31 Things That Set Great Recruiters Apart From the Average

Anyone can call themselves a recruiter. There are no university degrees in recruiting, no laws that require you to pass a test or be certified like those required to become an accountant or lawyer. All it takes is a job title and a business card. To compound the problem, most people who enter recruiting do so in order to use the job as a stepping stone to some other future HR job. Some even view recruiting as a “necessary evil” they must endure in order to be promoted to the real job they want as an HR generalists or OD consultant. Unfortunately, because many recruiters merely view their current job as a temporary assignment, they don’t strive to become experts in recruiting. Recruiting Managers Are Part of the Problem Recruiting managers often compound the problem by hiring “junior,” inexperienced people as recruiters and then putting them into recruiting positions with little or no classroom training. In fact, it’s quite common to hire a rookie and tell them just to shadow another recruiter in order to learn the tricks of the trade. All this means is that they may take on many of the bad habits of mediocre recruiters, thus eliminating any chance of eventually becoming a great recruiter themselves. For those who are currently recruiters or who have recently entered the field and wish to make it a career, it is important to identify what differentiates a great recruiter from an average one. Great performers excel in each of eight following areas. In this piece I will discuss those broad areas and reveal the 31 specific things that it takes to become a truly great recruiter. Great Recruiters Make Fact-Based, Data-Driven Decisions Most business functions have shifted from experience-based to fact-based or data-driven decision-making. Supply chain management, customer relationship management, and the production functions, for example, have all shifted to fact-based decision-making. The same needs to be true in recruiting. The very best recruiters don’t rely on hunches or opinions but instead base their decisions on facts and data. Data is not only helpful in making more accurate sourcing and recruiting decisions but it also assists in making the business case for recruiting. Some of the ways the great recruiters use data include:

  1. They don’t rely on “old wives’ tales” and past practices. They use data and results in order to assess what doesn’t work. They then drop all employment practices that don’t make a significant business difference.
  2. They track source quality and shift resources to ensure that the most effective sources are used the most frequently.
  3. They actively track quality of hire (where quality of the hire means the on-the-job performance of the new hire).
  4. They stop looking at the cost of hire and instead measure any potential business gains (economic impact) that result from hiring a higher percentage of top performers.

Great Recruiters Utilize Market Research A great recruiter uses the latest market research tools in order to identify what it takes to interest and sell a candidate. This market research might come in the form of interviews, surveys, or focus groups. It’s important for top recruiters to realize that, since the demands of candidates often change rapidly, market research must be a continuous process.

  1. The very best recruiters identify the candidate’s job acceptance criteria at the very start of the recruiting process.
  2. Top recruiters do a survey of all hires and ask them why they accepted the job and what the factors were that “almost” caused them to say no (i.e. what worked and what didn’t).
  3. Great recruiters do a survey of all rejected offers and find out what the deciding factors were for these candidates.
  4. Great recruiters do internal customer satisfaction surveys to see what managers, applicants, and recent hires want more of and less of.
  5. Because we live in a fast-changing world, it is no longer sufficient to react to events. Most recruiting related crises are a result of failing to anticipate! Great recruiters learn from the past, gather data on trends, and accurately anticipate upcoming recruiting possibilities. They accurately forecast upcoming labor shortages and surpluses. They also tell managers when hiring should be curtailed and when it should be accelerated.

Great Recruiters Get Managers More Involved Traditionally, most recruiting has been done by recruiters. However, in a rapidly changing world, it is increasingly more difficult for any recruiter to keep abreast of the skills required for most jobs. In addition, new technologies allow managers to have laptop access to most recruiting tools. Because they are closer to the job they frequently can do a better in convincing a candidate to say yes.

  1. Great recruiters build a strong business case and sell hiring managers on the impact that recruiting has on the bottom line. By convincing managers to spend more time and resources on recruiting, a recruiter dramatically increases the chances of getting a successful hire.
  2. Smart recruiters prioritize their key jobs and key managers. The best recruiters realize that all jobs do not have an equal impact on the business. As a result, they prioritize their activities around those with the highest business return on investment. The best also prioritize managers and respond rapidly to the high priority ones. They regularly survey these high priority managers to see what they want more of or less of.
  3. Great recruiters shift the responsibility for most recruiting to managers and employees, because they are the ones who suffer if a bad hire is made.

