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.

This article originally appeared January 17, 2007.

Agency folks tend to see the corporate world as bureaucratic and slow to make decisions; more specifically, they see most corporate recruiters as lacking the requisite skills and bare-knuckle tactics required to make things happen.

On the other hand, corporate recruiters tend to see agency people as mercenary, often unable to be trusted, and as slick salespeople who just want to close the deal.

As someone who has been on both sides, I smile as I write this, as I can assure you that both perceptions are, to a great degree, correct.

Many corporate recruiters want to compete with their agency brethren, but this lofty achievement is akin to losing weight; so very optimistic for the first few days but ultimately not doable because losing weight is so very hard to do.

Sadly, so is competing with agency recruiters, because you have to think differently if you want to be different, and most corporate recruiters will have to be very different to make this transition.

For openers, I urge you to consider the following concept as it relates to money, the ultimate driver of our behavior. If it makes you shiver to the bone, consider it your introduction to the agency way of thinking and doing business.

Forget the comfortable paycheck. There is no meaningful check to speak of, so let’s think on terms of a pay-cut to the tune of 75%. You must close deals to get paid, because you are no longer in the business of trying to make hires; you are in the business of getting it done, because that’s how agencies make money. No deals equals no money; no money equals no food. (See “Eat What You Kill: Using the Sales Model to Improve Your Recruiting” for further insight.)

Now that compensation is out of the way, consider the following tenets, presented as two categories, Attitude/Mindset and Action/Task, as tools for the change required if you really want to make this transition to more effective recruiting:

Attitude/Mindset: Change How You Think

• Push hard. If you want to compete, come to work on fire every day and be the driving force behind moving every deal forward as far as possible; every? single? day because a deal that sits is a deal that dies. If you are not making a hiring manager a bit crazy, you are probably not pushing hard enough. (Believe me, they will not fire you for getting people hired, but they just might if you don’t! Agency people make placements first and friends second! If hiring managers are not responsive, see “8 Secrets to Dealing with Non-Responsive Hiring Managers”.)
• Reject “I don’t know.” Hiring managers must know, because you can’t do your job of getting people hired without their direction. An “I don’t know” means no forward progress, and that is not good. If you want to compete, find out what the candidate is thinking as fast as possible, and then do the same with the hiring manager. Catch them both right after the interview; they are busy but so are you. I often wonder why recruiters act as though the time of the hiring manager is more important then their own. (See “Recruiters as Business Builders”.) Ask the hiring manager, “Can the candidate do the job?” If the candidate can do the job, you should be talking with the hiring manager about moving forward. If the candidate can’t do the job, determine why and adjust your recruiting as it relates to future candidates.
• Turn “I don’t know” into “I do know.” Some hiring managers simply do not know and never will until it is too late, so these folks need your help. (Ever have one come to you a few weeks after a candidate has practically died of old age asking if they can make them an offer?) Not knowing is incongruous with the reality of business, as they are managers and as such they are running a business and making decisions is part of their job. (Think Gates or Jobs can make decisions, or do you think they just mull things over for a few weeks?) However, if they really do not know, help them. Use the line I use: “Ok, let’s go through this together.” Sit with them for awhile and go over the requirements they laid out in the position profile, asking whether that person has that skill and to what degree. Next, look at the experience they requested and go over the candidate’s background from that perspective, one type of experience at a time. Lead the hiring manager in this way and you will help them to think things through in terms of what they really need, and help them to come to a decision on what to do with that candidate. Don’t be surprised if you end up with a totally different search profile, but do not be disturbed either, as it might be the first time anyone helped the manager to think through what they really need in the candidate you are trying to locate.
• No sleeping. The answer, “I just need to sleep on it for a few days” makes me nuts. There’s little to gain from sleeping on it. On the other hand, if the hiring manager needs more information to make a decision, that’s acceptable. Have they used JAVA Beans in financial applications? Did they design comp packages in a team or alone? Can they speak Chinese? What version of SAP do they use? It does not matter what they need to know; get it and get it fast. Before you run out the door, ask the hiring manager, “When I get you this information, will you be prepared to make a decision as to a next step?” If the answer is yes, get the information. If the answer is no, ask the hiring manager, “What other information do you need such that when I come back from my conversation with the candidate, you will be able to make a decision on the next step?”
• When talking to candidates, understand that “no” simply means “maybe.” This bullet alone can fill multiple articles and most books on sales will back up my statement. No is a normal reaction to the unexpected call from the recruiter. No is simply what the candidate says when they have no idea what else to say. Frankly, no is not a word I can relate to. How can you decline if you do not even know what you are saying no to in the first place? “No” is an invitation to listen, probe, and continue the conversation. Getting to “yes” is part of every salesperson’s job and the first “no” is just the starting point in the process of meaningful dialogue and the presentation of a great opportunity.

