the right person for the job and hasn’t been for endless years. GM made cars few wanted and it hemorrhaged cash. (This should bother you just a tad, as it is your cash they are currently hemorrhaging.)

As an example, rumor has it that when GM unveiled the Aztek in 2001, there was only a gasp and then dead silence; an unspeakably ugly car instantly hated by one and all. (John Sullivan’s Aztec is for sale by way; e-mail him on pricing.) How, in all that is holy, could Wagoner allow a car like this to see the light of day? He should have laid his body in front of it sooner then having it hit the press.

As you can see, poor leadership devastates us all. But wait: put down that latte and read on. I am not at the good part yet.

It appears that he was forced out by the Obama administration. Is that not as embarrassing as it gets? It took an act of government to do what a board of directors should have done a decade ago. The fact that his board did not remove this sadly ineffective CEO is a glaring example of leadership that has failed miserably. This board had a moral as well as a fiduciary responsibility to do what was in General Motors’ best interest, and it proved to be absolutely worthless. If you think it gives a damn about GM, I suggest you smarten up. (If you think they care one iota about your bailout money, you need your head examined.)

So how does this little tirade relate to the emerging role of tomorrow’s recruiter? (See A Return to Recruiting: Notes, Thoughts, and Commentary.) Glad you asked. The future of recruiting is all about leadership and doing what is right for the clients you represent. For recruiting as a profession and for recruiters as individuals to thrive, it must add far more value. Recruiting, both individually as well as collectively, must develop the vision and the courage to act as leaders. We must move way from the concerns of politics, the pathological need to be liked and, as Jeremy Eskenazi put it, the “at your service” mentality that hurts us more then it helps. We must insert our opinion and thoughts where reinvention is required and lead through example. We must be willing to be unpopular. Please consider the following:

• Be a leader. Going along to get along is a sadly compromised existence. It kills careers, companies, and, apparently, economies. The opportunity to lead — to make a real difference in your future and the futures of those around you — has never been better. The world of business has been decimated and needs individuals with the courage and creativity to do what is right. If we worry less about what is popular and more about the actionable items that have real meaning in terms of supporting organizational objectives, we will become leaders and we will be great!
• Give them what they need: Yes; what they need, not what they want. Everyone knows what they want but few know what they need. (I want a Maserati Bora, but that’s not happening.) The difference between what they need as opposed to what they want is the sweet spot of leadership’s value. Take hiring managers as an example. They can be unspeakably inept in terms of how they handle candidates and conduct interviews. Become a quick study as it relates to their strengths and weaknesses. Give them positive reinforcement for what they do well (ranking candidates, for example.) Coach and carry them for the things they do not do well (making hiring decisions, for example). Short of shooting someone, do whatever it takes to provide the type of support they really need.
• Innovate big time/question everything. The future of recruiting belongs to those who are willing to invent it. (See Recruiting, Innovation, and Thinking Differently.) I am not sure how things will look down the road, but I have a strong feeling they are not going to look like they did before the world came to an end. I suggest that all of us need to rethink what we do and how we do it. Are the best practices of the future the same as the best practices of the past? Do we really need to hire the best candidate every single time for every single position? Does diversity really create a better final product and how is that measured? Get my drift?
• Don’t hire your friends. Like to spend time with your friends? Take them bowling. Recruiting is not a profession that lends itself well to cronyism as it colors one’s judgment. (Unless you work for the government, of course, because when you hire people with no brains and little experience, they better be your friends.) I can assure you that there is nothing I would enjoy more then doing a big project and hiring all of my friends. Sadly, some of my friends are not very good at what they do and to hire them would only demonstrate poor leadership. Think of your job as a recruiter to build a company one brick at a time with each brick being important. You wouldn’t use a brick that had a big crack in it because you liked the color, would you? Of course not. Think of your friends in that same way. If you have a friend that you think fits the job, toss them into the hat and have them evaluated along with the others. Do not push to have them hired because it goes against your role and mission.

As we enter the second quarter of 2009, I believe this country is in a financial mess that will not end anytime soon. The future is up for grabs and those individuals who demonstrate the ability to create significant value through courageous leadership will be on the road to real and meaningful success.

Can you hear that sound? It is the groaning reverberation of a deep and protracted recession. It is the sound of layoffs and loss. Of homes foreclosed, 401(k)s decimated, and of violent shifts in the professional and financial worlds. It is the sound of unsinkable companies … disappearing. It is deep and it is wide and it is ugly, and it has either already affected you or it will. No matter; Les Brown said it best. “It does not matter what happens to you. All that matters is; what are you going to do about it?”

So let me ask? What are you going to do about it?

I will tell you what most recruiters I am communicating with are currently doing. They are putting one foot in front of the other and existing each day with the hope that tomorrow will be a better day. They are scraping together bits of work and hustling like never before in order to make things happen. They are hanging tight and surviving, creating what are sure to be a breed of some very tough, street-savvy recruiters who will do well when things get better. Very well.

What will you do when things get better, and more importantly, what will be expected of you when the business of recruiting returns full force? What new breed of recruiter will evolve from this misery and what will they bring to the table to meet the still undefined future all of us must face? What gritty strengths and skills will be required to jump in with both feet in order to stake your claim to be successful?