Great Recruiters Complete a Competitive Analysis Recruiting can’t be done in isolation. Once a recruiter develops a best practice tool, it is almost certain to be copied by a talent competitor. The very best recruiters track what the competition is doing, forecast what they will do next, and anticipate the possibility a competitor will copy any new recruiting practices they may develop. Some of the things that great recruiters do in the area of comparative analysis include:

  1. They provide managers with better information about the actual offers made by talent competitors and how their organization’s offers are superior or inferior to the offers made by others.
  2. Great recruiters do side-by-side competitive analysis between major talent competitors and their own organization. They identify areas of weakness and they develop a continuous improvement plan to ensure that they continually maintain a competitive advantage in everything they do.

Great Recruiters Use Leading-Edge Sourcing Tactics You have to find a candidate before you can sell them on the job. Of course, great recruiters do both ó but they must start with great sourcing tools and strategies. The very best do the following:

Article Continues Below
  1. They start with the premise that the hardest people to attract (currently employed people) are, in fact, the most desirable candidates. Great recruiters focus almost exclusively on employed top performers. The very best also realize that top performers are hardly ever unemployed and that it takes an impressive sales pitch before they will even consider leaving their current job for any new job. Great recruiters view their role as primarily a sales job, where they develop effective sales pitches that convince top candidates first to apply and then to accept their job offer.
  2. Great recruiters seek out the best candidates on a global basis. They realize that the best candidates might live in another region or country. They also realize that the tools, strategies, and approaches that work in the U.S. are unlikely to be equally as effective in other countries.
  3. Great recruiters develop processes and metrics in order to isolate which sources produce the top candidates and which sources are costly and ineffective.
  4. Great recruiters identify the best sources for diversity candidates. In addition, they also help make the business case for having a diverse workforce.
  5. Great recruiters create “feeder channels” for future hires by identifying which firms can become their “farm teams” (i.e. firms that are lower in prestige but that still attract, train, and develop employees whom they should target).
  6. They develop “personal courting” and relationship-building programs with pre-identified prospects. By pre-identifying and pre-qualifying talent, great recruiters not only decrease their response time when a position does open, but they also increase the time to have available in order to sell the candidate on the company.
  7. They help build their employment brand by speaking (and encouraging others to speak) at conferences and industry events. Great recruiters also coordinate their recruiting efforts with the company’s PR events in order to increase applicant flow as a result of good press coverage.
  8. Great recruiters build continuous candidate referral networks. By building a network of contacts both inside and outside the company that continually supply them with the names of top talent, recruiters can develop a “talent pools.”

Great Recruiters Learn Quickly

  1. Great recruiters realize that they work in a rapidly changing profession. The knowledge required to do their job and the tools that actually work can go out of date within a matter of months. If you are to excel in recruiting, you need to learn rapidly from the successes and failures of others. This means using the web to access information fast. Join recruiting-related list servers and chat rooms to learn and get answers rapidly. Subscribe to electronic recruiting and business newsletters in order to read about business and recruiting trends. The best develop a small, personal, learning network of business and HR professionals so they can test ideas and share “what works” solutions rapidly.
  2. The very best constantly experiment and try new things. If you are to continually improve, its essential that you experiment with new sources and tools. Great recruiters take calculated risks by trying new variations and then rapidly gathering data in order to identify what works.

Great Recruiters Make Use of Technology The extensive use of technology in recruiting allows us to speed up our hiring and to do it on a global basis. Top recruiters utilize the web and the latest recruiting software to find, assess, and sell candidates in ways that were not possible before the recent advances in recruiting technology. The very best recruiters do as much as 75% of their sourcing through the Internet. Some of the things the best do include:

  1. Great recruiters frequently visit Internet chat rooms and list servers in order to identify top talent and to develop relationships with any prospects they have identified.
  2. The very best recruiters use the Internet to build long-term relationships with potential candidates long before they are needed. They push jobs to them and use electronic newsletters to educate candidates about the great aspects of their firm and the jobs it has to offer.
  3. In a world where the speed of change increases literally every day, individuals must learn to do everything faster while maintaining the same level of quality. This invariably means the use of technology in everything you do. Great recruiters become experts in using technology to identify candidates and to effectively sort and track resumes.
  4. Traditionally, all hiring was done on a face-to-face basis. Candidates came to the office and interviewed in front of the owner or manager. Great recruiters utilize technology to assess and sell candidates remotely, without the expense (in time and money) of having to bring them into the office.

