A Conversation With David Graziano – Social Recruiting Strategist
If you follow David Graziano on twitter, read his articles, or listen to his contributions on call-in programs such as Recruiting Animal blog talk radio, you will already know that he is one of the good guys. With more than 28 years of experience as both a corporate and third-party recruiter, David has seen a lot of changes in the industry, and has watched recruiting firms come and go. Recognized as one of the 25 most influential recruiters on twitter, he is a vocal critic of a recruiting industry subculture that treat candidates as commodities. I had the opportunity to speak with David recently about his concerns.
How did you get started in recruiting, and are you any good at it?
I kind of came into recruiting through the backdoor. I am a master’s level clinical psychologist, and when I first relocated to St. Louis I saw an ad for a recruiter. I thought it might be a good interim job while I looked for a placement in my field, so I applied and got hired right away. It was a sweat shop. High volume, lots of pressure. The technology wasn’t there yet, but you could see the early warning signs that transactional recruiting was coming. But my background in counselling gave me a leg up over other recruiters in the firm, and I did what nobody had ever done in the history of the company: I made my first placement within five days of being hired. I had empathy, and I understood the importance of building trust. Instead of transactional recruiting I did relational recruiting. I did my best to be genuine when I talked to candidates and hiring managers, and I wasn’t afraid to ask questions. This made it easier for me to recognize candidates who were going to be a good fit for my client’s needs. Not just a good fit on paper, but a good fit for the long haul.
Later, I worked as a corporate contract recruiter, and the recruiting center relied on ATS technology. The firm’s average time to fill a job was 75 days, but their goal was to reduce it to 65 days. I did 10 days better than that. My time to fill was 55 days, and I did it through relational recruiting. If somebody called me, I stopped to talk to them. Why? Because if a candidate is going to pick up the phone and call me, that speaks volumes about them. And in a 15 minute conversation, I can find out more about a person’s talents, knowledge, goals, and motivators than an ATS system could ever discover. Sure I leveraged the ATS, I made sure that the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed. But I took a transactional recruiting model and made it relational, and that was the key to my success.
What do you see going wrong with recruiting practices today?
I deplore the transactional nature of the recruiting business today. We are all technocrats, 1984 Orwell-style, and technology is vastly taking over relational recruiting. Recruiters and corporations are under the misconception that an application tracking system will take the place of engaging, communicating, connecting, and this behaviour is permeating the industry across third party, corporate and staff recruiting. It’s all “don’t call us, we’ll call you”, and candidates are being treated like a commodity.
There’s a huge push toward transactional recruiting, especially in this economy where there is such pressure to reduce hiring costs. Corporations at the senior level are thinking that their sophisticated applicant tracking system is reducing their cost per hire, but they are deluding themselves because they are measuring the wrong things. They aren’t considering the time to fill a position, the lost opportunity costs, the impact of a black-hole application process on their employer brand. They don’t understand the value of having a good recruiting process that is built on people, not just technology.
Is it fixable?
Frankly, I don’t know if the problem is fixable, but I think it can be influenced. People like Jerry Albright, who understand that picking up the phone is the primary way of making things happen, they are quietly following a relational model of recruiting. It’s not really revolutionary, good recruiters have known it for years. But there is more urgency now if the recruiting industry wants to survive. The recession has only made it worse. Recruiters aren’t recruiters anymore, they are resume sourcers, paper hangers.
There is a lot of buzz about social media and recruiting through social media. As if social media is going to be the new recruiting panacea. Tools like twitter and Facebook are just another form of handshake. The value is still in relationship building, and this takes time. You won’t magically improve your cost of hiring by setting up a twitter account and blasting job ads. Companies like Sodexo know that. They are actively online, building candidate relationships. Most companies haven’t figured that out yet.
Corporations need to be taught how to use recruiters more effectively. We can save them money, we can improve the quality of hire, we can shorten the time to fill jobs, if we go beyond a transactional model. Perhaps I need to offer a series of seminars on how to work with recruiters. It isn’t all the fault of the corporations. Recruiters haven’t been all that transparent or forthcoming. Some recruiters are afraid of looking stupid, so they don’t ask questions. They are afraid of risking the client relationship, so they don’t push back when corporate processes aren’t working. It’s the emperor’s new clothes thing. So they end up with job descriptions that are poorly written, or jobs where there is a hidden agenda, and because recruiters aren’t taking the time to really talk with the hiring manager, they aren’t seeing the intangibles. They just get told “no, he’s not the right candidate” or “bring me somebody else”, but they aren’t finding out why.