• Ability to search for passive candidates? (I think not)
• Experience with applicant tracking systems? (Nice but not a big deal.)
• Number of connections on social networking systems? (Jury is out)
• Your blog? (Don’t hold your breath)
• Use of video in recruiting? (Possible, but not of staggering importance)
• Metrics and branding? (To a degree. Lets say yes and no…)

Here is what I think you will have to master/do/become in order to be in the first wave to return to full capacity and more importantly, to stay there: To paraphrase Kenny Moore, “Those specializing in the impossible will do well.”

Do more then understand what the client wants; Grok it. It will no longer be enough to simply understand the requirements a candidate must possess. You will have to amass a deep understanding of the subtitles, nuances, and specific content knowledge necessary to make a candidate successful. As such, you will have to develop much tighter relationships with hiring managers in order to ask enough of the appropriate qualifying questions to develop an unmistakable picture of exactly what the client is expecting you to deliver. Gone are the days of 10-minute chats about what a manager requires.

Say goodbye to political correctness. Your services are not being used to be politically correct. The promotion of fairness is a fool’s errand. You client is depending on you to support the acquisition of the very best candidate. End of story. Discriminate with passionate abandon against anyone who is not qualified to do the job and let HR sweat the numbers. Do this one thing and you can rest assured that you are doing your job.

You will have to become a political animal. Most recruiters, present company included, are not all that good at the politics of the workplace. (I can assure you that my disinhibition has made some see me as less then charming.) Politics is not a dirty word; it is a reality of businesses everywhere. Taking advantage of organizational politics is an opportunity to do what you have to do in order to do what you need to do in order to be successful. Hold your nose and play the game; successful recruiting is worth that effort.

You will have to pick up the phone. We must never lose sight of the fact that recruiting is a gregarious and rollicking business of people relating to and engaging other people. Social networks, talent pools, and other pockets of potential ability are wonderful but until you pick up the phone and drive the candidate side of the process, it is all pixels and IMs. When it is person-to-person contact you need, the experience of picking up the phone can be magical.

You will have to drive and execute the deal. It is imperative that we take charge and set the recruiting process in motion, keep it moving, and manage the overall dance. Drive the client to action, move the candidate towards acceptance, and close the deal. This is easier said then done, as so much is an art as well as a science. My advice is to be bold, take risks, and do whatever is required to create an intelligent hire that will benefit the organization as well as the candidate.

Are these five points the end all in terms of what recruiters must become? No, but let us begin there. When hiring commences in earnest again, we must not come back as the same people we were. We must pounce on talent and claim it as our own. (If you do not know what this means, you have never worked for an agency.) I feel strongly about this because if you do not think that organizations can engineer recruiters out of their existence, you are very sadly mistaken.

One more thing. Be nice. You will be interfacing with a desperate, angry job market. Every call and e-mail you do not return is linked directly to a real person just like you. Keep a kind and encouraging word for those still lost and frightened.

Do you have problems keeping your internal clients happy? Do you arrive at work first thing in the morning dreading e-mails and phone messages from certain hiring managers? Do you ever have the urge to chase some of your internal clients around the office with a blunt instrument while screaming something like, “More candidates? I’ll give you more candidates you miserable &*%&*,” as they scatter in fear of their lives? Does any of this sound familiar?

If this charming reality is even a part of the story of your recruiting life, you can change that story by adopting a radically innovative mindset and you can do it today. I urge you to consider the following fact: it is not your job to make your internal clients happy. Never was and never will be. You might have thought it was because we were all trained to think that way, but that is not our goal from a business perspective. Our real objective is to present them with two or three qualified candidates who could be hired. End of story. If your internal clients are not happy after that, the problem is theirs, not yours, because you have done your job.

Let’s take a closer look at this concept of “happy.” Consider the following words: “profit, objective, performance, leadership.” The omission of the word “happy” in that group of words is not accidental. That is because those are business-oriented words, whereas “happy” is an emotional state of being. As recruiters, making people happy is not our job. Good, proactive, and effective recruiting is our job. Locating, attracting, and presenting candidates for the positions we are trying to fill is our business, and that is the only business with which we are involved.

Taking it one step further (Sorry I’m on a roll…) Keeping internal clients “happy” is a fool’s errand. Recruiting is difficult enough. Crazy expectations, poor response time, and un-communicated changes in requirements just scratch the surface of the recruiter’s typical day. We roam the halls with this creepy feeling that a good many of our internal clients are not happy. We struggle to do the best we can; we locate and present qualified candidates; yet, we still have this sinking feeling that they are not happy. Forget happy. Just do your job as a recruiter and that will have to be good enough.

With that in mind, let’s see how we can execute on this new way of doing business.

1) Present only candidates who could be hired. In terms of definitions, a hirable candidate is one who has a reasonable chance of accepting an offer if one is tended. For example, do not present candidates, however qualified, if there is no good reason for them to accept the position. Case in point: the comp range on your position is $80,000 and your candidate is earning $79,000 with a raise due in a month. Your commute is 45 minutes and theirs is five minutes; they get four weeks; vacation, you give two. Get the point? You have a candidate who might be qualified but generally speaking, not likely to be hired. All this candidate will do is get a hiring manager excited about someone they can’t have. Honestly, why should they change jobs?