Other Practices of Great Recruiters

  1. Great recruiters consider retention as part of their job. Instead of dropping all contact after a candidate is hired, the best keep in touch because they realize that their insight into why the candidate accepted a job can be used to keep the new hire satisfied once they’re in it.
  2. Not all recruiting programs are equally effective, so great recruiters determine which activities, programs, and sources they should spend their limited time and resources on. They prioritize their recruiting programs based on their success rate and ROI. They focus their budgets, time, talent, and money on the highest priority areas, and delegate, drop or outsource the lowest.
  3. Great recruiters are also great business people. They realize that recruiting, if it is to be effective, must vary with the economy. Top recruiters monitor the company’s sales projections and the unemployment rate in order to develop a workforce plan and a recruiting strategy that best fits the current and forthcoming economic conditions.

Conclusion In my work with over 100 recruiting functions, I have unfortunately found that there are relatively few great recruiters in our profession. Most recruiters focus on the administrative and assessment aspects of recruiting, while the top ones focus on sourcing passive candidates and then selling them on the company and the job. The very best are also data driven and make fact-based decisions. If you are currently a recruiter who is striving to be among the best in your field, it is essential that you “unlearn” and “relearn” recruiting. Emulating the above 31 ways top recruiters differ from the norm will guarantee you a spot at the top of your profession. And what better time to start than now!

Dr. John Sullivan, professor, author, corporate speaker, and advisor, is an internationally known HR thought-leader from the Silicon Valley who specializes in providing bold and high-business-impact talent management solutions.

He’s a prolific author with over 900 articles and 10 books covering all areas of talent management. He has written over a dozen white papers, conducted over 50 webinars, dozens of workshops, and he has been featured in over 35 videos. He is an engaging corporate speaker who has excited audiences at over 300 corporations/ organizations in 30 countries on all six continents. His ideas have appeared in every major business source including the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, BusinessWeek, Fast Company, CFO, Inc., NY Times, SmartMoney, USA Today, HBR, and the Financial Times. In addition, he writes for the WSJ Experts column. He has been interviewed on CNN and the CBS and ABC nightly news, NPR, as well many local TV and radio outlets. Fast Company called him the "Michael Jordan of Hiring," Staffing.org called him “the father of HR metrics,” and SHRM called him “One of the industry's most respected strategists." He was selected among HR’s “Top 10 Leading Thinkers” and he was ranked No. 8 among the top 25 online influencers in talent management. He served as the Chief Talent Officer of Agilent Technologies, the HP spinoff with 43,000 employees, and he was the CEO of the Business Development Center, a minority business consulting firm in Bakersfield, California. He is currently a Professor of Management at San Francisco State (1982 – present). His articles can be found all over the Internet and on his popular website www.drjohnsullivan.com and on staging.ere.net. He lives in Pacifica, California.

 

Topics

22 Comments on “31 Things That Set Great Recruiters Apart From the Average

  1. Dr, Sullivan

    Good article and a tall order to follow as well but I am in agreement with you in sum total.

    Point 15 really caught my attention as I got seriously flamed for saying the very same thing last summer by some in the group.

    I personally got the e-mails and so those were not necessarily on erexchange as when I post I don’t hide behind an anonymous address.

    Not only are the currently employed the most desirable, BE IT FAIR OR NOT, because I do not personally agree with it…but the employed in corporate America is telling us this….I must give the client what they want.

    Therefore, we do not work with Internet candidates and usually no unemployed people as our clients do not want us to do so and some will out and out refuse to hire people on the Internet.

    The non-Internet resume people I have no problem with as it allows us to provide companies people they do not have access to ….but the unemployed I have always had a problem with as things happen.

    Isn’t that a shame, but that point in your article is right on whether it is right or not.

    Mark J. Haluska
    http://www.rtnetwork.net

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  2. John
    Nice article – I think the key issue here is lack of formal recognised training. Whilst here in the UK we have a certification programme it covers everything from industrial (drivers etc) through to board level consultants.

