My dream includes killing off the scourge of contingent, multi-listed-order recruitment. It just drives much that is bad in our [recruitment] industry.
Speed over price, shortcuts, resume racing, fee discounts, poor service to candidates and clients – and recruiters spending 75% of their time on work they don’t get paid for!
It could definitely have been me saying this; the header and the opening paragraphs above.
But it isn’t.
It’s Greg Savage, the Global Number 1 recruitment guru and advisor who said this.
Get pumped, happy or perhaps annoyed and upset by checking out his hard-hitting blog. Google search: greg savage truth
Two silly arguments from hiring companies
In his blog, which features both text and a video message, Greg talks about why it may not be in a hiring company’s best interest to work with several recruitment firms at the same time when searching for candidates to a particular job.
The following two bullet arguments come from inexperienced hiring managers and new HR people. Don’t believe it.
- Recruiters work harder if they know they are one of several firms working on the same job for the same client.
- Every recruiter has access to a unique database of candidates that the other recruiter does not.
They are just so wrong and wrong and wrong.
The fact is that recruiters work harder when they are retained or have been given an exclusive period to find candidates.
The feeling of a true partnership with the client is hugely motivating and what makes me conduct interviews even on Sunday mornings.
Work for 20 days but get paid for 4 only
Recruitment firms who are only earning an income if their client picks one of their candidates typically work 10-20 job searches in a month.
And typically end up closing and getting paid for 2-3 jobs only. That is a success placement rate of just 15-20%!
Ask yourself how you can run a recruitment business when working 20 days a month but only getting paid for 4 days?
This is what it means to do 20 jobs in a month but only get paid for 4 successful placements.
It tells you that speed and quantity are the drivers rather than quality. That is not the definition of working harder for a client.
- Would you choose the doctor based on how quickly he can do your surgery? Or the doctor who takes his time, operates with precision, and gets you back on your feet in one piece -whatever time that takes?
- Did you choose your personal hairdresser because he or she is the quickest to fix your hairdo? Or the hairdresser who makes you look great – whatever time that takes?
A better spread of candidates?
With the easy access we all have to job boards, LinkedIn, Boolean techniques etc., there is no such thing as a recruiter sitting on hundreds of talented candidates that no one else knows about. Period.
I remember how it was 20 years ago before job boards and LinkedIn. We received resumes by snail mail or by hand.
Yes, there were candidates unique to one or a few recruiters. But 20 years ago. With the internet, those times have long gone.
The million-dollar questions?
- How can anyone think that each recruitment firm has its own unique candidates who are not available anywhere else?
- Why has the recruitment industry not been able to teach the hiring companies that recruiters do not work harder when competing for business with other recruiters?
The truth of the matter?
I want to explain to you why using executive search for candidates at management level often makes a lot of sense.
Please reach out to me.
And by the way, how you can do it at a competitive fee with lots of free value-added services.
Believe me: firstname.lastname@example.org