Like Paris Hilton, You've Got to Work It To Be a Good Recruiter...

How are you finding your people? I'm no sourcer, for seriously amazing sourcing knowledge, talk to Kelly. But as a recruiter and someone who markets a recruiting company to clients, I find the SOURCE of our candidates to be a bigger and bigger issue.

It's a question I've asked since the beginning of my recruiting career: "Yes, but why would someone pay $30K to scour the banks, when they could buy a year's subscription to 2 or 3 of those same banks for that same cost?" There are passive candidates. . ." was one answer. Another was an emphatic nodding of the head with the unspoken knowledge that WE'RE real recruiters.  But where are my answers?

"Well, of course,

-I could buy a list of names.- Just doesn't smell like a value add to me. . .

-I could engage a professional sourcer. - A solution I have used on more than one occasion. Not cheap but when you need specialized information quickly, a good fit. Just make sure the sourcer you hire is doing the actual work...

-I could take time out from calling to source (the fancy Internet type) my own candidates (gasp!!)- For me, this takes away from time on the phones and time talking with candidates. For the record though, this is an excellent idea if you are calling contacts and sources and asking for leads which leads to. . . .

Smart sourcing. To me, smart sourcing is relational. Do you speak at local events? Do you reach out to group leaders and other professionals BEFORE you need their help? If you do, you are probably already practicing smart sourcing. (This post relates to journalists but is EXCELLENT at describing the steps to building a sourcing network).

For example, when I first began speaking publicly about recruiting, one of the first groups I spoke to was a group specifically for executives who were between jobs and made more than 150k per year. I gave them resume advice, talked to them about interviewing processes and made some phone calls on their behalf and went on my merry way.

Within a month, I got a call for a high level VP position in SALES (for those of you who don't know, I do primarily IT). I was able to have three candidates to the client within two hours, screened, interviewed and prepped. Not from the group, but from the most well-connected member of the group, which is where the SMART comes in. This is the guy who is writing down every notation, texting the hometown of the new guy into his Blackberry. (This is assuming that this isn't you. . .)

I belong to several networks (this includes both online, local and regional). Too many if you ask the HR Capitalist. But they sure come in handy when I need to find someone. Who do you know that does. . .? Would you mind if I contacted. . .?

You're thinking "This chick is writing a blog for professional recruiters? This is recruiting 101!" Yup, sure is, but how many recruiters practice this way anymore? How many present at conferences, learn all the latest techniques about HOW to source, buy books, build networks, blast email candidates, check their LI profiles twice an hour, and never in a day of "recruiting" take a client (or well connected source) out to lunch or pick up the phone?

Maybe I'm wrong and this won't work on a larger scale. Maybe there is no way to stay relational in the sourcing portion of your job. Maybe one person just can't "touch" all those candidates (really, every time I use that line, I think of Paris!). But as a third party recruiter looking to up your game in the employer branding space, I CAN. I don't have 30 reqs to fill.

Editor's Note - Maren Hogan is a millennial living the dream in Omaha, Nebraska.  When she's not plotting the downfall of Gen Xer's like me, she's doing marketing and development for an IT recruiting and outsourcing firm called HCI.  As a part of this tag, Maren would like to remind you that Omaha was recently named the 3rd Best City to Live/Work/Play by Kiplingers... Take that Seattle, DC and...err...Birmingham....

Comments

[Jessica Lee]

a few thoughts -

first, i think it's all relative. you don't have 30 reqs to fill but how many clients do you have and what kind of work are you having to put into maintaining all those relationships? and how about the time you're having to put into business development?

i've lived the life of having 60 reqs to fill before (and thankfully, i'm not in that position before) and for sure, in that situation, maintaining great relationships with candidates and doing a ton of sourcing to fill up my pipeline would have been near impossible. i see your point, but i think it's all relative.

another thing though - the term recruiter, i think, is becoming a bit of a misnomer. a lot of "recruiters" are now relationship managers or req managers who have some junior staff beneath them doing a lot of the sourcing or actual recruiting. "recruiters" are managing a candidate through a process, managing reqs and relationships with hiring managers... and despite the fact that half of my job is recruiting, i actually find myself spending little time actually recruiting. i don't know if it's semantics, but it's something worth thinking through. i'll have to ponder this one a bit now.

anyhoo... that's hot. your post, that is. good thoughts and totally agreed that you've got to work it to be a good recruiter, or sourcer, or whatever we're going to call ourselves. : )

[Michael Homula]

I like this post Maren. I think JLee hits on something that really, in my opinion, is a problem in the recruiting space. The real art and craft of recruiting is getting lost. The fragmentation of the craft (some do sourcing, some req management, some manage the process etc.) has created a fractionalized experience for the candidate, the hiring leader and may be leading to less effective talent acquisition.

Maren is dead on that recruiting is hard work. I often say recruiting isn't rocket science, it is just hard. I think we try to make it rocket science when we start to specialize and fragment it into bits and pieces. Organizations that have done this have tried to make recruiting less difficult by fragmenting the work. I think it's a mistake.

JLee is right, when you have 30-60 reqs it gets much harder to develop pools of talent and do the relationship type of sourcing. The problem is that relational sourcing is vastly superior to other methods. If candidates like a fluent, seamless experience (that is what surveys tell us...not to sound like Richard Dawson of Family Feud)then asking them to work with multiple people from the recruiting team, not to mention all the hiring leaders they may go through, doesn't quite live up to their expectations.

IMHO, I think recruiting needs to return to its roots a bit here. Sort of a back to the future concept (coincidentally my topic at SourceCon 08 is on this topic and titled Back To The Future - shameless plug). Getting back to some basics and returning recruiters to work the full life cycle may just be the right model after all.