If jobseekers want to fight back against a “candidate as commodity” talent acquisition culture, what do you suggest that they do?
If you get a call from a third-party recruiter, ask questions. Not just about the job, but about the recruiter himself. Or herself. Figure out if this is even a person you want to work with. Ask how long they’ve been in the business. What kind of success have they had? Who are some of their customers? What do they know about your current skill set – the marketplace you work in? As a candidate you have the right to ask this stuff, and if the recruiter resists telling you, they may not be somebody you want to work with. Also, pay attention to whether the recruiter understands the position being filled. With the tools available for a recruiter to get up to speed on different verticals, there is no excuse for them not to be able to have an intelligent conversation about your industry. But they should also be willing to acknowledge what they don’t know. If they can’t do that, they shouldn’t be in this recruiting space, and you as a jobseeker shouldn’t work with them. Don’t forget, only 5% of jobs are filled through third-party recruiters. You have options.
I’m probably going to get a lot of flack for this, but my recommendation is that, for a lot of companies, jobseekers should by-pass the corporate recruiter altogether. If you see a job that interests you, find out who the hiring manager is, and connect with them. In my experience, most in-house recruiters don’t care about the candidate experience, and they add little value to the hiring process. These are the ones I hear from all the time saying “I’m too busy to speak to every candidate” or “I can’t possibly make all the follow-up calls”. Don’t believe it. Corporate recruiters who think like that just aren’t aggressive enough. There are exceptions, and Sodexo is a shining example, but unfortunately companies like that are rare.
Jobseekers should also learn how the hiring process works so that they can work it to their advantage. Understand the different players – the third-party recruiter, the corporate recruiter, the hiring manager, and who does what, when, and why. Understand the so-called rules, the small-p politics, so you can know which rules can be broken, which ones can be bent, and which ones they absolutely must comply with. It isn’t easy, I know. Jobseekers have to be much more savvy than they did in the past. But using tools like twitter and recruiting blogs can help, because recruiters and HR experts share information with each other that is valuable for jobseekers too.
Are there experts you would recommend that jobseekers follow?
There are some really good people, both corporate recruiters and third-party recruiters, whose voices are helping to bring integrity to recruiting and talent acquisition. Lots of them are on twitter, and jobseekers would do well to listen in on the conversation. My recommendations include:
- @Greg_Savage: Greg Savage, CEO of Aquent International
- @Deandacosta: Dean Da Costa, Senior Talent Sourcer/Recruiter with Microsoft
- @CincyRecruiter: Jennifer McClure, Founder of Unbridled Talent LLC
- @SodexoCareers: Kerry Noone, Head of Marketing & Employer Branding for Sodexo
- @sullivanmarkd: Mark Sullivan, Director of Recruiting for Time Warner Cable
- @BooleanBlackBlt: Glenn Cathay, Vice President of Recruiting at Kforce
- @Ray_anne: Rayanne Thorne, Marketing Director at Broadbean Technology
- @lruettimann aka @punkrockHR: Laurie Ruettimann, HR Blogger and co-founder of New Media Services LLC
- @ResearchGoddess: Amybeth Hale, Editor of ERE Media’s The Fordyce Letter & SourceCon -
- @AmitaiGivertz: Amitai Givertz, Principal at AMG Management Advisors and Program Leader at Brown Bag Recruiter
- @animal: twitter persona of Michael Kelemen, Canadian Headunter and host of the Recruiting Animal Show
- @BillBoorman: Bill Boorman, producer of The Recruiter Unconference events, with TRU Conferences in North America, Europe, and soon in Southeast Asia and Australia.
- I would also recommend Jerry Albright. He’s not on twitter any more, which is a shame because his voice is missed, but you can catch him as host of the Recruiting Animal aftershow.