    I currently track most of the above but I struggle to measure impact on the business. What methods can be used? Perfomance ranking (hmmm), overachievement of targets (what if it is a HR hire or similar)? revenue? eps? market cap increase?

    Any pointers out there?

    Rgds
    Dan

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  3. Mark

    I only measure key jobs where the results are obvious so I wouldn’t measure most HR hires. Job output is the best measure and then I recommend that you do a split sample so there is no doubt about the power of great hiring

    John

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  4. Opinions stink. Speak from facts.

    Anyone that has gathered the data knows that top performers do not come from active sources. Wishful thinking doesn’t cut it in successful recruiting. You probably believe that there are top performing 7 foot centers that are unemployed during the basketball season…. give me a break!

    John

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  5. Please allow me to cut and paste from Kevin Wheeler’s most recent article in regards to ‘passive’ candidates:

    ‘I have never understood why we believe that a person not actively looking for a new job is ‘better’ than one who is looking. Those who are looking may well be the ones with initiative and curiosity. They also may be the ones who have the foresight to explore new careers or move to a more stable organization.

    Many passive candidates lack the initiative to look for another job and are waiting for a new position to find them. Obviously there are excellent performers who are content in their current position that we would like to hire. But, even if we succeed in luring the person out of that job and into our firm, will she stay and perform as well?

    Whether a person is an active or a passive candidate should make no difference at all. What should always matter is whether they have the skills and qualifications to perform effectively for your organization, and whether they fit your corporate culture and share your organization’s passions. People who are lured away by money or titles may not be the ones you really want.’

    I could not agree more with this. Many of my hires here were ‘active job seekers’ or people laid off or who just quit for a better opportunity and they have been star performers. I say passive schmassive!

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  6. I’ve heard/seen you use the 7 footer analogy a few times. I’m not sure I agree. Based on your argument, then, GM’s out there should ignore the free agents or players actively looking to make a change. Although there are GM’s that find the superstar that has several years left on their contract but still successfully recruit them (Alex Rodriguez would be a decent example), the majority of the trades are for your average player. There are many examples of players that were not superstars when traded but became superstars (anyone heard of Sammy Sosa?) Good thing the Cubs didn’t buy your argument.

    🙂 All in good fun!

    I agree with your article, certainly the top performer is the place to start!!

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  7. Give me a break!

    Using that logic, consider this example.

    It is a fact that there are both innocent and guilty people in prison. If you recruit at a prison, you actually have a chance to hire a good person. The problem is that 99% of the people in prison are guilty and 1% are not. The reverse is true in that only 1% of the ‘free’ population are guilty of a crime and 99% are innocent.

    So if you wanted an innocent person, where would you look? Only wishful thinkers and people that don’t let facts cloud their judgment would recruit for innocent people in prison. And NO they wouldn?t look in both places. That would be a waste of limited resources.

    The same is true when it comes to corporate recruiting, why would you even look in the actives (the odds are so small). There are, as you say, good people in the active pool, the problem is there are so few that finding them is a huge time and resource waste. But if you are too busy to calculate ROI… go for it.

    Actives are easy. They come to you and they will take almost any abuse you throw at them. Always go with the easy and never bother to check to see what source top performers really come from. That’s a prescription for failure but it feels good to social workers in HR.

    Ask any senior executive recruiter why they don?t focus on unsolicited resumes from the average ?joe?? because the very best are not actively looking and they have to be approached first and in a subtle manner.

    Follow the odds, not your heart.

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  8. Dear John,

    I guess that’s the reason my beloved 49ers have done so poorly of late. They are focusing on ‘actives’ when in fact they should be recruiting from the many ‘inactives’ that are toiling away in the nation’s school yards…After all, we wouldn’t want to bring on anyone who is not actively seeking to get to the next level in their professional career…That would be insane…I get it now.

    Thanks for making it all so clear…

    I wonder if Coke’s Board Members are aware of this? They may want to take another look at who they are considering to succeed Doug Draft…Do you want to tell them, or should I?