Action/Task: Change What You Do

• Ask pointed questions. It is the job of an agency person, after an interview, to find out whether the candidate is “up” or “down.” Up is ready for the next step; down is no longer under consideration. Let’s assume that the interview is over, you have spoken to the candidate, and they are interested in moving forward. That means the candidate has made a decision and now it is the responsibility of the hiring manager to do the same. To determine the next step as it relates to the candidate, ask about their reaction, the next step, and what you should tell the candidate. If they do not have the answers right after the interview, that is okay, but they need to have them within a day or two. John F. Kennedy once said, “Not to decide is to decide.” Please do not let this be your fate.
• Play take-a-way. At times, the managers will simply not be able to make a decision, and as a result, you are stuck. To get unstuck, tell the hiring manager, “I have an idea: let me give the candidate a call and tell them you are not interested.” Then get up and head to the nearest phone. If the manager agrees, you have saved a ton of time and grief. If the manager balks, there is your decision. It may be forcing a decision, but at times, it simply must be done.
• Send fewer but better candidates. In my days in the agency business, you sent three qualified candidates. More is not better, because the hiring manager begins to forget which candidate did what and loses the ability to put a face with a name. Give a hiring manager 20 great candidates and it will be a long time before you see a decision or a placement. Provide three great candidates who can do the job, and be done with it.
• Get on the phone. I know you’re tired of hearing how in the old days we had no shoes and ate catsup sandwiches without bread. But trust me, there was no Internet and no computers. As a result, we became great on the phone or we left the business. Agency recruiters are running and gunning all day long, and the phone is a big part of how to make things happen. You connect on the phone, form relationships, share a laugh, convey urgency, and establish trust. Your phone line is your life line and link to the candidates you need to reach. That will never happen in an email.
• Learn to source passive candidates. It is hard to get on the phone if you have no one to call so I strongly suggest you take a workshop to become a Certified Internet Recruiter.
• No more meetings (almost). In my days in the agency business, aside from weekly training, we had two meetings per week totaling approximately 60 minutes. First, we met Monday mornings to discuss who on the team was going after what new accounts. Then, on Wednesday afternoon, we discussed candidates in play and next-step strategies. (Heaven help the agent who had nothing new to report.) Of course, it is good to spend time with hiring managers in short meetings, but the rule of the day is simple: if the time spent in the meeting does not support coaching on recruiting issues or closing deals, you should be using your time on things that support filling positions.
• Do a great interview. Read “10 Things Recruiters Should Know About Every Candidate They Interview”. The more you know about the candidate you are representing, the more things will fall into place.
• Forget active or passive candidates. Learn to think in terms of candidates who are qualified or not qualified. Your job is to find the best candidate for the job and close the deal; great candidates come from many different places.
• Give great service. I tell clients they can call me anytime, and I do mean anytime. Respond instantly to hiring managers, always knowing the when and what of the next step in the process. Then, make that next step happen.
• Know the process or develop one. Everything goes better if there is a process in place because it removes the unknown for the candidate, gives the hiring manager a road map to follow, and helps you maintain some degree of control. According to Scott Weston, author of HR Excellence, “Having and articulating a hiring process means the recruiter needs to act as a project manager; be able to establish a rough timeline with a series of milestones for each stage of the process. This makes the process clear for everyone involved, sets reasonable expectations, and encourages joint accountability with hiring managers.”
• Sell the company. Agents start selling the opportunity and company as soon as they see that the candidate is viable. You need to do the same because if you do not create a dramatic value proposition, there is no reason for the candidate to change jobs. Read “Selling the Company” for more information.
• Be up on changes in the candidate’s life. If you think that the candidate will always volunteer this information because you have a “great relationship” with them, you are in for a surprise. Read “What Has Changed Since Last We Spoke?” for more information.
• Control the offer. Pre-close the candidate before the offer is made, and do all that you can to be the one to make the offer. If you can’t actually make the offer, try to understand what the offer is before it is made. Hiring managers will, for reasons that are all over the board, do things such as lowball candidates or change titles. This might not bother you, but to those who are sensitive to these considerations, it can kill the deal really quickly. You have probably worked far too hard to lose a deal in the 11th hour. Control the offer and you increase your chances of a successful placement. (See “Close the Deal and Land the Candidate” for added insight.)
• Prepare for counteroffers. There are few things more painful than getting that phone call on a Sunday night from the candidate declining the offer. It is even worse when you know that you did not fully prepare for the counteroffer. Honestly, it is a debilitating event that can send you spinning. Read “What Great Recruiters Do to Prevent Counteroffers” to get the full story.
• Say you’re sorry. If you are as successful as the best agency people, you will at times step on some toes in your attempt to make things happen. In the event that anyone might be miffed, tell them you are sorry if you drove them crazy. Explain that making hires can be stressful. Soon, the new candidate you hired will begin to do great work and make the hiring manager so happy they had you to make this hire happen. Bottom line? They will get over it.

The reality is that not all corporate recruiters will be able to make all of these changes. If I were not an agency recruiter in the days when my kids needed shoes, I might not be able to do it either.

However, all of us can become better to one degree or another, and I do believe it is worth a try if you really want to compete with those in the agency business. Besides, if you get good at this, you can always go over to the agency side and at times, double your income.

Regardless of where your career takes you, it is nice to know you can compete at a higher and more effective level.

Studies have shown that many organizations target as much as 33% of all new hires to come from the organization’s employee referral program. Here are five of the reasons why:

1. You get to interview candidates someone inside the organization knows.
2. You don’t have to pay any agency fee for the candidate.
3. With successful referral hires, you can build real excitement around the program to get more referrals. (If you are really creative, you can use it to enhance internal communication, tie it into your website, use it for PR, and generally create some very positive buzz.)
4. Someone in the company gets a check for turning over a name.
5. Studies have shown that referred employees acclimate and become productive at a rate that is higher than non-referred candidates.