Follow David Graziano through twitter @DavidGraziano
connect with him on LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidgraziano
or follow his blog http://davidgrazianostaffing.blogspot.com/
Tags: Applicant Tracking System, Candidate, corporate recruiter, David Graziano, hiring, hiring manager, Jobseeker, Karen Siwak, Recruiter, recruiting
38 Responses to “A Conversation With David Graziano – Social Recruiting Strategist”
Leave a Reply
Meet Karen Siwak
An award-winning Certified Résumé Strategist, Karen has crafted top calibre career transition packages for thousands of clients. Her specialty is helping people identify and articulate their unique brands and value propositions, and she is passionate about empowering clients with the tools, strategies and confidence to take control of their career search. Read more...
Menu
Recent Posts
Listen to Karen Siwak
Online Career Resources
September 7th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Hi Karen & David,
I have long been troubled by the “cost per hire” metric. It’s a classic case of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Companies who understand recruiting as an investment, and measure “return on recruiting investment” can best identify the methods and recruiters that add the most value to their organization.
Job seekers will benefit from being leery of the cost focused company. Rather, find a company that understands value, contribute big, and prosper.
Donna Svei aka @AvidCareerist
September 7th, 2010 at 11:34 am
[...] Resume Confidential » Blog Archive » A Conversation With David … Comments [...]
September 7th, 2010 at 11:41 am
This is very authentic “Dave”! He is a down to earth relationship builder with an analytical background in understanding people and processes and beaucoup experience in the field of recruitment. Karen – you are such a fantastic writer, you captured his professional essence 100%.
September 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am
I haven’t even read the article yet but let me offer my first critique.
“Recognized as one of the 25 most influential recruiters on twitter” is not something a savvy Social Media type would boast about except to fool the uninitiated.
No offence to @DavidGraziano or ResumeStrategy but these automated gradings are meaningless.
In fact, most numbers on social media are suspect. I’ve got 5K+ followers on Twitter. How many of those are meaningful? 10% is probably a significant exaggeration.
September 7th, 2010 at 11:59 am
My second critique – I’m just getting into the interview.
I’d like some proof that relational recruiting is better than transactional. It might just suit Dave’s personality.
I’m doing a project with someone who had made millions recruiting transactionally.
September 7th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Great points to ponder here. While reading this post, I can’t help but think of the retail industry as a good example of how detached corporations are from job applicants. Every time I pass one of those electronic “job application” computers while shopping, I wonder how many really good candidates they lose because in their efforts to streamline and become more efficient they have lost the “initial personal contact” that makes a big difference in evaluating good presentation and customer service skills.
Karen, thanks for posting this article.
September 7th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Jerry Albright recruits IT contractors. They are his employees so he has to maintain ongoing relations with them.
Likewise his clients are people who regularly use contractors.
September 7th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
When an active job seeker gets a call from a recruiter, his main concern is the job not the recruiter. I’m sure Dave’s not telling people to turn away a job opportunity if they don’t like the middle man.
September 7th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
You can argue with @Jerry_Albright on Facebook. He said he was going to give up social media but in the end it only meant Twitter.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
As always I welcome the feedback from Animal. He makes a very strong argument regarding twitter. What does that of “influential” list really mean? The number of followers is not nearly as important as the relationship built with the followers.
I said that Jerry Albright’s voice would be missed. I could have been clearer by stating that his voiced would be missed on twitter.
Really I would an operational definition of transactional applied to recruiting from Animal or any one else that is interested. We can then proceed from there.
All I can add to the comment “I’m doing a project with someone who had made millions recruiting transactionally.”: That is great and I would like to hear how that can be done without building a relationship with the candidates and clients.
September 7th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Dave said, “I would like an operational definition of transactional applied to recruiting from Animal”.
You used the term first. It’s your responsibility to provide definitions.
To me it means calling the guy and saying “I’ve got this job. Interested?”. Not calling regularly 4 times a year (on his birthday, anniversary etc) and inquiring about the health of his family.
Dave said: “I would like to hear how that can be done without building a relationship with the candidates and clients.”
Reply: “Hi my name is Dave. I’m a headhunter. I’d like to know your thoughts about taking a look at another opportunity at this time? Great, can you send me a resume. (or) Sorry, it’s not a match. Thanks for speaking with me.”
September 7th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Animal, your definition of transactional and mine are the same. If your “Reply” in the above comment is working for you then run with it. That approach did not work for me. There is so much more that can be gleaned from that interaction you described above.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
To me Transactional Recruiting is one-off recruiting. You call about a specific job. You don’t maintain an ongoing relationship with the candidate.
