My Final Blog Post to the Recruiting Industry.


A short time ago, I received a notification from WordPress that my recruiting blog that has been largely neglected has reached 10,000 views. I’m not sure what to think about that since I’ve moved away from blogging about the recruitment industry and began serving my niche within recruiting instead.  Some time ago, I began the process of attempting to help people, who like me, were tired and frustrated with recruiting. I set out on a mission to show them how I went from a self-loathing contingency recruiter to a self-respecting Retained Search Consultant. I truly believed that there would be many people eager to learn how to move from frustration and failure to fulfillment and success. What I learned through this well-meaning yet naive endeavor is that many of the people in the industry are perfectly content with this way of working and defend it with venom and malice.

Far be it from me to tell someone that there is a more rewarding and effective way to earn a living than what they’re doing now. The irony is that they vehemently defend the very practices that undermine their own professional existence. Much to my surprise after running a few blog pieces extolling the virtues of Retained Search and highlighting some of the many pitfalls and failures of contingency search, I received aggressive ad hominem attacks against me. I haven’t been called some of these pearls since I was in middle school. Classy bunch these folks are!  Apparently, a handful people were deeply offended by some of my assertions and rather than prove me wrong, they resorted to all sorts of slurs and slanders. I welcome criticism as long as it is coming from a place of honesty and its intent is constructive. That wasn’t the case. It became a “mob mentality” of heaping insults and ridiculous assumptions. It became clear to me that most of the people were not trying to learn or grow, but to defend a practice that I was calling out as deeply flawed and needing be abandoned. These people seem to have convinced themselves that contingency recruiting is good for them and their clients. They have drunk the Kool-aid and have been drawn down a self destructive path where neither they nor their clients gain what is truly in everyone’s best interests. Either I failed to make my point, or they weren’t ready for the truth.

You can read some of my posts and determine for yourself. Some of what I said was intended to get people to think critically. I spoke about the only metric that matters being the ongoing value the “placed” professional has on the company you place them and some were very adamant that this is outside of their control and therefore they are not to be held responsible for what happens after the check is cashed and their 30 day guarantee expired. I wrote on the pitfalls of contingency search carrying very negative “unintended consequences,” and was told that I must have been an abject failure if I was drawing such conclusions. It became obvious to me that my time was being wasted on the likes of these.

The only conclusion that I am left to draw is that many tenured recruiters simply don’t care or aren’t willing to take any responsibility for their actions. In their minds, they did their job and were done as soon as the candidate was hired and that’s all that matters. All else happened apart from their influence and they are not culpable for any mis-hire. However, if you are a true partner with your clients, you cannot hold yourself harmless from your client’s bad hire. Shall we use the “But For” clause to demonstrate this? But for the actions of the recruiter, the company never would have made the bad hire. You see it can work for or against you. I guess no matter how much I may try to elevate our industry, well known for its questionable ethical standards, change requires one’s admission that they are doing something wrong. We all know that this is impossible for some to actualize.

I heard from some angry people via Recruiting Blogs who claimed to fill 20% – 70% of their searches. While that might impress some, it still means that around 50% of their activity ends without any reward or fulfillment. That still means that the majority of your work ends up on the “cutting room floor.”

My advice to younger recruiters is to learn the art of retained search and leave the garbage for those dinosaurs who need it to survive.

So this will be my last Recruiting Blog Post. I have begun another blog focusing on the industry that I serve and in a very short time, the feedback from people has been very positive. You see, I am passionate about helping others. Yet the recruiting industry is not a very nice place to offer to help. Perhaps some people just are defensive and fight back rather than look for ways to grow. Maybe they don’t want to work as hard as it takes to move over to Retained Search. Or maybe they can’t imagine anything could be better than the scraps from the dumpster. Whatever the reason, it is time to put my writing efforts toward a more receptive arena.

I’ll continue blogging on more interesting topics at http://www.tdg-llc.com/our-blog

I leave you with a compelling piece on the subject by Marcus Cauchi entitled “Contingency Recruitment is Dead. Long Live Retainers!”   http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141125183655-1301861-contingency-recruitment-is-dead-long-live-retainers

God bless!

Breaking Free from Contingency Search into Retained.


Here is a three minute excerpt from the Big Biller presentation on Next Level Recruiter Training.

In this video, I share the process I went through taking my contingency recruiting firm to a full retained firm.  It is not for every recruiter, but those who move into this way of doing business always find it to be more fulfilling and rewarding. What have you got to lose?

It’s still TRUE whether you accept it or not!