The referral program will help you fill positions at a lower cost per hire and with employees who are known to someone in the organization. (Two companies, Tenet and Fair Isaac, write about their referral programs in the June Journal.)

Certain employees will never come forward with names. With this in mind, I strongly suggest that when a new position opens, you do aggressive outreach to those employees who you know might have knowledge of candidates they have worked with in the past and who can do this job. The exact methodology of how to get this done will vary from company to company, but think of putting in personal appearances or phone calls to those who have the greatest chance of knowing the individuals you wish to hire.

Others can be contacted by e-mail, but this is less effective. (As an aside, remember to become friendly with as many new hires as possible, as they are endless sources of referrals from the organization they just left.)

Unfortunately, many employees will tell you right out of the box that they don’t know anyone. This is unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to you as well, especially coming from employees who are being asked to refer candidates in their own field of endeavor. An accountant might not know a nuclear physicist, but I do believe that most accountants have worked with and do know other accountants.

When asking for referrals, the sad truth is that most people (both inside and outside of the company) will tell you they don’t know anyone because it’s just too hard to really think about it. I strongly hope that being in recruiting, you understand that this is a push business, and if you don’t push, things don’t happen. Lean on people if they’re unwilling to take the time to think. Nicely, sweetly, gently, but do lean a bit, as it will work wonders.

I strongly suggest that you sit with them for awhile, review the position you want to fill, and ask them to really give it some thought. Under pressure, you’ll begin to hear the rumblings of names and contact information almost coming to the surface. Often, they are covered with statements that are excuses not to provide names.

Consider the following five common ways of sidestepping your request for names and see my counter to those statements:

• Employee: “I do not know anyone who is looking.”
• Recruiter: “It doesn’t matter if they are looking, and even if they are, you might not be aware of it. Good people are always open to an opportunity, so give me the name and I will give them a call.”
• Employee: “They might not be experienced enough.”
• Recruiter: “Perhaps, but you knew them four years ago and they are not the same person now as they were then. Give me their name and I will let you know.”
• Employee: “He/she will not remember me.”
• Recruiter: “Not to worry. I’m sure that few people can forget a charmer like you.” (Do not underestimate humor. It works so very well.)
• Employee: “I only have a name and that’s from three years ago, and I think they moved.”
• Recruiter: “Not a problem. I am a whiz on the Internet. Just give me the name and I will take it from there.”
• Employee: “Let me call them and tell them about the job. If they’re interested, I will give you the name.” (This is my personal favorite.)
• Recruiter: “That is so nice of you, but you’re an engineer and I would never even think of burdening you with doing my job and trying to represent the position to a perspective candidate. Besides, most candidates would rather deal with the one whose job it is to do the recruiting.”

Another great idea is to simply go out and ask, for example, a JAVA developer one simple question:

“Who’s the best JAVA developer you know?”

If you’re a Java developer and can’t answer this simple question, then something’s terribly wrong because as we progress in our line of work, we quickly get to know the best individuals.

As the recruiter, one of the things we need to do is gather this information and use it to either direct-recruit those candidates or try to get other referrals. (My thanks to Rob Dromgoole; an extraordinary recruiter, for this idea. Time to write an article for ERE, Rob?)

There are some individuals who will consider you to be a bit on the aggressive side and will be irritated by your coming right out to solicit names, as opposed to allowing those employees to take their sweet time and submit them when the stars align.

I’m not concerned about this. This is business, not a popularity contest, and as I’ve said many times before, I’d rather be successful and have someone a bit irritated with me then to fail and have everyone like me. I’ve always believed that recruiters want to be liked. That’s very nice but if it gets in the way of business, it needs to be addressed. (Besides, when they get the check, I suspect they’ll forgive you a bit.)

Time to hit the workplace and get some names?

I have been involved in more conversations about the future of recruiting than I care to remember. At first, they seemed productive, but they soon became noisy and infused with bloated egos; hardly the thoughtful and introspective dialogue for which I had hoped. As of late, I have given up on those conversations and get most of my exercise running from those in the predicting-the-future business.

On the other hand, I believe that the future is now and perhaps the best way to predict the future is to invent it. With this in mind, I put on my man-of-the-future hat (mostly just tin foil, a proton wave atomizer, and some wires) because I have very strong thoughts about what type of recruiter will be met with great success.

As such, I write this article to highlight two very specific talents required if being one of recruiting’s elite might be a part of your plan.

For openers, let’s consider this: there are endless skills that recruiters need to be successful. To start, people and communication skills, drive, comfort with changing technology, and sound judgment just to scratch the surface.

However, out of all that is required for success, the recruiters who will be the most successful will be those who have mastered two very different skill sets and understand the relationship between the two.

Those skill sets are as follows:

• The capacity to use technology in order to find candidates. (Not that hard really; think science.)
• A solid understanding of how to architect the deal. (Much harder; think art.)

Those recruiters who reside comfortably at the sweet spot (i.e., the intersection where technological capability converges with the talents required to architect the deal) will be living at the best address in town.

