The Recruitment Blog | Matchstick Search Consultants

When to use a recruiter? Ever had this question? Employers ask themselves this question all the time, and the answer ranges from "Never" to "Always", depending on the circumstances of the organization, the nature of the role, and so forth.

Given that I am in recruitment, one would think I'd be bias to say "Always", but I think a company should only use a recruiter when they have to, which can be often :). Here is when you should use a recruiter:

1) The Employer does not have the resources or the time to recruit properly for the opening.

2) The role requires a specific skill set or background that is hard to find without "head hunting", whic I prefer to call direct targetting.

3) The role is confidential.

4) The opening needs to be filled immediately.

5) The role is senior, and an Employer appreciates that recruitment firms who specialize in the trade, can be very good at assessing skills, experience, and personalities.

6) Employers do not have a great network/brand on their own making it difficult to attract strong candidates.

It surprises me how bad people are at writing job descriptions. From using poorly written non-informative generic templates to writing a novel on the position, most job ads do not do what they are intended to do...get the right people to apply.

The purpose of a job ad is to attract as many qualified (I'll repeat) qualified candidates to apply, and perhaps more importantly, to prevent having the entire world apply.

Striking the balance between too little and too much is not easy, but more times than not the 2 most common problems with job bios are as follows:

1) no thought is given to the key requirements by the key decision maker leading to a generic ad that appeals to no one or everyone.

2) too much thought is given to the requirements by the key decision maker, leading to a long job description that puts people to sleep.

The best job ads are concise, emphasize the MUST HAVE requirements of the role, and provide details that job seekers need to know. For example, advertise the salary...what job seeker doesn't need to know this.

Keywords

photo credit: o5com

Being in a unique position today — able to see what it’s like on the other side of the ‘conversation’ — my perspective has changed a bit. One of the lessons that sticks with me so far is to learn to let go. This sounds a bit like a therapy session, but what do I mean by that in the context of the job search?

You have to be able to hold yourself back from going into extensive detail on your resume. Look at your experience objectively and let go of the unnecessary. You have to pick and choose.

Take a step back: what’s the purpose of your resume?

To me, it is one tool of many — although probably the most used and looked at — that is meant to draw a person in to want to interview you. That's your goal, to get an interview, and only then can you make a lasting impression. Most of the time, the recruiter/employer is looking for something very specific in a resume that would qualify someone for an interview or not. These are "keywords" -- the acronyms, phrases, or industry terms that they scan for in the first 5 seconds. 

Job descriptions are a great source of keywords when you are a job seeker. Usually we skim these few paragraphs on workopolis and just use the resume we have saved on our desktops for all applications, but it’s definitely worth your time to look at the Qualifications/Requirements listed for that job instead.

After they found the basic criteria they needed, a recruiter/employer may look at some intangible things hoping they can find them in your resume, such as evaluating the exposure you have had to companies of a particular size, your ability and experience with managing communication, the breadth of your responsibilities in each role, and if you really made any difference while you were employed or not. Think about all those things and see if your resume answers those questions.

Good luck!

 

Are face-to-face impressions fooling you?

Over and over we hear the importance of honing our presentation skills. And it's true, when we meet a candidate who is exceptionally good at what they say and how they say it - aka 'polished' - it gives us a positive impression...an impression that can make you believe you could work well with this person? ... or that they would fit well in your organization?

If you have a few candidates that are technically equally strong, how would you pick?

Charlie Munger, billionaire investor, encourages us to re-think our assumptions: 

Man is likely to be over-influenced by face to face impressions that by definition involved his active participation. A job candidate who is a "marvelous presenter" often causes great danger under modern executive-search practice. 

When it comes to executive search, the stakes are much higher in making a hiring mistake. And the personality traits and abilities we look for are very particular. Charlie goes on to tell us that "the correct antidote to this sort of folly is to underweight face to face impressions and overweight the applicant's past record." This is also the idea behind behavioural interviewing -- asking about examples from the past rather than about hypothetical situations in the future.

What does this mean for recruiters and employers?

Charlie does have a point. As the interviewer or hiring manager, you want to see professional, polished presenters. But does it go so far as to blind us from the facts? So I'd say trust your first impression, but analyze it from more than one angle. Did you look at all the hard facts before making your decision?

What does it mean for the job seeker?

Make sure you achieve quantifiable results (how you saved or made a company money) at your current job that you can talk about at your next interview. An employer will feel a lot more confident in hiring you if you have already proven that you can do the job. Same goes for promotions -- you need to show that you can do the job by acting like you are already in it (in a humble way). Take initiative and make it happen for you.

It goes back to the point that you have to prove yourself in every new role so that you build a track record with your employers. So that any reference of yours that's called on... you don't have to worry about.

Where to start?

• A good place to start re: presentations = Garr Reynolds (www.presentationzen.com);
• Re: proving yourself = Seth Godin (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/) and his book Linchpin.