2) Present only qualified candidates. This is a basic, but it bears repeating: never present a candidate who is not qualified. For the more senior recruiters, I know that you can get creative at times and try to present off-label candidates to create an innovative hiring solution, and that is OK. On the other hand, be advised that you really need to know what you are doing to get away with that. You need to have both a good relationship and track record with the hiring manager if you wish to swim in these waters.

3) Understand the position. Once again, a basic that’s worth repeating. Understand all that you need to know before you source your first candidate. You can’t sell what you don’t understand.

4) Understand the candidate. Do interviews that are deep enough to understand not just the candidate’s qualification but what they really want/need in their next position. Take the extra 15 minutes to really know your candidate and you will never be sorry. (See “10 Things Recruiters Should Know About Every Candidate They Interview” for some real depth on this topic.)

5) Never make them wait. Be sure that your internal client never has to wait for you. If you have an action item as it relates to a position, a reference check, a question on their comp, whatever, do it as soon as humanly possible and get back to them with the results. Never, ever, make them wait.

6) Drive the process. You are either a driver or you are a passenger. Be a driver! If the internal client has to contact you to find out what is happening with their position, that is bad. If you contact them to ask what is happening with the candidates you have sent, that is good.

7) Document everything. Phone calls and quick hallway meetings are OK, but getting it in writing is even better. Send a “cc” to yourself on all e-mails and in the event you get verbal instructions, put it in e-mail to the hiring manager to keep it all straight. It is called CYA and yes, it is a sad way to live, but it is one of life’s realities.

8) Worry less about being liked. All of us want to be liked, but recruiters seem to carry it to an extreme. I know because I want to be liked as well as the next person. Do not let your judgment or activities be affected by this malady. There are times you will have to drive hard and make noise to get things done. Better to fill the position and scuff a few egos then fail to fill it and be loved by all. They do not pay us to be loved by all. (Looking for unconditional love? Get a dog.)

I know what you are thinking. Clients need to be happy. No — clients need to have their needs successfully met based upon the parameters established in the beginning of the relationship. If you are a driver, your job is to get them to the airport safely and on time. If you are a recruiter, your job is to present good candidates. “Happy” is an entirely different world whose meaning conjures up images of group hugs and bumper stickers that say “Have You Hugged Your Recruiter Today.” (Creepy huh?)

Personally, I think that internal clients should very happy if you manage to locate two or three candidates who are qualified and could be hired, but that’s just my opinion. All the rest is unnecessary drama; we are not in the drama business either.

Let’s start with MJ’s reality first. He is 45, brilliant, accomplished, and well-spoken. He is politically savvy, knows the right things to say in all situations, and even looks the role of a corporate executive. (Truth be told, he is almost as strikingly handsome as I am.)

He is technically up to date, communicates well, and has all of the requisite educational credentials. There is only one small problem. He can’t get a job.

To quote Ron Jenkins, “Something is wrong here; something is terribly wrong.”

If there is a war for talent, why can’t a highly skilled, amazingly talented overachiever who lives in a major metropolitan area find a job after one year of searching?

What expectations, position profile, ATS, political ramifications, compensation structure, communication protocol, workforce planning initiative, talent acquisition strategy, or lord knows what else has broken down so miserably, so totally and completely that all of the companies that are warring for talent have not hired MJ?

If the war for talent is as portrayed, companies engaged in this war should be beating each other with sticks to hire MJ. So, why can’t MJ get a job and how does it relate to this war on talent? (Please don’t tell me he needs to do more social networking or I might just have to get on a plane and slay you.)

We have heard for endless time of the war for talent. I remember the war on poverty, but we lost that one. We have a war on drugs but that seems to be a losing proposition as well.

But a war for talent? I find that to be an interesting war because there seems to be no winners, no losers, and little set out to define specific battle plans or terms and conditions for victory.

Yet we are so glib as it relates to this war and so accepting of its existence. Tell me, when will it end and how will we know it is over? When all of the organizations that want the very best talent, have the very best talent? Talent by whose standards? For how long must this condition exist? How is it measured and by whom? Is that the win? I hope not, because that is not going to happen. Not ever. Never, never, ever!

Who do you suppose is in charge of this war for talent? Please allow me to introduce the cast of characters:

We have thought leaders and futurists as our field generals (few who really agree on anything but will consult with you for a fee) and recruiters as our foot soldiers who spend most of their time “runnin and gunnin” in an attempt to find great candidates.

Tossed into the mix are those in management who sweat more than the rest of us because no matter what they do, it is never enough. The reason for this, of course, is those darn recruiters who are clearly guilty of the following:

• Not identifying candidates who are quite as good as management had hoped for. (Surely, there must be a Java programmer out there who also understands composite iron tensile capacities and plays accordion.)
• Not able to meet the sheer number of qualified candidates for which management had hoped to pick through. (You only found four PhD toxicologists local to Shaboine? What do you do all day?)
• Not capable of finding the qualified candidates as quickly as management was hoping they might. (What do you mean it is going to take a month? Don’t you use Facebook? Where are the programmers with the pierced tongues and cleverly concealed tats? (Tattoos to those of you in the Midwest.)