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  9. Dr. Sullivan asked ‘why would you even look in the actives (the odds are so small).’ Maybe you underestimate the odds because you define top performers as successful employees who are not looking for a new job? We define the best people to hire (future top performers) as those who are qualified to be hired and who have a good job suitability, usually 85% or greater. You?ll notice that an applicant doesn?t need to be active or passive to be considered a future top performer. In fact, passive candidates don?t have greater or lesser job suitability, they just aren?t looking for new jobs.

    What if the job seeker is in the wrong job? What if the job seeker works for an incompetent supervisor? What if the job seeker is ready for a promotion? What if the job seeker is employed by a poorly managed company? What percentage of the workforce is in one or more of these groups? What does looking for a new job tell us about a job seeker under those conditions?

    Does anyone really believe that looking for a new job means the job seeker will be a bad hire? For some managers, employees who question are quickly driven out, but they’ll achieve their potential elsewhere. Smart employers are always looking for the people who are looking to achieve their potential.

    About 20% of managers are well-suited to manage people which means 80% of employees are working for managers who are not well-suited to their jobs. Is it any wonder that so many employed people are looking to change jobs? If an employer wants to preclude hiring these people they are free to do so but their competitors will hire many good employees. Limiting selection to other employers? good employees puts us at risk of hiring people who are well-suited to other corporate cultures but not necessarily our own.

    Our 30,000+ clients don’t want to hire other employers’ good employees, they want to hire competent people who will become their future good employees. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not. One employer’s top performer may become another employer’s problem employee.

    As one client told me ?everyone we hire exceeds our expectations!? That is a far cry from his 33% annual turnover rate. The only change he made was to hire qualified applicant?s who also had good job suitability. He didn?t need to raid his competitors, they were driving out good people anyway. He didn?t have to talk his competitors? top performers to jump ship, he just hired his own top performers.

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  10. Dr. John Sullivan wrote ‘Anyone that has gathered the data knows that top performers do not come from active sources.’ How does a top performer get his/her first job? Do you mean top performers cannot find their own next job? Do you mean that top performers have so little ambition that they must wait until a headhunter finds them? Somehow this doesn’t ring true.

    If we only recruit other employers’ top performers, I guess that should be correct. However, our clients would disagree with that since they can and do hire their own top performers not necessarily other employers’ top performers.

    Too many hiring managers hire the top candidates or other employers’ top performers, not their own future top performers. After our clients begin hiring for talent they tell us that they used to hire the top candidates and/or other employers’ top performers rather than their own future top performers. They tell us that most of their future top performers were consigned to the ‘not hired’ pile of resumes. ugh

    If we want to hire more top performers, look in the not hired pile of resumes from the qualified to be hired job applicants. Of course, we need to know how to identify future top performers. That information, by the way, is not found in resumes or the interview or even academic qualifications.

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  11. Don

    Actually the 49ers got both a coach and an owner that weren’t working in the league. While the Superbowl coaches for the last several years were poached directly from other teams.

    Don’t let data and facts cloud your judgments. A real person actually wins the lotto each week… but the odds of you winning are lower than getting hit by lightning twice in one day. A lot of people play the lotto in recruiting… those that are too busy to measure the performance of their recruits after they are hired. What is your excuse?

    BTW there are some bad people that are employed… it’s just that the percentages are small. The same goes for the unemployed.

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  12. ‘ There are, as you say, good people in the active pool, the problem is there are so few that finding them is a huge time and resource waste.’

    I’d like to see your research on this, and your sources.

    ‘Actives are easy. They come to you and they will take almost any abuse you throw at them. Always go with the easy and never bother to check to see what source top performers really come from. That’s a prescription for failure but it feels good to social workers in HR.’

    Take almost any abuse? Please, I have no idea whre you get your research from but this statement is untrue. Sadly I believe, that you believe the hype…

    One well known and well respected exec TPR company that has provided us wih sales execs in the past, has had a 90% fail rate. Aparently they were supplying us with the best, non active candidates?

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  13. I realize that precision is not your cup of tea but I must insist that you re-read the article again (use your word find tool). I never used the term ‘actives’ in the article. I instead call them employed top performers (see below).

    So again using the 49ers example, neither the coach nor the owner were currently employed in the NFL (or for that matter were they ever top performers in the NFL at any time). If you want to win, hire away a winning superbowl coach!