 

Retained Versus Contingent Search

Retained Versus Contingent Search. For those who are not aware, retained search is a fixed fee paid in instalments and contingent search is when a fee is only paid upon successful completion of a placement. Here is a good link comparing the two.

http://www.miningrecruitmentgroup.com/employers_retained.php

Lately, I've become more and more convinced that retained search is the best way to go for both recruiters and employers, as the quality of a retained service is so much better. Here is why.

Some may argue that the incentive of a contingent fee will make recruiters work harder to fill the role. My two cents is that recruiters who work contingent searches end up recruiting for multiple positions at the same time, and tend to give a lot of focus early on during the "hot" period of a search, but as the search progresses, the energy decreases, the thought of other firms working the deal come to light, the uncertainty of the deal lingers, and instead the focus turns to roles that are fresh. Whereas for a retained fee, with security, trust, and fear of failure looming, a recruiter bust his or her hump to satisfy the client to ensure the right candidate gets hired, so that the client is confident we can do the job.

Ask a recruiter who works on contingency how frustrating it can be when you bust butt for 3 weeks to help a client to have one of the following occur: 1) You submit a great candidate, but the client found them hours before you submitted them. 2) Another recruiter sent in 1 candidate, whereas you sent in 4, but the client hired the 1 you didn't submit. 3) The Client decides 4 weeks in to the search that they will defer the role for a while. 4) I could keep going...

The point is that contingent work is frustrating and it wares on people. Some would say this is sales. You win one, lose nine. I agree with this undoubtedly, but it leads to scientism on a recruiters part and they end up making poor decisions and not providing the same quality of service that the retained model invokes.

The "risk that a firm could earn a fee without a result argument" from companies does not hold water either, and would be a pretty short-term outlook for a recruiter.  How many employers would engage the same firm if they felt the quality of the service provided was not up to snuff the first time? Answer is none.

Another argument I’ve heard is that having multiple recruiters helps broaden the scope of candidates, and increases the likelihood of finding the right candidate. Surprisingly, I disagree.

Give me a strong recruiter, and he or she will search to the moon and back to fill your position and there aren't many rocks that go uncovered. Having multiple recruiters creates more issues, such as having to deal with who submitted a resume first, or having to review duplicate resume submissions.

The only argument I can understand is an Employer’s hesitancy to work with a Company that they have never heard of or have not previously dealt with before. And while I do see this concern, it’s pretty easy to overcome this one. Go on LinkedIn, review their website, ask for references. There are many things you can do to overcome this issue even on the first go.

I guess I could rant on this forever, but the bottom line is retained search is the better option for all parties involved, Employers, Recruiters and Candidates, and although we may give in and take contingent work to prove ourselves, perhaps it’s better to only service Clients who respect this.

Why some employees stay and some go

Top talent is not just hard to find but also hard to keep:

• 72% of companies today portray the "war for talent" as an endless struggle in which they are neither gaining nor losing ground
• Only 18% claim to be winning the war for talent
• While 10% declared that the war for talent was winding down in defeat for their enterprise

Source of Statistics - Harvard Business Review, 2010

Yes, turnover is one of those things that can haunt you regardless of your industry. And it can also cost a lot.

A driven, ambitious employee will constantly strive toward new challenges. Part of that is getting to the next level in their career, and if they don’t see that happening in their own organization they start to look around. If they are true superstars, it won’t be long until a smart employer discovers them and promises them what they want. Typically it comes down to 3 things:

·         More money

·         Opportunity for personal development and growth with the company

·         A company culture that’s flexible, open, and rewarding

But is that all? Or is it a manager you meet in the interview that makes a good impression on you, making you want to work with them that much more?

Now, keeping the promises is what actually counts. If not kept, that 'top talent' you just hired will start to look again just like they did a year or two before they came here. Some key things employers can do to keep their people motivated, leading to lower turnover in the long-run:

·         Reward performance and results (money, vacation, bonus, benefits etc.)

·         Offer opportunities to move up and grow (promotions, trainings, projects etc.)

·         Instill a fair culture based on meritocracy

True, a lot of the job seekers I see are looking to move for these reasons: not enough money, no upside to get promoted, or bad environment to work in (not getting enough vacation/long hours). All 3 of these problems are essentially due to a lack of company resources such as money or leadership. Ironically, turnover will cost a lot more for the company in the long-run and turns into an endless cycle until the investment is made.

Easier said than done, but at least this is a step in the right direction. One way to create the kind of workplace you strive for is to hire people with the values you want to instill as part of your culture.

To Throw Or Not To Throw A Curve Ball

I interviewed a manager level candidate the other day, which started out so well, only to plummet like Tiger Woods persona has done as of late. The reason for the 180 degree turn was in how the candidate answered a challenging question.

The first few minutes seemed to go really well. I liked his energy, personality, and communication skills. He seemed intelligent, well-informed, etc… then I asked him a bit of a difficult question, more than anything to see how he handled something he was not expecting…the dreaded math question. Keep in mind it was for a financial position.