Wait…perhaps it is time to get new recruiters to help us to win this war. But who hires new recruiters? Other recruiters? Hmmmmm.

Ok, to quote John Updike, “I have had my say,” but let me highlight one important point. MJ is not an apparition. He is a real person who has no clue as to what is going on and why he can’t land a job.

More important, I have no idea either and therein lay the problem. A war for talent perpetuates the myth that great talent will be gobbled up as fast as it hits the street. Truth be told, we don’t even wait for it to hit the street. We unearth passive candidates and try to pull them in as well.

Wait! What about “the recession?”

Are we in a recession? The government seems to think not, but for those of us with an IQ over 34 and 11 cents worth of common sense, it seems as though we are. Layoffs are either the reality or the rumor and the other signs are there as well. (Got fear?)

So tell me, what happens to the war for talent in a recession? Is there a cessation of hostilities? Less recruiting? More use of Friendster? OK, enough with the questions. Let’s look at what I see as some answers.

Is there a war for talent? Not as I see a war because you go to war to win and no organization will ever have the capability to simply turn on the faucet and get as many of the great employees they want when they want them. Quite frankly, their childlike carping as to not being able to have exactly what they want as quickly as they want it is almost embarrassing at times. (Not to mention that fact that one can’t apply a liquidity metaphor to new employees. That is creepy at best and dehumanizing at worst. They are human beings, not things.)

On the other hand, if YOU believe there is a war for talent, consider the following five ideas to ease your pain and anguish:

1. Look at older workers. By older, I mean over 45. Take me seriously, because what goes around has an almost cosmic ability to come around. If you are 33 years old in a happening company on the left coast that gives out free lattes, with cargo pants as the dress code, do not pass on the older folks when you make hiring decisions. If you live long enough, you will make it to those ages as well and suddenly see what it is like to be left out in the cold. Print out this message and bronze it because you heard it here first. (If you think OFCCP prevents this, I have a bridge to sell you; email me for details.)
2. Develop reasonable position profiles. Loosen up! Perhaps you really need 10 people as opposed to 8. Don’t have headcount for 10? Go get it. (Budgets are artificially imposed. Build a business case to have it changed.) To be understaffed and not meet organizational objectives as you whine about those bad recruiters who can’t find you the people you want is laughable.
3. Pay an agency. Folks, at times you have to simply bite the bullet and pay an agency because they have the person you need. Tell me, would you sell your best salesperson or Java programmer to the competition for $25,000? No? Then why would you not buy them for the same price? (Have you spoken to Shea Putnam at Cool Hires lately?)
4. Do you deserve great talent? Being from Brooklyn, I seldom get overly philosophical, but I can’t help wondering if your company deserves great talent. I have been asked to go out and find the “best and the brightest” by teams of leadership losers that were so inept, so devoid of any ability to create a great company, I did not know if I should laugh or cry. On some level, it is sad because these folks will forever be in a war for talent.
5. Look closely at active candidates. In recent years, a number of people have made big money beating the passive candidate drum. They plumb the deepest depths of the solar system (at times as far as Pluto) to uncover the candidates no one else can find. (Attend a workshop for $399.00 and you can learn this, too.) That’s ok at times, but what about the good, active candidates who apply to the postings for which you pay? Too busy to read those resumes? I do sympathize, but looking at resumes is part of our job and the sooner we stop complaining and get to it, the faster we will fill positions with candidates who came to us.

Is there a war for talent? Hard to say, but I think not. I do believe there is a perpetual need for talent; a supply-oriented balancing act that is in endless flux.

But a war? Only if you make it one.

I believe that business processes of major importance should move toward excellence. Simply stated: from bad to good to better to best. I don’t think that is asking too much of something as important as recruiting.

However, I have concerns about whether this is actually happening. Allow me to illustrate three disturbing examples in this article.

Recruiting Does Not Get the Respect It Deserves

To many, it is seen as a necessary evil. Few organizational leaders understand what recruiters do, and it is hard to respect what you don’t understand. As such, they often put people in charge of recruiting who have never actually recruited. (I kid you not!) If this is not disturbing to you, then other than having your hair suddenly burst into flames, I can’t imagine what is. I can’t tell you how many times recruiters have told me that so-and-so won’t change this or get that because they don’t “really understand recruiting.”

“Why do they not understand recruiting?” I ask, with an incredulous look of concern and encroaching horror.

“Because they have never actually done any recruiting,” is the usual response. Why would any organization put a person in charge of recruiting who has never done any?

• Has your CFO ever done any financials?
• Has your VP Sales ever done any selling?
• Has your Chief Scientific Officer ever done anything scientific?

They have? Interesting! So why is it ok to have a person who has never recruited managing that function?

If you have never known the pain of losing a candidate to a counteroffer, never dealt with a hiring manager who doesn’t respond, or never struggled to close a deal using only your street smarts and your ability to sell a vision, you should not be managing the function.

Sourcing Is Often Done By Others

I do not write this to offend any sourcing friends, as I know they have a role in the recruiting function. On the other hand, there was a time when recruiters used to do their own sourcing. If you could not source for yourself, you simply did not make it as a recruiter.

Now, there are many recruiters who do not know how to source candidates. Perhaps some see this as progress; I don’t. Having others doing your sourcing on a consistent basis dilutes the overall power and the effectiveness of today’s recruiter by removing an important dimension of what is required to fill a position in the first place.