Let?s look at these two concepts and see how they relate to one another.

1. Using technology to find candidates. This is clearly the easier of the two. I have no doubt that there will be advances in technology so extreme, so pervasive, and so easy to use that it will simply boggle the mind. (Toffler said, “Technology feeds on itself. Technology makes more technology possible.”) I predict that some day, finding candidates will simply cease to be the problem one can encounter today as there will be few places on earth, virtually or otherwise, in which they can hide. Unfortunately, the downside to this will be that a candidate can only get so many e-mails and phone calls before they become totally non-responsive, as the technology that allows you to attempt connecting with these candidates will be countered by technology that allows them to shut you down. Even if your opportunity is the best thing going, a person can only entertain so many different scenarios before they go bonkers. So, to those who worship at the feet of technology, be forewarned: technology alone will not be the answer. It will simply be the tool. Technology will never architect, and close deals. Those are people skills, and therein is the art of architecting the deal.
2. Understanding how to architect the deal. Clearly, this is the more difficult of the two; the one that takes more subtle skills and engages our ability to create human connections, tests our patience, and expands on our ability to be make things happen. Think for a moment of how hard this can be. Consider the amazing talent, insight, and skills required to identify the right candidate and connect with them on an emotional and intellectual level. To then capture their interest, bring them into the organization, orchestrate every detail of the process, and create a great hire is a beautiful thing and quite different than just racing to fill positions. The uncanny and meticulous application of all that’s needed to bring this endeavor from start to finish, and to then go out and do it again, is what will make for great recruiting. Those recruiters who understand that the human touch is still our primary tool in making a hire are those who will be most successful.

There are three overriding requirements that will allow you to architect the deal more effectively.

Consider the following:

1. Take the time required. Making great “over-the-top” hires is no easy task, and it takes time, planning, and the execution of high-quality work. Learn to take pride in every aspect of what you do, because the devil really is in the details. For example, have you taken the time to explain the entire hiring process to the candidate so they will have an enhanced comfort level? Just a small detail but important just the same. Remember, you always do your best work because there are no unimportant openings. Using that as an excuse to do shoddy work is the battle cry of the hack, and we need to rise above that type of behavior.
2. Listen better than ever before. The organization is engaging you because it needs something and understanding that need is not done in a 30-minute phone call. Invest your time, and educate them as to why they must invest their time as well. For example, do you have a deep understanding of the types of employees who do well within their culture? This is just one small example of listening that will support the chances for not just an acceptable hire, but an absolute over-the-top home run that will delight the client. This is the result we should be trying to achieve on a consistent basis.
3. Question everything. Few things interfere with architecting deals more than either client or candidate windmills in the sky. For example, I was once asked to help hire 20 of the best account executives in the storage business by a potential client who had far more money than insight into reality. Nice guy, but his vision was absurd and unrealistic. Ask for the “why and how” of everything that does not ring true, and don’t stop asking until you get an answer you can accept because going on a fool’s errand should not be your fate. Once again, it’s hard to do great work if the reality of your opportunity turns out to be flawed.

Recruiting is an interesting business in that anyone can get in but few actually become great. I see no reason for this. Greatness is available to all those who reach for it and are willing to think and act differently. Consider this article an invitation for you to achieve greatness.

* * *

Losing Judy

I first met Judy when I was in 2nd grade, PS 241, Brooklyn, New York, in Mrs. Koch’s class. I was eight and she was 33; the mother of a classmate. Strange as it sounds, we became friends. Soon, my parents moved into the same building at 1010 President Street and we became one big family, eating out of each other’s refrigerators and living a wonderful life of eating street pizza and playing stickball. I never thought it would end.

Judy died last month, and it has left me feeling friendless, empty, and alone. She edited everything I ever wrote and was always there to try to explain once again the difference between “then” and “than” for the thousandth time. I mention this here because if you ever read anything I wrote, it was her editing that made it readable. It saddens me to lose her as my editor, but it grieves me to lose such an irreplaceable friend. Bye, Judy.

I am sure that you have been there. You have a candidate you’ve been working with for a few weeks and you have built a solid relationship.

The candidate has been on a couple interviews with the hiring manager. Things are going well as the candidate and the client are each delighted with the thought of going forward.

There is the distinct aroma of an offer in the air, great things are going to happen, and you are one happy recruiter.

Now comes the bad part (honestly, you knew this was coming, so follow the unhappy bullets):

• You get into the office one morning, call the candidate, and leave a message. Three hours go by and no returned call. This is interesting. You normally get a return call within about an hour or so.
• You send an email; no response. The candidate is Blackberry-enabled and emails are normally returned almost instantly; very strange.
• The day is over and you make a call to the candidate’s home, but the spouse says the candidate is out and will not be back until late tonight.
• The morning has arrived and you are thinking about the candidate as you drive to work. Something is not right; you know it because you have been doing this for too long to not feel it. You try to deny the feeling but another call to the candidate is not returned until later that night. You are no longer the happy recruiter, as the candidate starts the conversation with my least favorite words; “You know, I’ve been thinking?”

The bottom line relating to this bit of misery is that somewhere along the merry road of the hiring process something changed in the candidate’s life and you did not know about it. It could have been personal, professional, or anything in between, but to quote the title of Joseph Heller’s great second novel, “something happened.”