Maybe Dave means you don’t even speak to the candidate. You just find her resume in the ATS and forward it to the Hiring Manager for approval then send an email to the candidate requesting an interview.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
A few things here. First things first – I gave up Twitter. Never did I say I would abandon all forms of social media. Get a new headline Animal. That one’s played out.
Now – onto the topic at hand. I am having a hard time understanding this terminology here. Just what is a transactional placement? I see no way to recruit successfully for any organization without having some sort of relationship. Even the initial back and forth in what Dave considers transaction has to, even in the smallest of ways , be the building blocks of a relationship.
What if the client needs to hire only one or two people every so often? Many clients I’ve worked with over the years only hire a person here – a person there. Sometimes the time span between hires has been many years.
So are those transactional by definition? Should I stay away from those situations?
I’ve got a good relationship with my doctor – but rarely see him. I’m sure he looks through my file before coming into my room – which is how he knows to ask “How’s Avilla treating you?” – but our “relationship” is strictly professional. Then again I’ve never invited him to a party.
Dave – why do you feel you need to “do something” about this? Just practice your profession the way you are most successful. The good guys will win. Disregard the rest.
P.S. Who do I need to speak with about being removed from that Top 25 Twitter Recruiters list?
September 7th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Dave, fess up. No one is sure what you are talking about when you refer to Transactional Recruiting. It’s time for you to define it here.
ResumeStrategy, you should have sent him a follow up email before you published saying, “What the heck is that?”
September 7th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
That’s a really nice feature of Dave.
He’s one of the good ones on Twitter!!
September 7th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Dave is a gentleman and a scholar.
September 7th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Okay, I’m weighing in because animal is bossy.
Personally, I don’t give a shit what kind of recruiting we employ as long as it works. Transactional. Relational. Are we really talking about this? Great recruiters assess a job, a company, and a culture –> and they make money when they can source and prep candidates based on the role, the budget, and the future needs of an organization.
The phone is great. Social media is great. I’m waiting for the day we use robots to work instead of people.
September 7th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
David – thank you for recommending me!
I think you bring to light some excellent points that should get people thinking, which is what we need more of – constructive thought!
For those interested in “transactional” vs. “relationship-based” recruiting – I’ve weighed in on the topic previously here, which aligns somewhat with Jerry’s take:
http://www.booleanblackbelt.com/2009/08/candidate-recruiter-relationships-overrated/
Nobody should be treated like a commodity, but do we really think that “candidates” (and I am sure they love that term) really want a “relationship” with recruiters? Or do you think they want a new position that closely aligns with their vision of the ideal next step in their career?
If you were looking for a job, would you want and need a relationship with a recruiter, or do you want and need a result (aka job)? This same principle applies to doctors, lawyers, recruiters, waiters/waitresses, etc. – basically any service-based profession.
I respect professionals who can ascertain what I want and need and deliver it – I don’t need a relationship to go along with it. Maybe that’s just me, but I’m pretty sure I am not alone in this view.
That’s my $.02.
Let’s not forget that the majority of the time, recruiters, be they corporate or agency, cannot “find” people jobs. In fact, 95% of the time recruiters match people to a finite number of positions that they are aware of/responsible for that already exist. In most cases, recruiters can’t find or get someone a job unless a person’s experience, qualifications, and desired opportunity matches closely with something the recruiter is aware of/responsible for. While there are situations in which positions that did not previously exist are created for the right individual, they are not common occurrences.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
For the sake of this discussion I will use Animal’s definition of Transactional Recruiting: You just find a resume in the ATS or source from somewhere and forward it to the Hiring Manager for approval then send an email to the candidate requesting an interview.I ADDED “source from somewhere”.
I am discussing building a relationship with a candidate. As recruiters we would do well to follow what Laurie stated in her comment above: “Great recruiters assess a job, a company, and a culture –> and they make money when they can source and prep candidates based on the role, the budget, and the future needs of an organization”.
That is only accomplished in the context of a relationship, not digital transactions.
I want to thank everyone for their feedback. This is a discussion we are all learning from. I certainly am.
Gee, we are exchanging content and communicating…sounds like a relationship to me.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Dave, thank you for the hat-tip, first of all. I appreciate it.