Tell me, what do you say to the candidate when they ask how you got their name? That it came off of a list your sourcing department developed? That it came from a Third World country researcher who gets 90 cents per hour to use technology? Sure sounds like a great way to start that all-important recruiter/candidate relationship, doesn’t it? Kind of makes you feel all warm and tingly inside, huh? (You could tell them you got it yourself but lying is so last year?)

With technology that brings a fresh batch of new candidates each day, do you know how to reach out, connect emotionally, and start that all-important conversation? I hope so, because if recruiters no longer source, perhaps the day will come when they will no longer make the first call to the candidate either. Perhaps that too will go away and we will have a new function called “first phone callers.”

Should we continue to slice entire sections off of this profession and make others do it? Will we soon have closers as well? Specialists who just focus on closing the candidate? Assembly-line recruiting anyone?

Be careful out there; continue to butcher this noble profession and someday, it just might be neither noble nor a profession. Think about it, because for many of us, this is all we have.

Email Has Replaced the Human Touch

Recruiters seldom hand-deliver candidates. This is unfortunate. Great recruiters are usually on fire due to the thrill of the chase. When there is a new candidate who has been screened and is ready to present, this should be a really hot moment for a recruiter. I understand there are hiring managers who are too far away to hand-deliver a candidate’s resume. But if they are close by, hand-delivering is great because if not, the candidate is just another email they will get to later in the week.

Showing up unannounced with a great candidate is as good as it gets. You barge in, no appointment, and with the candidate’s resume in your hands. You exclaim, “This woman doubled sales in less than four months and reduced operating costs by 18%; signed two new strategic alliances; and flattened the entire sales organization. When can you see her? Let’s set it up now?”

The energy is palpable?

Can you see how this level of passion is contagious? Next thing you know, you have the candidate scheduled, the hiring manager is as hot on the candidate as you are, and you source for another candidate or two for backups.

Can you see the advantage to the human touch? To the sale? Candidates are not just steak; there is sizzle there as well, and if you bring both to the table, good things will happen. Who knows, you might even enhance your relationship with that hiring manager in the process. Can you see the difference between hand-delivering a candidate and merely sending another email? I hope so.

I hope you don’t think I am negative. I am just pointing out a few things that bother me from a standpoint of perspective, and experience derived over time. Recruiting is in the blood of those who do it well. There is a passion there that reaches out for the shortest ways to get things done, or the best ways to achieve an end and make real progress in terms of closing a deal and getting a great hire.

In order to make this happen, we must remain the masters of our own house, the builders of our own destiny. We must walk that thin line between being fiercely independent and following procedure. Not allowing what we do to become diluted is a great place to begin the ascent to greatness.

Please allow me to take a quick breather from my writing so I might ask you a question: Isn’t it time you wrote an article?

Surely you must be tired of my face by now, perhaps even what I have to say and how I say it. (Just wait until you see my new pic; Mac glasses and all…) Tell me, are you tired of any of the others as well? Truth be told, at times, I also get so weary of the same people writing variations on the same things (e.g., 8 Ways to Do This, 4 Things to Get That, and How to Supercharge Your Whatever).

So, here’s the proposition: If you have grown weary of hearing from the same old white guys, I suggest you write an article. You must have opinions you want to share. There have to be things that make you crazy about our business, such as candidates, hiring managers, processes, or the sheer madness of recruiting. You must have ideas as to how to make this profession better. Why not write an article and share them with the rest of us? After all, we do not just write articles; we read them as well.

Let me be a bit more specific and out a few people:

• Effie Magas: You are a shining star and will be one of the most influential recruiting leaders within 10 years. Where is your article?
• John Amodeo: Our conversations are terrific; your insights are seminal. Where is your article?
• Danielle Monaghan: If I had your brain, I would throw mine away. Where is your article?

To the rest of you: Where are your articles? Where is your contribution to the dialogue that will make this a better profession? Where are the new ideas that will make us think and discuss and change? The future will be invented by you, those in the trenches who live and breathe recruiting. So, perhaps now is the time to give back to the community.

For most of you, there are two reasons not to write:

1. No time; or
2. Can’t write.

To those of you who say there is no time, let me fix that problem for you right here. The time we have is the time we make. I am writing this article in longhand over lunch in Boston. It is stained with food, grease, and bits of a cheeseburger (honestly, it’s disgusting), but nonetheless it is an article. I will finish it late tonight and get it in for edit tomorrow. Find a way to make the time.

Now, to those of you who say that you can’t write, I have the answer. I call it Howard’s “handy-dandy-guide-for-writing-an-article.” (Look what it did for Sullivan’s career.) If you follow its formula, you will have an article. It might not be the most brilliant article ever written but it will be a start, the content of something in which you believe and wish to share. (Read my first article from 2002 if you like. It did not win a Pulitzer, but it made a point. I got better as I wrote more, as will you.)

Will people disagree with you? Of course, but that’s OK because you took a stand and put your stuff out there for the world to see. (Ever see some of the comments on “The Myth of the Passive Candidate?” I need a bodyguard just to run out for milk…)

For those of you willing to take the plunge, please look at the following guidelines and give it a shot.

