In any search assignment, you have to deliver candidates who can absolutely get the job done. No need to candy-coat that expectation – right? Here’s the problem. In order to truly understand the search assignment, expectations of the job, culture and a number of other critical pieces of information – the search professional needs to have access to the hiring manager. In addition, he or she needs to be able to have an ongoing dialog with that person during the course of the search assignment. It’s critical! Seems fair enough to me;-)
There are some people that for some reason treat external (and who knows – maybe internal) recruiters in a very unprofessional manner. I get the whole food chain discussion and know where I fit in that chain by certain people. The common goal we should all share is to get the best possible candidate in the least amount of time. What is the purpose in not having access to the decision maker? In some cases the search firm (or consultant) is hired by the CEO, the top HR executive or another executive who feels that firm has the specific industry expertise to accomplish the task of finding and placing the talent they need. Then a hand-off is done to a wannabe. Oh boy. This is always painful.
Why can’t we (all parties involved) just work together?
Why should we have to deal with those who appear to do whatever it takes to completely derail a search assignment? I think it has more to do with some people (non-executives) finally being asked by an executive of the company to (do something important) be a liaison with the outside search firm. Liaison, I can deal with, as long as the person doesn’t take that responsibility and abuse their role causing the entire search process to slow down. This can cause candidates to sit in waiting and a whole host of other things that can go wrong while a qualified candidate is waiting to interview with the hiring manager. The wannabe (who thinks they are a search professional) feels the need to vet each candidate (many times with NO skills to do so). This delays scheduling interviews, continually blocks the search consultant from the decision maker and literally redesigns the search strategy just to feel “important”. Give me a break! I’m sorry. That simply does not and will not work for most search professionals. With no access to the real decision maker – you are doomed to fail. I also think the wannabe (with apparent low self-esteem) believes they are the critical link to ensure a successful outcome to a search. Are you kidding me? In most cases, they actually wind up waisting everyone’s time and truly do their company a real disservice. Did I mention they also give me a real headache? (Didn’t think so)
So…I made a business decision a long time ago that I will not take a search assignment unless I have access to the person ultimately making the decision. This is NOT a power thing with me. It’s NOT an issue I have in working with my HR partners either. Not at all. I work regularly and have worked with some of the finest HR professionals who have added a ton of value to our search process.
I’m just not working with any wannabe’s. Please…I can’t take it! By now – I can usually spot a wannabe a mile away. And… I always run – and fast! So, move out of my way, wannabe, and let’s get on with the search!
OK – I’ve made my point:-)
This is why, as a third party recruiter, I always, ALWAYS call the hiring manager first. I’ll almost never call HR first, unless I’ve been told by the hiring manager that I need to speak with that person next, for paperwork and such.
Nice post, Tim. This may be one that sparks FOT debate. You and I are cut from the same sheet. And I’ll take this opportunity to strap myself to the flogging post: in my experience most (nearly all) people who function in what is commonly referred to as “corporate recruiting” actually function as corporate selection/deselection agents. Some actually do function as recruiting professionals, though sadly most do not. Herein emerge two different factions among those identifying themselves as members of this guild. In most cases I’ve worked, the selection/deselection agent is just acting as a filter, lest a non-hacker slips past the gates, this person will regret the accusation about not doing his or her job.
The hand-off and then delay is perhaps the single biggest pitfall of this business. “We want A, B, and C – this job is mission critical…John here from HR will be your point of contact from now on.” To me, it’s like asking your neighbor to go and pick out an engagement ring for you to give to your girlfriend. But take note of this: Watch the transition of a candidate you place who then becomes a client. When he’s a candidate, he calls you all the time and whines about how slow things are moving. When he’s a client, it takes three days to get a call returned and says “let’s make sure we take our time so we get this right…send me three more candidates.” I’m with Jesse. Hiring managers are customers. I provide my services to customers.
Jesse:
Agreed. In most cases we are asked to engage by the CEO, President or another executive that owns the budget and is the person our candidate will report to. It makes me (physically) sick to have to deal with someone that inserts himself/herself in the process (self-anointed) as the gatekeeper so they can “feel the power”. OK – my stomach is now starting to hurt (again) just thinking about it!
Tim,
I totally agree with you. I’m a corporate recruiter that is often tasked with finding the “right” candidate for our IT and Engineering departments. This often means that I’m partnering with an external recruiter to find that person. As part of the partnership, the very first thing I do is encourage our external recruiters to go straight to the hiring manager to get the first hand details of the type of person he is looking for. I may know 80% of what the hiring manager is looking for, but my knowledge is never as good as that manager.
In my opinion though, a good HR rep stays engaged with both the recruiter and the hiring manager throughout the process. This is not only to complete the paperwork and such, but also to manage the communications. This means if the recruiter is having trouble getting information from the hiring manager, I’m there to gently prod him/her for the info. On the other hand if I have a recruiter that is just getting a little to zealous or continually sends bad resumes, I’m there to politely show them the door.
Todd: Love the analogy with the wedding ring – LOVE IT! Wannabee’s love the slow train to get to the the offer stage. PLEASE! It’s sort of like Dorothy trying to get home to Kansas and the only way to get there is to deal with some phony guy behind a curtain:-) Lot’s of smoke and mirrors without much substance.
Interesting Tone
Lori:
You represent the type of relationship that any 3rd party recruiter would love to have with their client company. And you should show any recruiter the door for flooding you with a bunch of resumes (I would slam the door!). Where is the value-add? Thanks!