I would like to say a few things to some of the comments left here. Transactional or consultative – they are both relationships. My relationship with my mom is not the same as with my best friend, my boss, my co-workers, my siblings, etc. But yet we classify all of those as relationships. They all work differently, but they work. However – in considering the longest, and deepest, relationships, they are ones where a lot has been invested – be it trust, time, respect, and/or effort. And often, in respect to what Jerry shared, they’re the relationships that just pick up where you left them even if it’s been awhile. (those are the ones built on trust and respect)
Scott Ginsberg (the nametag guy) recently wrote a post with this line in it: “People buy into the visionary before the vision. Clarity of purpose is wasted if the person holding it isn’t like-able.” I think this could be applicable to the candidate / recruiter relationship. Sure, candidate doesn’t have to like recruiter, and vice versa. But recruiter probably won’t get any referrals from candidate if that’s the case. The point I think being made here is to make an attempt to be like-able and show interest. Not everyone in your life becomes a friend, but the least we can do is attempt to be pleasant in our human encounters
Just my two cents on those items!
September 7th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Coincidentally, I was sent this today for Hyrell http://portal.sliderocket.com/AHJOA/Hyrell-Intro. It’s used by some really big brands. It’s the “Common sense cure for all your hiring headaches”. The way it works is it only gives you the “most” qualified candidates for the job you are recruiting for.. so you can’t build a relationship with anyone it doesn’t tell you to. It would give Dave a coronary. I could live with it.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Dave, here – http://bit.ly/bhDRVQ – you said you agree with one definition of Transactional Recruiting that I put forward.
Then here – http://bit.ly/9MYNCT – you said you agreed with a different definition of Transactional Recruiting I put forward as I guessing what you were talking about.
Should I put out a 3rd for you to agree with?
You really have to state your own definition not piggy back off mine.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marenhogan/4969881360/
September 7th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
only 5% of jobs are filled through third-party recruiters ???
Whole Industry is fighting (among themselves) for this 5%?
Are you sure?
September 7th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Ravi, CareerXRoads does an annual “Source of Hire” survey. If their numbers are representative of all hiring practices across the broader labor market, then yes, recruiters’ share of new hires is in the single digits.
http://www.careerxroads.com/news/SourcesOfHire10.pdf
September 8th, 2010 at 3:17 am
Very nice article on David. I agree with just about everything he says. I totaly agree that most companies really do not have a clue how to properly measure staffing, and any who think that having the latest and greatest ATS system is the answer is kidding themselves. You want to improve your time to fill or cost per hire or whatever metrics you are using, simply hire good staffing professionals and then empower them to make things happen. This will start with the biggest problem for staffing professionals, the hirirng manager.
September 8th, 2010 at 6:29 am
Lo and behold, MarenHogan reappears to present a diagram explaining relational recruiting.
A tickler in the ATS prompts you to contact people 4 times a year.
This can work if you are working a niche so that you are going to be coming up with the same kinds of jobs regularly and calling the same people over and over again
Even then it can only work for a select few of the best candidates.
As Glen Cathey the Boolean Blackbelt makes clear in his article, there is no time to be relational with everybody.
September 8th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Dennis, I appreciate the feedback and agree. I do think that metrics are important for a recruiter to use to improve areas of performance and process. I think metrics help us better manage the “activity-productivity continuum”.
Glen, as always thanks for your input. I agree that we cannot build relationships with all of the candidates. I also agree that very specific behaviors, dare I say transactions, are necessary for a recruiter to have in their tool box. ie sourcing. I am specifically referring to what takes place with the candidate whose skills are congruent with job the description after being sourced.
Based on my experience, if I develop a relationship with that candidate by contacting via phone, in person, video interview, and follow up emails I had a better chance of facilitating a hire for that candidate.
Perhaps for certain jobs and talent pools, the approach and tool Karla reference’s may work.
September 8th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Dave you’re on the run, boy. Giving concession after concession, paring down relationship recruiting to the barest of bones.
Now you’re saying that when you see a good candidate you talk to him. That’s relationship recruiting?
Maybe it’s time to define your terms.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:19 am
[...] Resume Confidential » Blog Archive » A Conversation With David … [...]
September 8th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Nice post, Karen. Dave is certainly a gem among rocks and I am glad to know him. He has always been genuine and resourceful. But what I have noticed most is his quest for the “better way” – he is a consummate learner.