    ’15. They start with the premise that the hardest people to attract (currently employed people) are in fact, the most desirable candidates. Great recruiters focus almost exclusively on employed top performers. The very best also realize that top performers are hardly ever unemployed and that it takes an impressive sales pitch before they will even consider leaving their current job for any new job. Great recruiters view their role as primarily a ?sales job? where they develop effective ?sales pitches? that convinced top candidates first to apply and then to accept our job offer!’

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  14. Dear John,

    I have no excuse. I was not aware I was in need of one. I am a highly valued member of my firm’s professional staff. I don’t make excuses and I am not sure that I understand why you would intimate that I would need to. Your query reminds me of the old character trap:

    ‘So, Dr Sullivan, when did you stop beating your wife?’

    Let’s just suffice it to say that we agree to disagree.

    However, I do agree with your postulation that recruiting is a science…it’s just not rocket science Doc…

    BTW…I seems you have proven my point: the owner and the coach that you refer to in your post (having failed miserably) were not ‘active’ job seekers in the NFL at the time they assumed their respective roles. AND…Coach Grudin, while with the Raiders made no secret of his desire to return to his home town of Tampa Bay and assume the head coaching job of the Buccaneers…Does that qualify him as a active candidate?…or perhaps more appropriately as an ‘pro-active’ candidate.

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  15. Dr. John Sullivan wrote ‘While the Superbowl coaches for the last several years were poached directly from other teams.’ The New England Patriots have won two of the last three Superbowls. If my memory serves me right, Coach Bill B. left the Jets because he didn’t want to be in Coach Bill P.’s shadow. Was he a passive or active candidate? I suppose we could make the case that Bob K. convinced Bill B. to quit the Jets but I think that is putting the cart before the horse.

    Why do top performers leave their jobs? Does anyone really think top performers leave because some recruiter talks them into leaving? If that were the case, how smart are the top performers?

    How many top performers are there? What percentage of these top performers are talked out of their current jobs each year? I’d suggest that the number of top performers who are hired away each year is exceeded by the number of new hires who become top performers for their new employers. It is easier to hire future top performers than it is to poach them from other employers. Do we really want to bribe top performers into jumping ship? Will they also jump from our ship when the same recruiter calls again? I suppose if we don’t know how to identify future top performers, we should restrict our hiring to other employers’ top performers. Is it necessary? No.

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  16. Dear John,

    Thanks for the ‘suggestion’ but no thanks. I’m not really a tea drinker anyway.

    I would ask a favor though, please don’t tell me I’m doing it wrong or playing ‘recruiting lotto’ when you have no idea or concept of what I do and how I do it…AND, please refrain from personal attacks on me and my integrity.

    Let’s do stick to the facts though…I know you are quite capable of sticking to the facts….

    Here is something you can really sink your teeth into (being an academician): A case study.
    Since we are bantering about the NFL let’s continue on that subject.

    For this example I’ll be using the two Head Coaches of the 1999 Super Bowl teams. The Denver Broncos beat the Atlanta Falcons by a score of 31 to 19 at Miami’s Pro Player Stadium.

    Let’s start with the Falcons led by Head Coach Dan Reeves. In their then 33 year history, the Falcons had never before been to a Super Bowl. Just two years earlier they were a dismal 3 and 13 under Head Coach June Jones. Two years later (under Reeves) the team won 14 games and was playing in the Super Bowl and Reeves was the unanimous selection for Coach-of-the-Year.

    I’d say that’s a pretty huge accomplishment for someone who had been fired from his head coaching job in ’96 after two seasons with the NY Giants. Ironically Reeves was fired 15 years earlier from his position as Head Coach of the Denver Broncos. In 12 years with the Broncos Reeves racked up 5 first place finishes, 3 Super Bowl appearances, and 4 AFC Championship game appearances.

    Up until last season Reeves was the games winningest active Head Coach. Now he is an ‘active unemployed’ candidate…I wonder if anybody would hire this guy…What do you think Doc?

    Now on to the Broncos and their Head Coach. Mike Shannahan started his NFL career with the Broncos as an Assistant Coach (receivers) in 1984. After the 1987 season he was recruited by the Raiders as an ’employed top performer’ and hired as Head Coach.