Unfortunately, whatever happened acted as a catalyst to alter the value proposition you were counting on to close the deal. As a result, the candidate’s interest is greatly diminished.

To make matters worse, not only do you not know what has changed, you are still not even aware that something has changed in the first place. As a result, you have been blind-sided and now you scramble to save the deal. Perhaps you will and perhaps you won’t, but either way, this is not a fun way to start the day. Let’s see how we can do better in the future.

What Has Changed in Your Life?

Good recruiters ask a ton of questions during the initial interview, and this is of course a basic necessity if you wish to be successful. (See 10 Things Recruiters Should Know About Every Candidate They Interview.) On the other hand, many recruiters fail to recognize that the world changes day to day and changing circumstances can impact the candidate’s life during the hiring process.

The objective is to not just get to know that candidate from a static-interview perspective as the process starts, but to carry on the dialogue as the interviewing process continues to its endpoint because ignorance is not bliss, and what you don’t know can certainly hurt you.

As a result of this insight regarding the nature of changing circumstances, it is imperative to ask the candidate, often and with great consistency, the following question:

What has changed in your life since last we spoke?

Life is not the notes we take during an interview. It is an ever-changing series of events that transform and shift candidate needs, priorities, and requirements on a regular basis. If we do not know what is going on in the candidate’s life that can affect the deal (agency-speak) or hire (corporate-speak), we will not have the information necessary to maximize the possibility of closure.

Maximizing the possibility of closure is one of the things that separate great recruiters from those who are mediocre. (By the way, do not even think that the candidate will simply volunteer what has changed without you asking the question, because that is high-risk. Why gamble if you can just ask?)

Here are just five things that have changed with candidates I have worked with, causing me to either lose the deal or go half-crazy trying to close it:

1. The candidate’s spouse was laid off. The candidate can’t change jobs, as stability is key right now.
2. The candidate has been given the project of a lifetime. It makes no sense to change jobs now, as that was the main reason he was looking in the first place.
3. The candidate was given a raise and a promotion. There’s no sense changing jobs at the moment, maybe next year.
4. The candidate’s boss, whom he hated, was transferred. Life is good, so why change jobs?
5. The candidate stopped into a Saab dealership and fell in love with a 900s convertible; now the long commute is fun. (Who could make this up?)

As you can see, the number of things that can change in a candidate’s life are infinite, and if you do not know what they are to the best of your ability, you will not be armed with the information you need to develop a new game plan and a new capture strategy.

Strangely enough, asking the question, “What has changed in your life since last we spoke?” is not the invitation to bad news that it can seem to be on the surface. It is not looking for trouble. It is a way of checking the solidity of your deal by trying to see if any new information or circumstances have arisen.

Asking this question can help to close more deals because even if the news appears to be bad, at least you now know what you are up against. As a result, you can go to your client or hiring manager and tell them of the change and work together to develop a new and creative plan to land the candidate.

Let’s look at four examples:

1. The candidate’s wife was laid off? Perhaps there is a position at the client’s company.
2. The candidate has a new and exciting project? Perhaps you can give them an even better one.
3. The candidate was given a raise and a promotion? Let’s look at compensation structure and titles to see what can be worked out to create a situation that is better than the one the candidate currently has.
4. The candidate bought a new car and now loves to drive endlessly? (You tell me; I lost this one. But you get the picture.)

Will this work all of the time? Of course not. Will the candidate level with you every time you ask that question? Of course not, but it will never work if you do not know what possible changes you are up against since the initial interview.

I can almost guarantee you that if you employ this question on a regular basis with every candidate who is moving toward an offer, you will close more deals. Closing more deals is what great recruiters focus on doing.

According to Wikipedia, “a control freak is a derogatory term for a person who has an obsessive need to control other people or situations.”

Seldom do I argue with Wikipedia on matters of definition or fact, but I will say that being a control freak can come in handy if you happen to be in the recruiting business and are being judged on the number of positions you fill.

If I am being judged on anything, I want to exert as much control as possible to see that things go my way. I don’t suggest you spend your days trying to be in charge of everything that happens and everyone you know (you’ll soon be without friends if you do), though the concept might come in handy if you are looking to fill more positions.

A recent CEO from GE named Jack Welch said, “Control your destiny or somebody else will.” With that bit of wisdom in mind, let’s take the concept of control into the recruiting business!

Making a great hire requires solid teamwork with various people doing whatever is necessary to turn a candidate into an employee. However, there are really only three central players who make up what I call the “unholy alliance” of the hiring team. The core ingredients of the recruiting experience are the recruiter, the hiring manager, and the candidate.

As recruiters, often we manage the needs, expectations, and desires of three very different roles, which may have conflicting/contrasting sets of needs, priorities, and objectives.

These often divergent aspirations can make for a difficult ride as the hiring process moves forward, causing frustration, miscommunication, and loss of a good hire if not managed properly. With, as the saying goes, good people being hard to find, there’s no good reason this should ever happen. This is where the recruiter’s skills and talents should be brought to bear in a way that can really make a difference. It’s time for recruiters to understand that they are much more than just a part of the process. They are the ones who need to manage, control, and direct the process if they want it to have an outcome that works well for all concerned.