In recent months, I challenged the value of measuring recruiting metrics. I declared that the only metric that really mattered was how successful the person was that you placed in your client’s company. I received a staggering amount of criticism from recruiters and HR people in cyberspace.  I have to admit, I knew it was a little bit edgy, but not quite blasphemous. I wrote it in respond to the prevailing views on recruiting blogs discussing which metrics are best for recruiters to measure in their business. I realize that these measurements can be useful when managing recruiters, but I was interested in challenging the conventional wisdom and making people think bigger. You might say, that I was trying to get people to think about the outcome of their work and the impact on their clients rather than their own efficiencies. My assertion that only one metric truly mattered, and if we aren’t measuring how successful the people we placed were, and the impact they have in the companies we place them in, we are missing the whole point of our profession.  What is so scandalous about that? Isn’t that the whole point? Are we not placing people to do a job? Are they not hired to effect change or growth or both? Or are we only accountable for helping companies fill open requisitions, with no connection to the results? Because if that is the case, and you’re one of those recruiters, you are guilty of malpractice.  I am not a “Career Recruiter,” so perhaps my view is tainted by actual “real world experience” where sustained results really matter. When I was working for Stryker, I occasionally hired through recruiters.  I kept track of the results of the people who I hired through recruiters and compared the results in order to validate the expense and effectiveness of hiring recruiters.  At that time, I can say that the results I obtained through recruiters was far less valuable than those I hired on my own. Subsequently, I stopped using recruiters.

People who don’t understand why companies engage recruiters  beyond simply filling vacant positions lack a fundamental  understanding the real value that companies expect of them.  Several comments that I received after my bold blog said that I had “too lofty a view” of my role, and that “it isn’t the job of the recruiter to worry about what happened after the hire occurred.”  “we don’t have any control after the hire is done!” REALLY?

No control? FALSE!  You are the “procuring cause.” You cannot distance yourself from it.  During your recruitment process, you perform due diligence to discern who, to the best of your ability, will best execute  in your client’s company and have the greatest impact on their business.  If you don’t get that granular, then you aren’t thorough enough to earn a full fee. , (this may be why so many recruiters are forced to discount their fees to levels more commensurate with the quality of their work.)  You see, I don’t think my view of the role I play in the acquisition of talent for my clients is too high; but if you think I’m wrong,  your view of this business is too low!

As a Search Consultant, you have the opportunity to be a tremendous strategic asset to a company and enjoy the many rewards that come with this type of consultative relationship with your clients and industry.

You also have the right to feed on the bottom with the majority of recruiters who see their only responsibility as “filling openings.”  The choice is yours, but the implications are huge!  Choose wisely!

The Cost of a Bad Hire


Executives occasionally lament over the steep cost of engaging a search professional to conduct a search for talent. Perhaps this is due to their prior experience where things didn’t turn out so well. When done right, a professionally placed hire should yield measurable results that justify the expense. In some cases, the results are lacking and beg the question, “What was my ROI?”

Results are the key to everyone’s success. Good results and everyone is happy. Bad results and no one is happy.  A recent study showed that the cost of a bad hire was roughly 15X the employee’s annual base salary. This includes both hard costs and loss of productivity. Companies should expect a good return on their recruitment spend if they do it right.

What is doing it right? First, it is selecting the right firm to conduct the search. Second, it is trusting your firm to know the best way to attract the individuals that they have prospected for you. Third, and equally critical to the outcome,  EXECUTION!  The executives and Human Resources team must be sure to deliver the goods in every respect. If you have a target candidate and your search partner informs you of the best strategy to be successful, listen to them and execute to their specifications. Nothing is worse that getting to the end of a search, vetting and interview process only to lose the person you felt best could lead your company into the future.

Scores of companies miss out on hiring the best person because their process is too cumbersome or convoluted. When you make the investment to retain a firm to find top talent, it is your job to support their efforts or you will fail in the most important part of any company’s growth; hiring the best people.  Before you engage a search firm, be sure to fully vet them so that you can put your full confidence in them to provide  accurate, timely and well informed information. This is one key in avoiding a bad hire.

If you think it costs a lot to hire the right person, consider the enormous costs of hiring the wrong person.

Technology: And The Marginalization of Recruiters


With the advent of the Internet, many suspected that it would change the way companies recruit talent. It is impossible to deny the dramatic changes that have been seen with online capabilities from job boards like meddevicejobs.com to individual company career web pages and social media. These innovations have enabled previously unattainable reach by candidates and recruiters, both agency and internal. Newer web apps like Jobfox and Bounty Jobs have pushed recruiters further to the margins of the recruitment process and many are being relegated to that of little more than a data miner.

Technology has put us in direct competition with our clients. So what is a recruiter to do? If you want to, you can still make a living playing from the margins. Of course, in order to do this effectively, you must work on a higher volume which means spreading yourself thin and compromising quality. Working on higher volumes means you have no choice except to take significant shortcuts in the recruiting and vetting process. If you disagree, perhaps it’s because you’ve only known one way of working. Many recruiters fail to recognize how this approach actually undermines their own value to their clients. This is an undeniable fact. Yet, for some, that is a way of life and they will defend it to the end. Here’s the problem, if you have to worry that either your clients or another recruiter may find the same candidate you did online, you are in trouble unless you are a glutton for punishment or really fast on the draw.

Essentially, you are in a race with your client and or other recruiters for the active candidates on the open market. You are being marginalized because you aren’t bringing them anything that they cannot get by themselves. Sure some clients don’t have internal recruiters and that is your saving grace. If they did, they wouldn’t need you anymore at all. This is by definition, “Marginalization.” And because so many recruiters have been relegated to these margins, they are little more than researchers or data-miners. As the internet becomes more evolved and newer applications making data mining resumes easier, recruiters will become less necessary driving their fees lower still.

If you are working on contingency, you are more than likely being marginalized. The solution to your problem isn’t doing more placements, but in elevating your game and distinguishing yourself as a solution provider rather than a mere data miner. If you stay where you are, you’ll be lucky to stay in business as technology continues to take over.

 

7 Signs You are a Marginalized Recruiter


I’ve been writing about the marginalization of recruiters and thought I would put down the signs that you can use to evaluate whether or not you fall into that category of recruiter. Technology plays a significant role in the marginalization of recruiters, but it is not merely technology that forces many recruiters to the margins. Here are some clear signs for recruiters to take an honest look to see if they too are becoming marginalized.

7. The company makes you sign their agreement. They usually like to put little things in them such as flat fees and money back guarantees.

6. Company has an ambiguous and convoluted hiring process and won’t listen to your advice as how to remedy the problem.

5. Company takes days to debrief after an interview. Nothing is more frustrating or diffuses a candidate’s zeal for a position like perceived indifference. Furthermore, if your debrief is a one-way street where they inform you of their decision rather than discuss it with you.

4. You must submit your candidates through a third party software or vendor. Someone else determines the fitness of a candidate rather than the hiring manager and you.

3. You email candidate resumes rather than verbally presenting candidates. Nothing says, “what do you think of this?” like an emailed resume. Then comes the waiting game where you wait to hear back from the company as to if or when they want to speak with your candidate.

2. You only have access to HR. You know the routine. HR dictates when you can talk to the hiring manager. (And it’s never often enough!)

1. Client has multiple recruiters working on the search although you are lead to believe it’s “exclusive.”

The truth is, if you have to deal with any of these, you are becoming marginalized. If you have to deal with more than one of these with your “client,” then consider yourself marginalized.

People Quit Jobs for Two Reasons


People leave their jobs on their own for two primary reasons, their Culture & Opportunity. I’m not referring to when people are let go, but when they choose to leave. The most common reason that people leave their job for another position is due to their boss lacking the ability to inspire, lead or develop them in a way that is satisfying their need to belong and make an impact. You may well come up with several other reasons, but they all boil down to leadership failure. Even when people leave a company for a better opportunity with another company, ultimately, the person’s boss failed to give them the chance to advance their skills and expand their horizon. Sometimes, it isn’t possible due to a variety of logistical reasons, which is why I didn’t say that there is only ONE reason people leave a company.

In a recent VP of Sales search for a $250mm division of a larger company, the final candidate listened to my initial presentation on the opportunity because something inside of him was yearning to be appreciated by his CEO. He felt under-appreciated and thus disrespected by his CEO. This is what led him to allow me to convince him to have an “exploratory conversation” with my client, the President. It was in that call that the President laid out her vision for the company and her philosophy of leadership. When they finished the call, the “bait was set.” Even still, the candidate was not convinced that this was either the right time or the right fit . After our debrief call, he graciously bowed out of contention for the position. Although the opportunity was bigger and the role more impressive than the one he currently held, he felt that he had more to do where he was and thought it better to stay and finish what he set out to do five years ago. Clearly, in his case, the reason to change was not for the “better opportunity” with my client, though it arguably was better.

In his case, he decided that he had more to accomplish in his current role. During the debrief call, he suggested that my client should continue to pursue other candidates and then if they felt that he was the best of the best, perhaps they should speak again. What he didn’t know was that my client had their heart set on him and only him. At this point, I agreed with him that he should stay the course and finish whatever is was that he felt needed to be completed. In speaking with my client, however, I explained to her his thoughts and the President still wanted him, probably more so at this point. I told her that in order to get him, she would have to perform in a manner that her company was not accustomed to. Being a billion dollar company with thousands of employees, they have policies and procedures that would get in the way of hiring him. They would have to move very decisively and have an offer within a few weeks or they would have ZERO chance of hiring him. I also explained that she would need to pursue him and show him that she wanted him more than his company did. She accepted this challenge and to her credit, she accomplished it. Now it was up to me to reel him back in and do so on the “culture side.” Knowing that the bigger opportunity would not be his driver, I tried to learn about his relationship with his boss and found that things weren’t perfect with his CEO. I learned that there were promises made that were not kept. I also found out that the integrity of the leadership was questionable. This was then the focus of all my discussions with the candidate.

Even in situations like this,people can be comfortable and complacent. Just because the leadership and culture isn’t positive, doesn’t mean that people will always be looking elsewhere. Perhaps it is the idea of “the devil you know, versus the devil you don’t.” But it does make the company very vulnerable to a Search Consultant with an equally impressive opportunity. In this case, my client pulled of a respectable feat by cutting through the typical HR rigmarole and executed the offer in record time, even cutting out a standard site visit with a full battery of interviews. This was exceptional on multiple levels. What wasn’t exceptional is that the candidate who was given the offer, accepted and resigned 48 hours later did so, ultimately, because of his boss.

There is a perfect example that people resign their jobs for two basic reasons, bad bosses or better opportunities. In some cases, both.