It doesn’t get much better than that. Thanks for the recommendation, Dave.
Looking forward to your next project – btw, when’s the premiere???
September 9th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
@Recruiting Animal: I didn’t ask Dave to define transactional recruiting because I didn’t think it was such a complex concept. Granted I’m an outsider with zero experience in recruiting, but as somebody who hears a lot from candidates about their positive and negative experiences with recruiters, I can give you some insights into what it looks like from a candidate’s point of view:
Transactional recruiting: is a numbers game, and the recruiter’s goal seems to be to put as many vaguely qualified candidates as possible in front of the hiring manager as quickly as possible, in the hopes that one of them sticks. If there is a telephone call (and sometimes its just an email because transactional recruiters don’t like the telephone), then the entire conversation is a heavy sales pitch, with a few questions thrown in to verify a match against the job qualifications. The recruiter seems to have used a bunch of keywords to pull resumes from a database, but hasn’t actually read the resume other than briefly scanning job titles, companies and degrees. Sometimes not even that. The recruiter might pretend to know the hiring manager (oh ya, we golf together) but can’t answer even basic questions about the job, the culture, the timelines or decision-making process. There is a lot of pressure for the candidate to make a decision right away, with tons of rah-rah pump up about how the candidate is perfect for the job.
Then the interview happens, (along with 10 or 15 other candidates), and the people on the interview panel have only the vaguest familiarity with the candidate’s resume or background. After the interview, nothing. Lots and lots of nothing. Through the grape-vine the candidate might here that the hiring manager didn’t like any of the people he interviewed, or has decided to wait to fill the position, or has decided that the job description needs to be changed because he didn’t think it through enough before he started pushing for candidates. But none of this comes directly from the recruiter, who is suddenly AWOL.
Or a job offer comes, but it is a complete mis-match salary wise. Or a job offer comes that is in the right ballpark, but the candidate is pretty much on his or her own in terms of salary and compensation negotiations, other than heavy pressure from the recruiter to sign it already. Candidates who have been through this kind of experience feel burned, and these are the ones who tell me that, under no circumstances, will they ever, ever work with a recruiter again. They won’t even take your calls. Also, they will have told many people in their circle of contacts that both the recruiter and the company sucked. So there is a good chance that those people won’t be taking your calls either.
Relational recruiting (or consultative recruiting, or strategic recruiting): The recruiter starts the conversation (and yes there is always a conversation) asking about the candidate’s career goals, priorities, passions, expertise. It’s clear that the recruiter has spent quite a bit of time talking to the hiring manager, because the job description is well defined and the recruiter can speak in detail about it, including the intangibles like team culture and where the company is going. The recruiter has actually read the resume, and asks relevant questions to make sure that the candidate and the opening are a good fit. They are upfront about what they know, and what they don’t know, and they give the candidate enough time and information needed to assess whether this is a good career move.
If there is a good match, the recruiter coaches the candidate on preparing for the interview. The number of people being interviewed is small, and it is clear from the interview questions that the people on the panel have been prep’d about the candidate’s background and experience. After the interview, the recruiter follows up immediately to debrief, and they keep the candidate apprised of the decision-making process. If an offer is forthcoming, the recruiter assists the candidate in salary negotiations, and within reason serves as an advocate for the candidate to make sure that their needs are met. If there will be no offer, they let the candidate know, and they give some indication as to why.
Most candidates understand that they have a time-limited professional relationship with the recruiter, and don’t expect to become life-long buddies. They know that they aren’t the client, the company is. They just expect that, if you’ve reached out to them (I know, @animal bad word; get over it), that you do your homework beforehand so that you aren’t wasting anybody’s time; that you keep them apprised of the decision making process, regardless of whether they are the successful candidate or not; and that you deal with them with integrity and professionalism. Frankly, I don’t think that is unreasonable, and I don’t understand why it isn’t Recruiting Principles 101.
September 10th, 2010 at 12:09 am
Karen – Good post and topic to discuss with David.
David – Thank you for the mention and honored.
From the view as a long time corporate recruiter there is a difference between relational and transactional recruiting. Transactional is minimal interaction with the candidate, lack of follow through after interview and as David stated lack of a solid relationship with the hiring client.
Relational is treating candidates with respect, ensuring the overall experience is positive to the point that if a candidate is not selected they will walk away wanting to refer someone because of that experience.