As someone who has worked in corporate and TPR settings, I get so tired of the constant bashing of in-house recruiters. There are many who are very good at what they do, yet TPRs constantly bemoan thier inadequacies and never give them the credit they deserve. Most TPRs think they rule the world, when in fact they have a lot less power than they seem to think. If you were the recruiter extraordinaire that you seem to think you are, you would be able to effectively manage that relationship with the ‘wannabe’. Sounds to me like it is you who is on a bit of a power trip yourself.
OUCH!!! My comment Rob was not about all in house recruiters. That was not the point. As I said – I’ve worked with many awesome HR pros. No power trip here – just trying to move the needle by removing obstacles to get to the end game. Thanks for your post!
Power trip…power? Bashing? I’m sorry but I see no evidence of this in Tim’s post.
It’s all about communication. Like it or not, in any search engagement we all may get stuck with someone we feel slows the process and is not value-add. At the outset establish confirmation that you have access to the hiring manager even if they hand off the day-to-day to someone below them. Then the key is to constantly communicate with this person, let them know the strategy, the process, the good and bad news. Let them know that you will keep the underling and the hiring manager dually informed on the process. Make efforts to “partner” with them on this and most times it will pay dividends. Will it work 100% of the time, no, but what do we have to lose?
Very well stated Wally!
We see this same thing in wellness. The issue is that even though you are a consultant you are basically performing an essential part of business operations which must be outsourced due to need for specialized training and skills. Still you should be treated as an integral part of the team with access to the right internal stakeholders in order to efficiently and effectively get the job done.
We often see this, too, that one internal player can act as a bottleneck – blocking resources, slowing schedules and refusing to communicate or delegate internal tasks – effectively crippling the project or tying it to their will, workload or inclinations. Often they are not doing it out of malice or intent but, as you mentioned, out a desire to “do it themselves” to look good to management. Still their behavior accomplishes exactly the opposite outcome. It is one of the most frustrating things we encounter as consultants.
Tanya:
Thanks. This is typical wannabe behavior. Why anyone would choose to work against the overall goal of getting the best candidate on board (and in a seat on the bus) in the shortest amount of time is beyond me. Go figure!
I am most definitely the Wannabe in this scenario.
This post made me wince and smile, all at the same time – I know it’s tough for a third party to have to jump through the corporate hoops, but sometimes those hoops aren’t even held by the in-house recruiter. It can be tough on the inside to break down the barriers to entry that the process puts in place for us! Add another layer (the third party recruiter) and it gets even harder… This is a great conversation starter!
Tim.
Why would anyone choose to work against? Consider one $10B/yr defense and science firm. Recruiting fees are paid directly out of the in-house recruitment bonus pool. Hiring managers sign a document stating they will not re appropriate funds from other P/L areas to cover costs associated with hiring. And thus corporate recruiters will actively sabotage processes to preserve their own compensation. They also have on staff “strategic sourcers” who will do little more than download resumes, Facebook and Linked In profiles, etc…and if a recruiter submits a downloaded person, the in-house recruiter will wait until the offer is generated, reject the TPR, and take credit for the hire…shady, yes, and thus you have your answer.
Becky:
Glad to hear you were smiling – sorry you had to wince:-) I think sometimes the challenges are created when the external process with the candidate does not sync up with internal delays and other things that happen that ultimately slow down the search. Keep those cards and letter coming! Thanks again Becky!
Todd;
This raises the bar on this discussion in a big way! I was mostly referring to “wannabe’s” that slow down the process and use their power to stall the closing of a search. Your point is focused on (not what i would call best) practices that really change the game. To date I have not seen this sort of behavior -but I am already getting chills after reading and then re-reading your post. That hurts! Is this a regular occurence in the industry segment or is it isolated to this one company?
This is what happens when wannabes get promoted. Somebody decides to make them SVPHR and they get featured in the next issue of “HR MAGAZINE;” something about “innovative best practices” or the like. Experiments are conducted in response to challenges confronted. And in at least one instance we have a firm who’s convinced that Walmart sells caviar. Time and market forces will sort this out…too bad the investors will have to subsidize some wannabe’s extra-credit strategic cost-cutting experiment.
This was a very interesting post for me in that I have been in IT sales and recruiting both perm and contract employees for over 20 years. I have also been on both sides of this issue. I am currently a Corporate Technical Recruiter for a major company and made the decision to leave my agency and come “in house” about a year and a half ago.
The first thing I did was to slam the door on firms and not allow anyone to have direct contact with my managers.
Now do I have your attention? Let me give you my view from the “other” side. As a “vendor” I never went around HR unless I asked and I got MANY placements by following the rules. When I was offered and accepted the position here, I was astounded by the number of vendors slinking through the halls and bringing doughnuts and taking my managers to lunch, dinner and drinks.
Not only was I hungry and got no goodies, I was so far out of the loop that I had no idea what was happening with MY positions. My managers would come to me and tell me they had just hired someone who I had no idea was even in the loop! This screwed up my RMS and log files terribly and made my life a living hell. Let me tell you as an HR and recruiting professional, better you, as my vendor, be in hell than I.
There are two sides of every story and having been on the vendor side, I understand why people feel the need to have a direct relationship with managers BUT, let me reverse this and ask why you cannot fill positions without getting “first hand” info? I closed hundreds of thousands of dollars in billable salaries by doing what I was good at, creating relationships with the gate keeper (HR Manager or recruiter) and supplying them with candidates who made them look good and making it easy for them to do business with me.
This is what a sales professional does; he or she does not worry about influencing everyone, just the right ones. In my business, IT, it is the candidate stupid. You can close all you want but if you are trying to sell a pig to a chicken farmer, it does not matter how well you close, it isn’t going to work.