Anyway, rather than trying to answer the question or demonstrate his thought pattern, he scoffed the question off, until he realized that I wasn’t going to move on. He stumbled through it with a quarter-hearted attempt, but it was clear he wanted to move on, so I did, and I proceeded by asking him two more technical questions, both of which he bombed, displaying a poor attitude throughout the remainder of the interview. So rather than continue, I pretty much ended the meeting to his surprise. At the end, he asked me if I will present him anywhere. I have a hard time lying, so I myself stumbled through a response.

Makes me wonder, should I always throw curve balls at candidates to see how they react?

The most important part of an interview is....

If I posed the question above to 10 hiring managers, how many people do you think would say that conducting references is the most critical component of the interview process? My suspicion is that for many, this would not be the first thought that comes to mind.

If you asked me a while ago, I myself would have said that conducting references is a mere formality, as opposed to my current belief, that reference checks can be the most informative aspect of the interview process, especially if they are performed with a vigilant and analytical frame of mind.

There are several keys to conducting telling references, some are as follows:

1) Be selective of the references provided and do not be afraid to request additional references that are not on the list provided by a candidate

2) Spend time planning out how to conduct the reference call. For instance, if you identify a certain weakness or concern of a candidate, try to flesch your concern out with a reference.

3) Tailor your questions to the job at hand. While it is ok to follow standard questions, a reference call for a Director of Finance versus a Financial Analyst, surely must be different.

That's enough preaching...

I've heard lately that several organizations are discouraging their employees from providing references for fear of litigation, which is truly unfortunate. I genuinely believe that the best way to learn about someone as an employee is to ask those they have worked with, versus asking the person themselves.

If our system allowed for it, I'd actually interview references instead of interviewing the candidate!

60 Seconds....

A former employer of mine once proclaimed that he needed all but one minute to assess a possible hire. Could this be true? Is it really possible to assess an interviewee within the first 60 seconds of a meeting, 50% of a minor hockey penalty?

 

This well known phenomena of first impressions has been proven to some degree, and of course, most of us recognize that within a minute, you can get a sense of a person’s character, confidence, and personality, but after being involved with hiring and recruitment for a several years, my opinion is that it takes a scientific approach to truly understand a candidates background, personality, ability and character, and more importantly to determine whether someone fits within your culture.

That said, many hiring managers believe instinct can guide them through the process and that alone is often the determining factor in a hiring decisions. So, from a candidate’s perspective, it’s important to recognize that interviewers do make quick judgments, which highlights how critical it is for a candidate to ensure that they practice first impressions, and ensure that the first part of their interviews are stronger than the second half.

 

Suggestions?

As hard as this is, try to accept your nerves. I remember a quote from the best basketball player ever where he said that nerves are natural, and if you accept that you will feel nervous, it is easier to relax, as opposed to trying to not be nervous. After acceptance, now deal with coping.

 

Be genuine and natural…ie, don’t try to be someone you are not. A good friend of mine runs a program called “acting the truth” where he teaches mostly actors how to find the truth through various exercises and routines. Without one exception, those who take the class learn that to become good actors, they need to learn the “truth” first. Same applies here. An interview is an audition. Learn yourself well, and you will make great first impressions.

 

Practice the first minute of an interview. Whether by sitting in front of a mirror, a friend, or through visualization, if you practice your approach, handshake, the introductory salute, it will make a huge difference.

 

Prepare answers to typical first questions. Whether it’s take me through your background or tell me about yourself, the first question is pretty basic, and why someone wouldn’t prepare a response is beyond me. I think most people believe that they can simply ad lib or that they are great interviewee’s so there is no need to practice. Wrong!

 

Anyway…enough preaching.

Change with the times, or get left behind

The recruitment industry across Canada has been hit hard by the recent economic downturn. The impact of hiring freezes and layoffs has been felt hard by most agencies as they have had to lay off a significant percent of their work force. And if they weren’t laid off, many recruiters likely resigned as most rely on commissions, which in this market, are hard to come by.

I would contend that these firms were likely overstaffed to begin with, and were in dire need of some “recruiter” cleansing. The industry as a whole has become saturated with providers in a time when one would think the opposite would have been happening. Even before the recession, given the growth of social media and communities, it’s a wonder why the recruitment industry had not suffered a major setback.

Nonetheless, the recession led to the inevitable and in my opinion, the industry has shrunk for the long-term. Sure, there will be a bounce back and perhaps for a while, the industry will appear to be on its way back and the market will once again be flooded with recruiters.

Eventually though, I believe the subtle but noticeable revolution going on will lead companies to increasingly seek more cost effective and innovative ways to recruit new talent. Concepts like bohire.com, or networks such as linked-in, or perhaps new ideas will collectively cannibalize the traditional business model and effectively decrease the total dollars spent on recruitment.

And if you don’t change with the times, you will be left behind.