    After going 7 – 9 in his d?but season (1988) and starting the ’89 season at 1 – 3, he was promptly fired after only 20 games. Shanahan then returned to Denver as the Quarterbacks coach under guess who…that’s right…Dan Reeves. Where once again, Shanahan was fired after less than 2 seasons…(you’d think this guy would have gotten the point by now, but I guess some people are pretty dense, huh?)…So after a stint in San Francisco as Offensive Coordinator (92- 94) wherein he failed to lead the ‘Team of the Decade’ to a Super Bowl Championship, he was re-hired for the 1995 season by the Denver Broncos as Head Coach. Three years later he had two Super Bowl victories and an $85 million contract…So based on your ‘theories’ of ‘staffing efficiency’, who would you have hired to run your
    team? It’s not as black and white as you say it is, is it Doc?

    That’s just two examples, there are hundreds more like them in the NFL alone.

    There are many, many more that go the other way.

    Talented people who were tested and measured and inspected and scrutinized to the very last detail that flopped under pressure.

    So what then can you point to that will ensure a person’s success in a particular situation? The answer is nothing…not one thing…You can’t touch it and you can’t taste it. You sure as hell can’t measure it…but you can ‘feel’ it. I know when it is there. Do you?

    If the Denver Broncos had subscribed to your theories in 1995 they would have never hired Mike Shanahan, but someone somewhere after meeting with the man said, ‘I like him and I think he will be a hell of a coach’…boy was that person right.

    Now what does all this mean? I’ll leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions Doc.

    I’ll leave you with this last thought:

    True ‘super stars’ are made, not born. They emerge because of, and sometimes in spite of circumstance. No amount of measuring or recording of measurements will ever change that…or predict it.

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  17. Don

    That is the beauty of probabilities, occasionally the exception occurs. To use intuition to select the best sources might work but so might intuition win in Las Vegas at the black jack tables. Fortunately, for those that card count, the rewards are greater when you make fact based decisions and you find out ‘why’ things work. In a world driven by CFO’s, facts and ratios, HR and recruiting will go nowhere based on guess work and ‘we have always done it this way’. When you don’t bother to gather the facts… the cause always appears to be a mystery.

    Not constantly measuring source quality is just… silly.

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

  18. Excellent points… Steve Finkel once explained it best and to explain –
    -Take a look at how many employees you have in your corporation.
    -You know that some, of course not all, are actively looking at newspaper ads, optional insertion, etc, on a frequent basis.
    -Ask your self why and who is looking at these ads on a frequent basis.. Not happy, maybe under achiver, whatever the reason….
    -Now ask yourself, would those people represent the best 10 percent of your firm…. Would you or a hiring manager really care if you lost them.
    -Now what about the really good employees. The one you would hate to lose, the ones that do extraordinarily good work…. What are the chances that they are looking.. That they are posting their resumes, that they are reading the sunday ads every morning… They seem happy dont they. Is there really a reason for them to leave or even look.
    -Now if you had a chance to hire someone for your company, which would you prefer?

    Remember the person you find on the boards are also in many other computer databases. There will always be a better opt for that person. There will always be a call into them when YOUR competitor is looking. Think of how many resumes you have in YOUR database, I can guarantee I and your competitory have a lot of duplicates… I can always present a better offer. Funny thing is – I rarely use my database, I tend to prefer to pick up the phone, I get more bang for my efforts. But that is uncommon for other recruiters… How many recruiters do you think have the e-mail script for mass e-mailing candidates in their database. You are not Unique.

    To say that there are not good candidates on the boards is ludicrous.. But to say that it does not take time to find the needle in the haystack is also ludicrous as well…..
    It takes me less time to find an awesome candidate from a competitor through recruiting efforts than to sift through resumes to find the goldent nuggent. I have found that that candidate is more likely to stay in the position, less likely to be lured away after placed, and grateful for the opt, and change.

    My time is too valuable to spend quality time hoping to find the one from a thousand resumes, especially when I know that with calls I am finding the candidate who is the ONE in A Thousand in regards to having stronger job history, work ethics, work values, and more of a team player… Less work, more sales, more technique.
    By the way I have been doing this for over 10 years… I have only had ONE free replacement. (An article had been published about my candidate based upon his great work, and a recruiter swept him off his feet.)

    You can read the original article at:
    http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

    Post your own Article Review
    http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=76E55C40059645E9A7DB18496CBE084C

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *