There was an article in the NY Times titled Why We Never Use Professional Recruiters and I think some companies are likely to listen to this message because it gives them a false sense of confidence in what they can achieve without the cost of our service.
1. Recruiters can attract the best people. Why mess with what makes the business a success or a failure? If your livelihood depends on finding good employees and they are what drives your profit and results, then why try to do hiring without the benefit of a professional focused on your company’s needs.
2. Recruiters define and describe the position best. The use of professional independents recruiter will force you to know what you are looking for. A recruiter knows what is out there and can coach you on the realism of your position description, the availability of talent, and the cost of the talent you need. Do you ever see the For Sale By Owner signs on homes? Do you think those sellers have been coached on prepping their house for sale? Do you think they know the proper price for the home? Do you think they are as motivated as someone that has hired a professional to sell the house for them? I don’t. I think they are just giving it a try to see if they can find an easy sale and when it becomes really important to sell that house, there will be a realtor.
3. Recruiters keep employers focused. Is locating talent your company’s core competency? If so, then go it alone. Just because LinkedIn makes candidates more accessible to you does not mean you will be better served to do searches for talent without a recruiter. Your company president probably has the know-how to cut the grass and pick weeds on your corporate campus, but is that really where you need to leverage his/her time? Just because there is a manual on how to use that gigantic punch press out in the factory, does it mean that you should run it without an operator that specializes and has trained to use it? Do what you are good at, not just those things you have access to do.
4. Recruiters save staff time and cost. Not only will a search for an employee distract managers and leaders, it will also cost the company more money than a search turned over to an independent recruiter. I compare this one to the old in-house print shop scenario. Companies claimed to be saving so much money with their in-house print shops compared to having things professionally printed on the outside. Sure, if you don’t count the cost of employees, their benefits, the cost of space, and assign no overhead to an in-house printing operation, it will look great. Employers are doing the same thing today with recruiting. Do you really want senior managers and leaders out on Facebook and LinkedIn trying to find talent? And are you sure you know what their time is worth per hour? Add benefits and overhead to that number and independent recruiters look like a bargain at any price.
5. Recruiters speed the job fill. The real costs or opportunity costs of an open position can be enormous. Many studies say that in profitable companies an employee generates 3 to 5 times their annual salary in value. So if you leave a $70,000 position open for just one additional month, that is $18,000 to $30,000 the company will never see again. Independent recruiters can also focus efforts on the likelihood of a “yes” when the offer is eventually made. I’m very certain that most managers do not have the skills needed to coach and troubleshoot all the reasons a candidates would say “no.” In fact, it would be very unlikely that a candidates would share with the employer the reasons for a potential “no” until it is too late. Independent recruiters have the position with a candidate to ask what a staff member may never uncover.
6. Recruiters know where to look for talent. If you are 100% confident as an employer that the best candidate for your opening is on LinkedIn, then maybe a recruiter is unnecessary for building the short list. We all know that is not likely as some candidates are “passive or not active” job seekers. You need an independent recruiter with networks and tools to find these people. Recruiters have the tools, subscriptions, a peer group for support and a network that is better than yours. A simple question: Is your manager capable of calling into the competitor’s company to get their best talent out for an interview? If they do that, will the competitor know what you are up to within minutes?
7. Recruiters know how to attract talent. Recruiters are expert at understanding motivation to move. hey can predict for you the proper and real motivation vs. the misleading and bogus motivation. I can only guess that your managers and leaders have not been trained in doing this?
8. Recruiters are less apt to lose the best candidates. There is likely only one best candidate for your open job. Do you want that candidate being handled by an inexperienced manager or someone that does this 20 times before breakfast?
9. Recruiters offer a method for continuous improvement. Why stop recruiting after you fill the job? If you can keep your staff focused on the core business but have a recruiter looking to replace the weakest player on your team, you will be on a path to continuous improvement. Don’t hire one at a time, hire always. Independent recruiters allow you this potential.
10. Recruiters produce results. What other professional group do you work with that will work on a contingent basis? What other professional group guarantees their work even thought they have little control over what you do to ensure the success of their placement? Most candidates leave because they don’t like the company or the direct supervisor and the recruiter has little to no control over those two contributing factors yet they guarantee their work.
If you are 100% confident as an employer that the best candidate for your opening is on LinkedIn, and that your managers can attract those candidates, will never scare off good candidates, and will not increase the chance of a turndown by the best available talent…then you are running a recruiting company, not a business focused on whatever it is you do as an employer. You are in the wrong business, we have found the next great recruiting organization!
A blog by recruiters who work all day and all night in the intelligence community to find the good guys who engineer stuff to find the bad guys!
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Are Recruiters worth the money?
These Days, Recruiters Are Worth the Money
When it comes to sourcing the right interview
candidates, I've never been keen to use recruiters.
But I recently
changed my mind.
Despite the fact that I carefully consider where to advertise for candidates--I try to maximize the search dollars and get a good mix of potential applicants--it always takes me a long time to find people suited well to the company, and therefore, even worth interviewing.
I've tried everything from placing ads on large job boards like Monster.com, to smaller specialized job boards that cater to sales hires or fashion jobs, to local university boards where I can post for free (or close to it). Each time, I experience the same slow crawl toward finally finding the right person. It has taken me up to five months to find the right kind of hire in the past. So in November when I decided I needed to think about hiring for the new year, I was not optimistic.
For me, recruiters have traditionally been out of the question because I figured they would be a waste of time and never be as good at sending me the right people for the job as I would be in reviewing resumes myself. They're also too expensive for my small budget. But as I got ready to place my job ads again, one of my senior staff members came to me and offered me the name of a fashion recruiter she knew and thought could help. I was skeptical, but I called her anyway, figuring listening would cost me nothing.
The recruiter convinced me she would do a thorough job, but I still hesitated because of the price. I do not have large sums of money to devote to the hiring process, and by my calculations, when all was said and done, using the recruiter was going to cost me three times as much as my usual techniques. On the other hand, the recruiter would only charge me if she found someone I decided to hire, which meant I was risking nothing, and could always come back to my original methods. I bit the bullet and signed up, reminding myself "nothing ventured, nothing gained."
The recruiter sent me the resumes of 10 entry-level candidates. I screened six by phone, met three in person, and found the right hire--all in a month. The cost suddenly became much less, because I saved so much time in the process, and because I got a pool of applicants who were decidedly better to choose from than in the past. Even more interesting, perhaps, was an insight the right candidate shared with me during the interview process. When I asked why she had chosen to work with a recruiter rather than post on job boards, she said "because recruiters make sure your resume gets seen, while submitting via the Internet is like sending your resume into oblivion."
If most people these days are thinking like my new hire, the recruiters will clearly have the best selection of candidates every time. Looks like I've got an essential new hiring strategy.
Friday, April 5, 2013
TIME KILLS ALL DEALS!
How Slow Employers Lose Great Talent
When I was a kid, my friends and I would often say to each other, “If you snooze, you loose.” When I finally entered the working world, I heard the grown-up version of this mantra, “Time Kills Deals”. Both of these sayings essentially mean the same thing: With every minute that elapses – after you’ve been presented with an opportunity that you don’t take – the chances become less likely that you’ll ever get it.
I’m here to tell you, the recruiting and hiring process is no different.
So if you accept that the hardest to find, or the most talented candidates are getting the lion’s share of the interviews – how likely is it that these talented candidates are going to patiently wade through your slow hiring process? Don’t kid yourself, it isn’t likely.
Even those candidates who are employed have to be very judicious about the time they take off from work to go on interviews – so they have little patience for a long, drawn out hiring process.
So, how do the very best employers snag the top candidates? Well, they act decisively. They understand that top talent is a highly perishable resource. They don’t skip steps, cut corners or accept sub-par talent – they just compress the hiring process. Even though plenty of people are out of work today, the most successful companies understand what it takes to land rare, top-notch talent – and, believe me, it isn’t a slow, bureaucratic process.
Here is what recruiters experience throughout the year –
The client calls and explains that they need to fill an open position “ASAP”. So, the recruiter rallies the troops and begins a blitzkrieg of activity to quickly uncover the very best candidates and then “sell” the most qualified prospects on the opportunity. Within days, the recruiter presents a slate of candidates to the client. A week later the client gets sidetracked with other priorities. Another week goes by and the candidates are getting a bit irritated and the client is just starting the process of pulling together the cast of folks who are going to meet the candidates. By the end of the third week the recruiter finally gets the approval to start scheduling interviews – but by then some of the best candidates have already accepted offers from other employers. As each day goes by, more and more of the very best candidates are lost.
Now consider a survey I recently read: According to a national poll, 61% of all U.S. households are living paycheck to paycheck and 30% of all households earning over $100,000 per year are in the same position. And, even when you consider the number of families who have three to six month emergency funds, you learn quickly that few families are prepared to weather a long job search.
So, is it any wonder that great job candidates, who have been out of work for a couple months or more, are unwilling to put up with a slow hiring process?
You might ask, as an employer, “What can our company do about it?” Well, first of all, consider that your survival in the marketplace is directly tied to hiring BETTER candidates than your competitors. Start taking the hiring process far more seriously by killing your bureaucratic processes and understanding that reducing time-to-hire can often dramatically increase talent quality – as well as reduce opportunity cost and customer service issues caused by long-term vacant positions.
Before you get the wrong idea, I am NOT suggesting you rush into decisions.
What I am suggesting is that you move through your recruiting and hiring process as rapidly as possible – without violating your due diligence process. You need a proven and thorough selection process, but that doesn’t mean it needs to take a long time.
It’s time to update the old adage, “Hire Slow and Fire Fast” to – “Hire Fast and Fire Fast”.
Lastly, the most important advice I can give any employer: You should be actively talking to prospective candidates – throughout the year, even when you don’t have an open position.
It’s highly unlikely that the very best talent will be actively looking for a position during the same, small window of time when you absolutely have to fill an open position. That’s why the best managers are looking for talent – every waking minute.
__________________________________________________________
SEVEN WAYS SLOW JOB SEEKERS LOSE GREAT JOBS
1.) After they lose a position, they lick their wounds and/or use the front end of their severance as a vacation – and don’t immediately begin their job search. During this delay, several windows of opportunity come and go.
2.) After they determine they want and need to change positions, while currently employed, they don’t immediately begin their job search – and instead, wait until they are miserable. During this delay, several windows of opportunity come and go.
3.) They don’t respond to employer phone calls or emails within the same day.
4.) They don’t rearrange their schedules to quickly get in front of employers who show interest in interviewing them.
5.) They don’t complete/submit paperwork or provide additional information in a timely fashion (e.g. applications, references, compensation history, work samples…).
6.) They are slow to tell the employer that they are sincerely interested in the position.
7.) They don’t accept the position within the time prescribed by the employer.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)