How to Write an Article in 5 Easy Steps!

1. Develop an idea based upon something you feel strongly about and have enough knowledge to discuss. The article should be something in which you feel strongly, as passion can create an article that is riveting and persuasive (Let’s take “Recruiting out-of-state candidates to undesirable locations” as an example).
2. Create six to eight points that apply to the article. Let’s use the seventh point listed below as an example:
   • Getting the candidate’s attention.
   • Stress the opportunity.
   • Accentuate the positive.
   • Introduce the candidate to others who have relocated.
   • Develop a program just to sell out-of-state candidates.
   • Research and review best practices on world-class relocation.
   • Dealing with the candidate’s spouse and kids.
3. Create three or four ideas that support and illustrate each given bullet point. Using the fourth point listed above (“Introduce the candidate to others who have relocated”) as an example, these ideas can be things like:
   • Identify an employee who has relocated to the company.
   • Prepare the relocated employee as to the concerns of the candidate.
   • Have the relocated employee sell the company as well as the location.
4. Provide a beginning and an end. Write an opening paragraph before the 6 to 8 points of the story to get people interested. Tell them why your topic is important, and what is to be gained by reading it. Then, write an ending paragraph outlining one or two major benefits of your idea or concept.
5. Review and smooth out your work. The article should be about 1,000 words in length. Short sentences are best. Now, take the time to go through the article and remove every word that is not absolutely necessary to make your point. This will produce a stronger, more tightly-worded article with good impact and no fat. Next, have the article edited for clarity, grammar, and syntax by someone who can actually spell. (Few can self-edit, as it is not easy to catch your own mistakes.)

There you have it: an article for submission.

Is this an over-simplification? Of course, but it is a tool that will get you on your way to doing something that is out of your comfort zone and will help you grow professionally. (Now, if I can only convince you to join Toastmasters…)

Honestly, I really think you should write an article.

(Not bad for 1,002 words!)

“You know what they say: ‘Innovation is the one thing that we have to focus on; it’s innovate or die.’ And I don’t believe that. I think there is something really wrong with this huge notion that everything is innovation.” – Alf Rehn, Ph.D., Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Royal Institute of Technology

Do you know of Alf Rehn? If you don’t, you might want to become familiar with some of his thinking. It is edgy, contrarian, and relevant to recruiters who want to lead as opposed to follow, create as opposed to copy, and invent as opposed to consume. (See www.speakersnet.se/ for a sound bite. Then, click on his name on the right and “in concert” for more.)

Today’s recruiter has a very difficult job. Do it on the corporate side and you can be saddled with 40 requisitions that need to be filled yesterday. Do it on the search/agency side and you only get paid if you make the hit. Other challenges include:

• Candidates expect timely responses.
• Hiring managers want great candidates.
• Few, if any, really understand how recruiters work.
• Those who have never actually recruited often manage the function. (They later become “thought leaders.” Just shoot me…)
• Many administrative employees with “good personalities” are often turned into recruiters. (Brilliant career development, yes?)
• The OFCCP asks much but solves little.

I can go on, but why bother? With recruiting becoming increasingly complex, and endless fears of a labor shortage looming, we are at Code Red for developing innovative methodologies that identify talent wherever it can be found as thought leaders carp endlessly (speaking at conferences, eating fatty appetizers, guzzling jug wine) as we enter a new and different scenario of why the sky is falling.

But wait! Before we allow these thought leaders to innovate greater levels of complexity and stress into our lives, we need to stop and think about our work. We need to reflect on how we can improve the quality of what we produce and how to keep what is meaningful and productive while avoiding what is not. We must evaluate everything that is new and be wary of “innovative” solutions that add more work but do little to improve bottom-line results.

(Speaking of thinking, do you understand the difference between creative and critical thinking, and why they should never coexist? If not, I implore you to read Think Better by Tim Hurson. If you do this, you will, without question, think better!)

So, what must we do to be more effective, less stressed, and have balanced, civilized lives? Innovate? At times, yes, but for the most part, I suspect not. Quite frankly, we need to simplify; to take a hard look at what is really working effectively and separate it from what is not. (As with most things, the 80-20 rule applies more often than not. From where are the 80% of your successes coming?)

The time has come for all of us to explore a different reality, where excellence, however elusive, is achieved not when there is nothing more to add but when there is nothing more to take away. We need to think first and act second when the bell of innovation beckons us, understanding that while technology makes something possible, we still need a good business case for spending resources in its execution. (Doing it because everyone else is doing it or because it is new or fun is not a business case.)

Let’s continue with technology as an example. For many recruiters, technology is the Holy Grail. But, long before the Internet existed or a PC was on every desk, there was recruiting that was monumentally successful. I know because I was there.

Consider social networking. There is a new site popping up every 23 minutes. Each day, I am zinged, pinged, poked, and prodded to join and/or link and/or network with someone new. I am always happy to do this and enjoy the virtual camaraderie, but I seldom, if ever, hear from that person again. I look at “candidates” on both Facebook and MySpace and absolutely cringe in horror around some of the content. I’m not being critical; it’s just my reaction to what I see. (Tell me, how many people did you put in jobs off of these sites last year?)

Now let’s look at blogging. I might be one of the four or five people left on the Earth who doesn’t blog. Honestly, I get so much flack from so many people for not blogging that I am thinking of joining the Witness Protection Program. Really, do we need another recruiting blog?

How about instant messaging (IM)? I seldom do that, but John Sullivan tells me that I am a dinosaur for not doing so. I disagree. IM is a tool for certain recruiters in certain situations, but it is not for everyone and it’s certainly not appropriate all the time. (You don’t hear me calling him a dinosaur because he wears those vests, do you?)

The point of this is simple: Technology is often seen as the great enabler, but, at times, it can be the great disabler. We need more face time to form deeper relationships in order to communicate more effectively. In my last project, I never met any of my clients. Not even one. Our communication was truncated, with static-ridden cell phone lines on a good day and e-mail on a bad one. It was a miserable way to work.

Perhaps the time has come to de-innovate (yes, I made up that word; artistic license) to remove the distractions and focus on developing enhanced levels of understanding and communication with the customers we serve. Maybe the time has come to pick up the phone and reach out, not to those we know but to those we do not know. Perhaps the time has come to recognize that true friendships are not formed through pixilation and true relationships do not come from Friendster but from the people with whom we have meaningful dialogues based upon areas of commonality, shared vision, and mutual respect.

Perhaps Alf Rehn is correct. What if real innovation does not produce more but produces less? What if the ingrained belief that new and enhanced technology leads us to better solutions is seriously flawed thinking? (Are you really more productive with Office 2007? And, where did the Windows go?) What if we can do our jobs with less as opposed to more, and the solutions to our problems are unearthed in elegant, focused simplicity as opposed to endless, expanding possibility?

What if we were more successful, with less of the noise, nonsense, and gadgets than we are with them? Think about it. Can you be happy and productive with that type of reality?

1. Complete compensation details. Understand exactly how the candidate’s current compensation program is structured. This means more than the candidate’s base salary; the base salary is just part of the overall package. Be sure that you ask about bonuses; if, how and when they are paid out, stock options or grants that have been awarded. Compile a complete list of benefits and how they are structured (e.g. PPO vs. HMO; there is a difference) and know when the candidate is up for his or her next review, because this can alter cash compensation.
2. Type of commute. Commute is a quality-of-life issue and discussing it is important. A ten-minute commute against traffic is very different than taking the car to a train and having to walk five blocks to the new organization. If the commute to your organization is worse for the candidate than it is in his or her existing job, bring it up and see how the candidate responds. If the commute is better, use it as a selling point. By all means, be sure that you understand the candidate’s current commute and how they feel about the new one.
3. The “what they want vs. what they have” differential. Most candidates do not change jobs just for the sake of changing jobs. They change jobs because there are certain things missing in their current position that they believe can be satisfied by the position your organization is offering. This disparity is called the “position differential” and it is the fundamental reason a person changes jobs. Know what this position differential is and you will be able to know if you have what the candidate is looking for. If so, you will be able to develop an intelligent capture strategy when it comes time to close.
4. How they work best. Some candidates work best if left alone, while others work best as part of a team. It is your job to know enough about the organization’s philosophy and the way the hiring manager works to see if the candidate will either mesh or grind. Beware of recommending hiring a candidate who does not fit into the current scheme, because, at times, style can be just as important as substance.
5. Overall strengths and weaknesses. Be sure to get some understanding of the candidate’s strong points and the candidate’s limitations. All of us have strengths and weaknesses (even John Sullivan has weaknesses, but he won’t tell me what they are). Our role is to identify them and be able to present them to the hiring manager. Hint: Ask what functions the candidate does not enjoy performing. We are seldom good at things we don’t like.
6. What they want in a new position. Everyone wants something. Find out what the candidate wants in a new position. Be sure to do whatever is necessary to get this information. Feel free to pick away during the interviewing process with open-ended questions until you have all of your questions answered. It is difficult to determine whether a given hiring situation has a good chance of working out if you do not know what the candidate is looking for in a new position.
7. Is the candidate interviewing elsewhere? This is big; I don’t like surprises and neither do hiring managers. I always ask the candidate what else they have for activity. If the candidate has three other companies they are considering and two offers are arriving in the mail tomorrow, this is absolute need-to-know information. If the hiring manager wants to make an offer, it’s time to advise them as to what the competition looks like and move this deal onto the express lane, fast.
8. What it will take to close the deal. This is a first cousin of #6 above but it is more specific and flavored with a “closing the deal” mentality. #6 relates to what the candidate wants in a new position, but this one quantifies that want. For example, if the candidate wants more money, this is where you will assess how much it will take to close the deal. As another example, while #6 will let you know that the candidate wants to work on different types of projects, this one will tell you exactly what types of projects those are.
9. Can the candidate do the job? Even though, as the recruiter, you might not be able to determine if this is the perfect candidate, you should exit the interview with an opinion as to whether or not the candidate can perform the functions of the position. Furthermore, that opinion must be based upon information that was unveiled during the interviewing process and not just a gut feeling. It has to be based upon what the candidate has successfully accomplished and how that aligns with the needs of the current position. If you can’t offer a solid opinion on this one, you need to dig deeper until you have a solid case for why the candidate can or cannot do the job.
10. Will the candidate fit into the culture? Predicting the future is tricky business, but someone has to take a shot at evaluating a candidate’s chance for success. Not everyone that is capable of doing the job will have a successful run at the company, because culture does play a role in candidate success. For example, the culture of a buttoned-down insurance company in Boston is very different than the garage culture of a software startup in the valley. If you have a reason to believe that the person is the wrong DNA for an organization, it is imperative that you raise the issue.

