My ‘dream’ includes killing off the scourge of contingent, multi listed-order recruitment, which drives much that is bad in our [recruitment] industry. Speed over price, short cuts, resume racing, fee-discounts, poor service to candidate and client – 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 first paragraph above. But it isn’t. It was not me.
It’s Greg Savage, the current 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 on https://gregsavage.com.au/
Two wrong arguments from hiring companies
In Greg’s recent blog, which features both text and a video message, he 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.
I have heard the arguments myself from hiring companies using this recruitment strategy.
- One argument is that recruiters work harder if they know they are one of several firms working on the same job for the same client. WRONG!
- Another argument is that every recruiter has access to a unique database of candidates that the other recruiter does not. 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.
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.
Working 20 days but paid for only 2. Would you?
Do you also ask yourself how you can run a recruitment business when working 20 days a month but only get paid for 2 days? This is what it means to do 20 jobs in a month but only get paid for 2 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 quick 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 for all of us, the access 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 and before job boards and LinkedIn. We received resumes by snail mail or by hand. Yes, there were candidates unique to one or few recruiters. But 20 years ago. With the internet those times have long gone.
The million-dollar questions?
- Why has the recruitment industry not been able to teach the hiring companies that their assumptions that recruiters work harder when competing for business with other recruiters are not true?
- How can anyone these days of internet and LinkedIn, think that each recruitment firm has their own unique candidates who are not available anywhere else?
I want to explain to you why using executive search for candidates at management level often makes a lot of sense. Please email me. And by the way, how you can do it at a competitive fee with lots of free value-added services. Believe me: email@example.com