Breaking things down to their most simple and basic tenets, let’s quickly look at the typical roles of the three parties involved:

1. The Recruiter. The person charged with filling the position with the best possible candidate.
2. The Hiring Manager. Their role is to look at several different candidates, determine which one they think has the best chance of being successful, and to work with the recruiter to hire that candidate.
3. The Candidate. Looks at several different companies and roles to position themselves for the best possible offer and/or opportunity.

As you can see, the candidate and the hiring manager are locked in a mating dance as they eye one other carefully. (Remember, no one wants to make any mistakes here.) Although trying to make something happen, they bring different forces to bear; the hiring manager wants the best candidate and the candidate wants the best position. This odd mixture of competition, cooperation, and posturing can easily bog down or even derail the process causing the recruiter to lose a perfectly good hire. This is exactly what we, as recruiters, must work to prevent.

In addition to being the person to source and bring the candidate to the hiring manager, the recruiter must also act as the general contractor, running the show and laying the ground rules on a going-forward basis. As recruiters, we must exercise judgment in a way that will allow us to know if a candidate is lost, at least if it happened for a reason that was unavoidable as opposed to something dumb a hiring manager or candidate might have said or done in a moment of poor judgment.

If we focus on the following five key points, we will have a better chance of exercising the control required to keep everything moving more smoothly from first interview right through candidate acceptance (if it goes that far) while making the ride a lot less bumpy for both the hiring manager and candidate.

1. Train your hiring managers. Truth be told, most hiring managers really want to do what is right as the hiring process progresses, if for no other reason than wanting to be done with it. Whether you are working with a hiring manager for the first time or for the 50th, it is never too late to sit them down and establish ground rules for an effective partnership. “The Hiring Manager’s Guide to Working With Recruiters” outlines the basics of a simple and effective partnership.
2. Train your candidates. All candidates need to undergo basic training in how you want to work with them. It is in everybody’s best interest to know what to expect. The exact phrase I use is, “Listen, let me tell you how I work.” Outline the importance of such things as returning your calls promptly, being honest about all compensation issues, and asking any questions about the position, the company, the hiring manager, or anything else. Bottom line: this is a relationship business, so communication and honesty are critical.
3. Communicate the next step. In the hiring process, there is always a next step as the candidate moves up or out. The hiring manager and the candidate should always know exactly what that next step is and it should be communicated to both parties by the recruiter, both by phone to personalize it and in e-mail to create a paper trail. The recruiter should also ask both parties if there is anything else they need and get it to them as soon as possible.
4. Know your location in time and space. Recruiters juggle multiple openings and multiple candidates and this can become confusing. As recruiters, we must always know where each deal stands, what the next step is, and what we have to do to get to that next step. I suggest using a database, a notebook, a spreadsheet, or anything other than your memory to keep track of where things stand. The confusion of saying the wrong thing to the wrong candidate can have very bad results.
5. Control that offer! Every company has its own way of making an offer, and that is okay. What is not acceptable is to come up with offers that will not be accepted. There should be a clear, definitive dialogue between the hiring manager and the recruiter as to what type of offer should be presented, and it should be presented to the candidate by the recruiter. Just as a good lawyer never asks a question in a courtroom he does not already know the answer to, a good recruiter should never make an offer he does not think has a high degree of being accepted. Bottom line: making an offer that may be rejected, after all of the work you have done to get to the offer stage, is as sad and as silly as it gets.

Many recruiters I know have what is called the surgeon’s personality: If you ask them who the three best recruiters in the world are, they can’t think of who the other two might be. Some might consider this to be egotistical. However, I call it essential for survival, as we are measured on what we accomplish.

The best recruiters wish to be better today than they were yesterday. With that type of drive for excellence, I can’t imagine anyone else other than the recruiter calling the shots, orchestrating the hire, and closing the deal.

Recruiting is, within many organizations, slowly emerging as a more credible and well-informed force within the business community. As a result, many recruiters can have a more significant impact in hiring decisions, as organizations look not just for growth and the talent required to gain a competitive advantage, but for guidance and counsel on how to get there. Recruiting is closing in on making more of an impact organizationally then ever before. (See Recruiting Today: Good People in Difficult Times for a totally differently perspective.)

Recruiters who wish to seize this opportunity to make a difference, to be on the vanguard of great recruiting and noble contributions, can do so, but the price of admission is high. You must work hard and you must work smart. You must push forth initiatives that support organizational objectives and most of all, you must be willing to use technology, people skills, and critical thinking to reinvent not just the recruiting profession but yourself.

Bottom line: greatness is there for the taking. Need some help, tools, or ideas? It’s all out there for you. Look to AIRS or the Human Capital Institute. The boards and forums have never been better and the ERE community provides endless information and support. Make no mistake; these are good times! (When I was your age, we didn’t even have shoes, let alone the Internet.)