There are few things hiring managers value more than solid candidate feedback based upon a well-executed interview. Convey this information to the hiring manager and take one more step towards becoming a world-class recruiter.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws…Just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with. – Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand (1957)

During a phone conversation last week, someone reminded me that since February 6, 2006, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has changed the life of today’s recruiter in the most fundamental ways. I agreed, but only after considerable thought did I realize that it has done a lot more than change just the life of recruiters. It has also needlessly burdened recruiting/HR organizations in a host of ways.

Three quick examples of this burden are as follows:

• The onerous addition of yet more resources they now must provide in order to attempt to achieve compliance.
• The new struggle to develop and maintain expertise and consistency in dealing with confusing regulatory issues that many still do not really understand (nor wish to; great recruiters want to fill positions, not keep endless nonsensical records).
• Provided another level of angst and distraction generated by the need to comply with an additional government program that will accomplish nothing, as fairness can never be legislated.

If that is not arduous enough, there is now the addition of yet another absurd pressure: a new type of government audit, which is just what corporate America needs as it struggles on the one hand to comply, and on the other hand to be nimble enough to be competitive with other countries. (By the way, when the government chooses the companies to audit, will it be with the same level of “fairness” the OFCCP demands of the recruiting industry?)

Not only do many of the countries with which we compete not have to worry about such absurd regulations and absurd interference, but they probably also fall on the floor laughing when (and if) they ever understand what hoops we have to go through just to hire a new employee. Honestly, a recruiter complying with the OFCCP should get the Purple Heart for making a hire these days. (As an aside, if you think that the recordkeeping is not oppressive, I refer you to www.icims.com; see “Recordkeeping Requirements” on page two.)

The OFCCP is brought to you by the same set of Einsteins who devised the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 as a reaction to loss of public faith in accounting and reporting practices. I can only say that if you liked that type of interference, you are going to love the OFCCP and the audits that follow from what I suspect will be some of the least recruiting/employment-savvy individuals alive.

Just as Sarbanes-Oxley was created to keep criminals from pillaging the very organizations to which their well-being has been entrusted (many insiders actually think Sarbanes-Oxley does more economic damage than it can ever prevent, but let’s try to deal with one government catastrophe at a time), the OFCCP is designed to create a level playing field and demonstrate that all “Internet candidates” are considered equally for employment opportunities.

I am, of course, loathe to introduce any reality into our government’s policy development, but if you believe that Sarbanes-Oxley is going to keep the criminals from looting, you are frightfully wrong. And, if you think that the OFCCP is going to legislate “fairness,” you are once again frightfully wrong as you need to look more closely at the nature of capitalism and how life in corporate America actually works. (Capitalism promises many things, but fairness and stability are not among them.)

Saving search strings, taking complete notes on conversations with candidates, and being able to defend why you did not choose to interview a candidate who meets minimal qualifications accomplish nothing meaningful. What they do accomplish is endless bureaucracy and absurd process over tangible results, all from a government that makes an organization’s ability to be successful all the more difficult.

Do you ever wonder about the nature and experience of the architects of this Frankenstein?

• Were they progressive thinkers/futurists of great experience with visionary leadership in the employment/human capital world?
• Did they have a depth of knowledge, experience, and understanding of the problems associated with hiring in a global marketplace, including all of its legal, demographic, and business complexities?
• Did their backgrounds also extend to Internet recruiting and technology utilization, such that they could develop a program that would be realistic in terms of meeting objectives while still being manageable and cost effective?
• Did they have a clue as to how recruiters work and what our job is all about?
• Did they carefully document and monitor the results of the pilot programs and focus groups with recruiting and HR leaders? (Did they even do any pilot programs and focus groups in the first place?)

If you think there are any “yes” answers to any of these questions, you need to rethink your government and how it works, because these are the same “good ole boys” that praised Michael Brown, the director of FEMA, during Hurricane Katrina. (I suspect his last position as Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association made him the logical choice for that job.) Are these the same people who developed the OFCCP?

Please understand that I am not opposed to fairness as it relates to a level playing field and/or the concept of diversity to which it is inexorably linked. Growing up in Brooklyn, I was a fan of diversity long before it became corporate America’s poster boy and the moral equivalent of driving a hybrid and quoting Al Gore.

What I am opposed to is our government’s ongoing need to insert itself into the private business sector with an ill-conceived and poorly thought-out solution. I am even more appalled when they create unspeakable levels of new work and solve nothing. Short of standing next to each person in the hiring process with a gun, no law will make things fair. (In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, it soon becomes clear that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”)

Not to worry: We will adjust and deal with the burden, the nonsense, and the absurdity. What concerns me is what they will come up with next. I get the feeling they are looking at the recruiting industry closely, very closely. You never wanted to work for the government? Guess what: You already are, and you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Enjoy.

By the way, isn’t it time you read Atlas Shrugged? It will rock your thinking.