This is similar to what Glen and Amy Beth have stated. The common theme is treat the candidates how you want to be treated and if you only talk once make it a strong positive impression.
Thanks,
Mark
September 10th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Improved version:
Karen said:
“It’s clear that the [Relational] recruiter has spent quite a bit of time talking to the hiring manager, because the job description is well defined and the recruiter can speak in detail about it, including the intangibles like team culture and where the company is going.”
Oh, I see now. It wasn’t clear to me because Dave said he made a relational recruiting placement 5 days after starting and he made a point of contrasting his relational
strategy to the approach taken by the other people in the office. There was no indication at all, therefore, that he or anyone else in the firm had discussed these issues with the hiring manager.
I’ve done work for big name consulting firms when they had exec search depts and no one ever matched Karen’s ideal of Relational Recruiting.
In fact the only person I’ve interviewed in 3.5 years on The Recruiting Animal Show who seems to fit this description is @CincyRecruiter. She goes out to the client site for a few days and hangs around quizzing everyone. I’m sure that she charges big bucks to cover this activity and, indeed, not every hiring manager would be keen on having the recruiter do this.
Certainly most hiring managers could not articulate the company culture if you asked them to.
Your image of recruiting is an ideal and I’m quite sure that Dave doesn’t adhere to it. He did not define his terms so you don’t really know what they mean. I credit Amybeth with solving this problem. Relational Recruiting, as described in your article, is merely being personable when you get on the phone.
Dave’s hints at his meaning suggest the same. He said that his psychological training gave him the ability to empathize. He made the placement within 5 days so he didn’t have an ongoing relationship with the candidate and he obviously didn’t know much about recruiting. All he meant was asking the guy what he wanted. I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t do that.
Well, once, when I was about 23, I met a crude vulgar recruiter. He called me up and asked me if I wanted this job and when I said no he started yelling at me. That’s it. Once.
So, is a better definition of Relational Recruiting required here? One that doesn’t come from the world of Oz? Yes indeed.
September 10th, 2010 at 9:16 am
You are welcome and thank you Rayanne for your comments. November 20th is the answer to your question:).
Mark, you are welcome and thanks for sharing with us your insight from the Sr level in the corporate world. My experience supports your insights.
Karen develops the definitions, based on conversations with candidates, which is operational and understandable to me. I concur.
Animal, the placement I referenced was a result of a relationship, not transactions.
There was an in-person interview with the candidate that took place after a phone screen. The in-person interview was possible because the candidate and the client and I were all in St Louis. The candidate was followed up with each day via phone. The candidate was prepared for her face to face interview with the client in person. The candidate was also debriefed in person after her client interview. The client was within walking distance of our office.
I was introduced, in person, to the Hiring Manager at the client by the recruiter that was training me during a business my first day on the job. I spoke with the Hiring Manager daily via telephone during the process. I debriefed the Hiring Manager by telephone after the interview with the candidate.
When it was time for the offer to be made, the candidate, Hiring Manager and I had a three way telephone conversation and the offer was extended and accepted.
That evening the Hiring Manager, training recruiter and I had dinner. During the next 3 months I made two placements with the same Hiring Manager. One of those candidates was referred to me by the person that was placed in 5 days.
Later in my career I placed the Hiring Manager in another position.
Had I deemphasized the human interaction, I don’t think I would have had the results that I did.
September 12th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Dave, you’ve been avoiding it as much as possible but it’s time you defined relationship and transaction.
I think that you have a sense of what you are talking about but I don’t think you’ve clarified it in your own mind.
January 6th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with your concerns about the transactional nature of recruiting these days. The lack of relationship building, “don’t call us, we’ll call you” and reliance on ATS systems have a very noticeable adverse effect on many of the first interactions candidates have with the companies they apply to. My company, which runs career centers for colleges and universities, recently did an email campaign for one of the biggest, most well known employers in the world for a small geographic region. In about two weeks, we directed 280 100% qualified people (based on 6 criteria) to their ATS system. Of those 280, only 17 made it through the ATS portion of the application process. How many of the remaining 263 might have been a great fit? Not to say ATS systems don’t have their place, but they shouldn’t be the only way a potential applicant ever interacts with your company. This type of drop-off rate is stark evidence to the fact.