The following concepts are not necessarily from the old playbooks, but rather the new ones being created now by those who want to leave their mark. Consider these concepts and you are well on your way to writing the history that future recruiters will someday read:

• Recruiting is important. Gone should be the days when recruiters felt bad about themselves. Recruiters are not a necessary evil of business; they are the necessary ingredient to its growth and continued success. Show me a great company that is inventing in the future and I will show you recruiters who are finding those future employees who will make this happen. Half of who you are is who you think you are, and this profession is poised to do some very significant things if we continue to push. Please see Let’s Put an End to Our Inferiority Complex and begin to feel good about being a recruiter.
• Use your influence. (Carefully.) Someone once said that it is better to be

  a kingmaker than a king. I agree. (I have to or I would not have put it in this article). Success in any endeavor leads to credibility, and credibility leads to influence. Be sure to use this influence wisely, as each person hired changes the organization in ways deep and far-reaching. As you lobby for the candidates you believe should be hired, remember that you only bring them in for one reason: they are the best candidate for the job, not because they are part of some good “ol’ boys club,” and not because they are diversity candidates. Misuse the valuable influence you accrue and you will see that influence disappear.

• Extend your reach. John Sullivan writes constantly about different places to find candidates, so my question is: are you listening? His advice on this topic alone can make you a better recruiter. Traditional sources are fine places to start, as you never know where your next hire will come from, but you can’t stop there. Using nontraditional sources will yield even more candidates and that is what all of us need to be successful. (I am embarrassed to tell you some of the places from which I have recruited. I think one of my wives left me for that.) Please see Recruiting At Bars and Other Places Prospects Gather or any of the other 1,700 articles Dr. John has written this month.
• Balanced fanaticism is good. My wife has told me she pities the person who gets in the way of me and what I am going after. I used to resent that assessment, but I have grown comfortable with it. I go after things hard and I suggest that recruiters will be more successful if they do the same. Do I stop short of having the candidate take out a restraining order? Of course, but once my candidates are identified, I do not let up until they call me back. I have placed more candidates I had to chase then you might suspect, through pushing hard and presenting an opportunity that was clearly better then the one they possessed.
• Lead, manage, and motivate the team. Recruiting mangers have a very tough job: they are responsible for the team’s performance day in and day out. The best way to be successful in this position is to lead by example, support your recruiters at every turn, and meet with them as close to every day as possible for a few minutes. You should also know what is going on with every deal and help individual team members to close when possible. If successful, give all the credit to the recruiters; if unsuccessful, assume responsibility and move on. Support, mentoring, encouragement, and vision are the watchwords that build great recruiting teams. By the way, the fact that I didn’t include spending time in your office with the door closed was not accidental.
• Hammer Time. The day after Labor Day and the day after New Years Day are the times of opportunity and greatness because they are traditionally the best times to look for jobs. As a result, they are also the best times to find candidates. Labor Day is just around the corner and the time to commit to doing impressive things is now. Any recruiter, in any sector of the profession, who is not primed to do hard, focused, down-and-dirty recruiting at these times is making a big mistake. Hit the ground running and gunning the day after Labor Day and get a jump on those retained search guys still wearing white pants in October. (Eeuuuuuuu!)
• Deal or no deal. Recruiters do more than make terrific hires happen. They change lives and enhance careers. But there is a dark side: they move families. They uproot kids from the only schools they have ever known and away from the only friends they ever had. Recruiters change not just the career path of candidates but the day-to-day lives of the real people to whom they are attached. Please do not take this part of the job lightly; it is an issue of faith and an issue of integrity. Bottom line: if the deal is not solid, find another candidate. Please do not ever force a deal to make a few bucks or hit your number. You are changing lives so if you can’t change them for the better, don’t change them at all. I made that mistake once long ago and I still think about it. (I am sorry John O. I hope you forgive me.)
• Not the right DNA is not the right answer. For those among you who are molecular biologists, I suspect you know what this means but I do not. Don’t tell me you are rejecting a candidate because they are not the right DNA. I can see that as a good reason not to marry a giraffe, but I do not see it as a reason to reject a candidate. It is important that you understand exactly why, in specific terms relating to the candidate’s qualifications as matched to the position requirements, the candidate is being rejected so you can do better in the future. Not the right DNA imparts no information and therefore is of zero value and unacceptable.

I have always been happy and proud to be a part of this profession. I have seen good times and bad times, good ideas and bad ideas, solid growth and stagnation. These are the times that will allow the next great recruiters to emerge, gain visibility, make their mark, and change the world. I honestly can’t see any reason that next person should not be you.

Speaking frankly, the leadership of major organizations within the United States, for the most part, stinks. It is riddled with abuse of power, bureaucracy, endless process, politics, and outright theft by those wearing Baroni suits and talking through porcelain veneers &151; the same material with which toilets are made; think about it. For further reference, I call your attention to MSN/Money’s The Worst CEOs for some fascinating reading. Forget about why these people were CEOs; the question is how they ever got there in the first place. Think of the endless number of CEOs who breathed a sigh of relief because their kissers did not make it into print. How does this relate to recruiting, you ask? In just about every way possible. Recruiters build the businesses that leaders are supposed to run. Unfortunately, most leaders don’t understand the importance nor the challenges of what recruiters need to do to build those businesses, let alone what the daily battle to hire top talent is really all about.

So what are we, as recruiters, supposed to do in the face of uninspired leadership in order to be successful? The choice of answers is simple; go with the flow (wrong choice) or build your own little recruiting function right inside corporate America, and set the tone for real excellence and genuine leadership. Should you decide to accept this level of commitment and responsibility, you must understand that recruiting has evolved rapidly and will continue to do so. According to the AIRS Recruiting Competency Model, “Recruiting is moving from a practice to a profession…Recruiters are now seen as having an additive impact on the organization, advancing far beyond their own desktops.” I believe this is the case, and as a result, more is expected of recruiters than ever before.

Today’s recruiters must be successful on many different levels and in many different venues. We must be a coach, a mentor, a leader, and a driver to a host of different factions that are often at odds with each other. This requires a level of finesse, intelligence, sensitivity, relationship building skills, and sales ability that is unprecedented in the history of our profession. For those who are recruiting leaders or who wish to become such, I suggest considering the following ideas as you build your teams as well as your futures:

1. Number of recruiters. Do whatever is necessary to have the right number of recruiters to support recruiting activities and service your internal customers. The exact number depends upon such variables as type of positions to be filled, experience level of current recruiters, organizational culture, and a host of other factors. I cannot tell you an exact number, but I suggest that you do not try to support a 2,500-person company with two recruiters; it probably will not work. (There’s an article about how recruiter workload affects productivity in the May Journal.)
2. Type of recruiters. There are many articles in the ERE archives on how to hire recruiters. Please review them. Opinions of the writers such as Homula, Sullivan, and yours truly do not always agree, but the bottom line is simple: If you hire recruiters who only wait for candidates to apply, you will never have a great recruiting team. Hire recruiters who can find those candidates who do not wish to be found, and do what it takes to get them in the door for interviews.
3. Sourcing methodologies. Once again, different ideas abound, but I am comfortable telling you that the more diverse and aggressive the methodologies, the more successful you will be. When I first started in the recruiting business, I made a placement off of a wrong number I dialed. Was this bad sourcing methodology? It’s hard to say, but the candidate and the client seemed pleased. Good sourcing methodologies are usually found where creativity meets aggressive intent.
4. Employee referral programs. I am not one to run from a problem, but if your company has no such program, I suggest you take the next train out of Dodge. John Sullivan’s research tells us that aggressive and visible referral programs will be one of the prime generators of great candidates and organizational growth. You must have an employee referral program if you are to build a great company.
5. Candidate interviewing experience. The candidate interviewing experience must be a great one. Hammer this point home to your recruiters first, as well as to your hiring managers. If your culture does not value this experience, it does not value people. Sensitize those who are candidate-facing to the importance of creating a great candidate-interviewing experience; there is no time to go back and be nice the second time around.
6. Branding. I define branding as everything a person can expect that is based upon everything you do to create that expectation. (Pretty good, huh?) From better employment websites to blogs to community outreach to employee success stories, there are endless things you can do to brand the organization as a good place in which to work. Looking for a place to start? Consider doing three or four things well. Then, identify and implement three or four more, because becoming a good brand is the right thing to do. (Ask Nike.)
7. Technology. Technology is like salad dressing. You want enough to hold the salad together but not so much that it becomes the main ingredient. Technology is a wonderful thing, but be advised that it is there to support great recruiting, not be a substitute for it. As an example, do you have an applicant tracking system? If not, this is a good place to start. They are not cheap, but if you focus on the value as opposed to the cost, you will see how a great technology married to a great recruiting function can really make great things happen.
8. Training. Not much to say here. If you do not send your recruiters to training sessions and seminars so that they can keep up with the changing landscape of their business, the best they will ever be is the day you hired them. This is not good. Consider the ER Expo in the fall as a good place to start. And, I can tell you from personal experience that every recruiter should be AIRS-certified.
9. Metrics. It is hard to improve upon something if you do not measure it. It is also hard to justify expenditures if you can’t measure the benefit derived. On the other hand, you can measure everything you do, which will make you and everyone else slowly go insane. I suggest you measure things that fall into the following three areas and call it a day: cost, contracted time to fill, and quality. I will discuss more on this in another article.
10. Compensation. Randall Birkwood of Birkwood Associates says it best in his article “Recruiter Incentives: It’s Time for a Change,” but I will make a quick comment. Compensation drives behavior, so if you want your recruiters to recruit, develop some type of incentive compensation program, because if you don’t, why should they go the extra mile to hire great employees? Besides, recruiters, just like other sales folk, should be paid on the results they achieve.

The previous 10 concepts are not the end-all to what recruiting leaders should be thinking about, but they are a good start. If you wish to groom, lead, and make a recruiting team flourish as we evolve from practice to profession, this is as good a time as any to lead the charge and do great things. Remember that history is not just being read; it is being written as well, so why not go out and make some history? Just try not to let the leaders get in your way.

1. The candidate
2. The recruiter
3. The hiring manager

If any of the above-mentioned parties fail to perform as expected, the process tends to suffer ó and can break down completely under certain circumstances. This can lead to all types of problems and frustrations that relate to the successful acquisition of a new employee.

On top of that, you risk wasting time and money — as well as creating bad blood with respect to the candidate — if the hiring process is mishandled. Fortunately, most recruiters I come in contact with understand the necessity of driving the process forward and making things happen as quickly and as smoothly as possible. On the other hand, most candidates are simply looking to explore a given opportunity. But because candidates exist outside of the company, they do not fall under the expectations of organizational processes or expectations. Oh boy. This leaves us with the hiring managers, who ca